Thank you for this comment! It's an excellent response that gets to the heart of the matter. You're absolutely right to focus on the metaphor, as its validity determines the model's usefulness.
Let me clarify the intended meaning, because I think we use 'pleasure' in two different senses, which is exactly what the metaphor is trying to reveal.
The metaphor argues that what we often chase as 'pleasure' is the first kind: the intense signal of a problem being temporarily solved. The second kind - the peace of a problem-free system - is quieter but constitutes a higher quality of existence.
A way to test this: would you choose to have a mild chronic itch in order to enjoy scratching it? Probably not. The pleasure of scratching 100% depends on unpleasantness of the itch. The pleasure is fundamentally parasitic on the problem. If you could magically have no-itch state, you would certainly choose that! This reveals that at a meta-level we value the problem-free state more, even if scratch provides a momentary peak experience of pleasure.
Translating this to worldly desires: the model suggests our worldly cravings often work the same way. The pleasure of satisfying a craving (for food, distraction, status, etc.) is often most intense when it relieves a background state of lack, anxiety, or boredom (the 'sore'). The point is not to never scratch an itch - that's impractical, the insight is:
So you point is valid, if we equate 'pleasure' with raw hedonic intensity. The model invites us to consider a wider perspective of well-being, where freedom from the need to scratch is superior (if less intensive) outcome.
I also would like to clarify a point about mindfulness meditation and insight practice (vipassana). As they are sometimes mixed together. And while insight practice works, mindfulness, a stripped down version of it, doesn't.
I'll start by referencing a paper mentioned in the post, namely "Meditation experience is associated with differences in default mode network activity and connectivity." [7] There the authors have shown that Theravada monks clearly shut down the DMN by what they call "mindfulness meditation". And describe three methods of mindfulness meditation: breathing meditation, Choiceless Awareness (the term coined by Krishnamurti Jiddu), and loving-kindness (metta) meditation.
That might confuse things a bit. But let's look at the basic source for monk's training - Pali Canon. The basic instruction for insight and concentration practices in the tradition of Theravada is Satipatthana Sutta and Anapanasati Sutta which are unfortunately translated as "The Foundations of Mindfulness" and "Mindfulness of Breathing". The word "sati", which is translated as "mindfulness", literally means "recollection". And it is a term there that is used in developing concentration.
What do those texts say about practice? Is it only recollection of breathing and awareness? No. They are clearly set to contemplate the Four Noble Truths, the Five Hindrances, the Seven Factors for Awakening and so on. So they are loading contradictions in thinking to contemplate upon (e.g. "I suffer" / "Freedom from suffering is the goal", "I feel desire" / "Desirelessness is the goal", etc.). I would suggest that those act as koans to contemplate during practice. So both concentration is developed (samatha) and insight is cultivated (vipassana). In one practice!
So what does it say about the monks from the paper? First of all, they have selected monks who are awakened (who can switch off the DMN). Knowing the protocol of their practice they most likely have come to awakening through insight and concentration practices. And after that they can naturally abide in this place by just about any stimuli. But for the monks "mindfulness" means long-long years of vipassana and samatha practices. While for researchers it means the stripped down version of it (without accounting for the details how they reached that state)!
Long story short, mindfulness practice as noticing thoughts and sensations and coming back to awareness on itself seems to be not enough to shut down the DMN. It has to be full scale insight and concentration practices as described in the text (i.e. going through all the truths, factors, contemplating them, releasing attachments, etc.). And that's what monks from the paper supposedly did.
There is a good video with one illuminating comment (pinned), Does Mindfulness Lead to Persistent Nonduality? In the comment it is said that the traditional vipassana practice by itself has a missing component:
He [the Dalai Lama] essentially gave his blessing to the Goenka retreats but said he felt that there was a missing element. He advised practitioners to look back and try to find the one doing the meditation.
So basically the Dalai Lama recommended self-inquiry practice on top of vipassana.
Why I decided to articulate those nuances? I feel like most of the time people confuse mindfulness meditation with insight practice and do it for years (I did so myself). I hope that clarifies things a bit.
Not necessarily. There are two points of interest here. First, it depends what one means by meditation. If that's mindfulness meditation, there are studies that have shown that it doesn't deactivate the DMN. If we add here the fact that some people dedicate 4-8 hours per day to meditation that's a recipe for disaster as the ruminating network is working all those 4-8 hours under the hood. There is a useful post by Gary Weber, mindfulness meditation - religious vs secular - does it work? - new research that discusses this point.
Second, if the shift has occurred without the proper preparation (i.e. the "I" is not deconstructed enough) or suddenly during the insight practice, the DMN network might try to win control back and there will be a conflict as the DMN is not shut down. That might happen if awakening happens "out of the blue" and the ruminating network is strong. That might even lead to the Dark Night of the Soul. Here is another useful post by Gary, Dark Night of the Soul?...who/why/what to do.
The key point in both is that "I" has to be deconstructed enough, which means one has to learn to shut down the DMN properly. As even after awakening it might cause trouble if one didn't learn to shut it down. A book by Suzanne Segal, Collision with the Infinite is an example how a person might struggle to integrate awakening after it occurred.
So in the end I would guess (and please keep in mind that it's a speculation of a layman) that given the proper conditions it's not meditation itself that causes psychosis but the DMN that is hyperactive. The issue with mindfulness meditation is that it doesn't address the activity of the DMN.
Depression is a real challenge. It's difficult to explain what it is until you've been through one. I've found the method of self-inquiry to be of help (e.g. "Who is depressed/suffering/cannot move?", "Well, I am.", "Where does this I come from?" and keep looking for the source of the "I").
It is postulated that self-inquiry helps to deconstruct the "I" and as a result to pacify two subnetworks (of the DMN) that are responsible for building the images of "self in time" and "self and other" (as most thoughts are build around them). So it helps in reducing self-rumination and thoughts which are supporting the depressive state. There is a nice video on that topic - dealing with thoughts by Gary Weber.
Yes, I'm only re-quoting Wittgenstein from another book (Jay Garfield, The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way), so my understanding is only approximate in that case, I could not process the Tractatus as it's way over my head. And I'll check the sequences.
A little example how one can apply this. I have near to zero expectation about this post being understood or liked (not that it doesn't matter at all, I'm serious enough to elaborate the concepts as best I can, but beyond this it's not under my control). I also know that disappointment is dependent upon expectation so they are both empty of intrinsic nature. Therefore, I'm not anxious about people liking that text, nor I'm disappointed if it's being disliked. In that case I see that disappointment and expectation are both empty. So I'm free from both!
What if it wasn't so? And my expectation was high (i.e. I would approach it like it had intrinsic value). I would be disappointed because of low karma. But how to get rid of that disappointment? It is to see that it's empty. How? To analyze that it depends on the expectation, and if I can let go of my expectation, I will be free from the disappointment.
And how does one let go of the expectation (or any negative feeling)? There are many ways. First, by observing one's mind impartially and seeing it clearly for what it is (what in Buddhism is called vipassana meditation). Second, I can imagine myself on my deathbed and ask the question, "How important would it be then?" Third, I can apply a technique like The Sedona Method. In this way I can see through my constructs on the conceptual level and the level of feeling and be free from them.
That's how the concept of emptiness might be used in practice.
Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed comment!
It wasn't meant to sound mysterious. The way I see it is that our process of thinking by default creates intrinsic entities and processes (whether we are aware of it or not) and almost becomes metaphysical with respect to our inbuilt ontology. In simple terms, we give too much credit to "how things really are". And I attempt to question that in order to deconstruct such an attitude (not only on conceptual level, but at the level of feeling). It's the same idea Wittgenstein expressed in the Tractatus:
6.371 The whole modern conception of the world is founded on the illusion that the so-called laws of nature are the explanations of natural phenomena.
6.372 Thus people today stop at the laws of nature, treating them as something inviolable, just as God and Fate were treated in past ages. And in fact both are right and both are wrong: though the view of the ancients is clearer in so far as they have a clear and acknowledged terminus, while the modern system tries to make it look as if everything were explained.
Why am I writing this? In part, when I want to understand something better I try to express that to other people. It helps to consolidate thinking. So I it's out of self-interest. In part, I really find thinking about it interesting so there is an impulse to share it with others (the interesting part). In part, I've figured out that by contemplating such matters makes me grasp my concepts and feelings about the world less. It leads my thinking to pacification. So I thought maybe it will also lead someone else thinking to the same result if they contemplate emptiness of phenomena.
One more reason I wanted to share this is to start a conversation on emptiness (not necessarily between myself and other people, but for people just to stop for a moment and ponder this, like you did!) I think when we're contemplating something abstract, we're releasing our attention from purely pragmatic and material matters and enter some other space or mode of thinking which helps us to disentangle with our worries of everyday life. To put it simply we stop thinking about politics, wars, catastrophes, etc. and think about something entirely different. Which brings a release to thinking.
I like another related Daoist concept of "worth of worthless" or "usefulness of useless knowledge" (reference to Abraham Flexner's article). If we only think about issues of the day or only about practical matters, our thinking is caught in the loop of worries and concerns. If we start and think about seemingly unrelated to anything matters, first, we relax as nothing is at stake (we can be silly if we like), and second, we might find solutions to our problems we couldn't have predicted. It serves as a link or a bridge between seemingly unrelated areas of our experience. Maybe I will develop this theme into another post or maybe LW is not the place for such reflection.
Having said all this, I wanted it to be an open question and an exploration into emptiness and the self. What does emptiness mean? What do I really know? What is the ground of my experience? What does it mean to be empty of the self? Who am I? etc. Not "transferring profound truths". To start a reflection (as it worked in your case). Whether or not some people find it interesting or useful that's for them to decide. I personally find contemplation over emptiness useful as it disentangles my thinking from everyday matters and helps to release stress. But it also has a light touch to it which is not unlike John Cage's piece 4'33.
And (probably most importantly) to highlight that having an insight into emptiness may open the door to awakening.
To finish this with another Wittgenstein quote:
6.54 My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them—as steps—to climb beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.)
Sorry for the disappointment. But you've discovered something - the emptiness of content! It is not sarcasm. Fundamentally, even the disappointment is empty as it's dependent on the expectation (but to get this far one has to contemplate deeply). Any phenomenon - external or internal - can be approached this way. That's the payload.
EDIT: It's not a cheap trick! One can think of it this way. First, there is a conceptual understanding of emptiness (you've heard of it somewhere and have discovered conceptual emptiness of constructs). Second phase is to apply it on the perceptual level (as in the example with the disappointment, one can actually be free from it but it's an advanced level of insight into emptiness). And the final phase is to understand the emptiness of intrinsic meaning we set to our life, or our "intrinsic" expectation from life. The last phase is non-trivial. If one gets insight into it, one awakens. In this way our "intrinsic" disappointment with life disappears.
Thanks for the compliment! :-) But I'm not a philosopher.
I look at it differently. Something has caught your attention. And if the text has made you stop and ponder for at least a tiny moment on any word/question/relation, then it's played its function - to gleam at things from a different perspective.
It's like in the parable about the blind men and an elephant. We look at life from different perspectives or different levels of abstraction. What we compress from it turns into our understanding. If we like, we can operate at different levels of abstraction constructively in complementary fashion. Every kind of knowledge contains in itself potential for some understanding (even if it's negative). Not always and not everything can be formalized and reduced to simple logical rules without contradictions (think about Gödel's theorems). And there was no intention to do that.
Here the intention was to share something that I find to be interesting and which may lead other people to reflect. What concerns my skill to do that - that's entirely different point. And understanding is a little miracle when it happens, but it is not a necessity.
This is a crucial question, thank you for asking it! It challenges the model's boundaries and forces us to be precise about what we mean by 'suffering' (dukkha) and 'craving' (tanha).
Short Answer: The model does not necessarily deny the existence of such pleasures (they would be in a different category though, more on this later). It invites us to inspect them more closely. Are they truly free from the mechanism of 'scratching a sore', or do they contain subtle elements of it? The framework suggests a spectrum rather than a binary.
- boredom: seeking stimulation (music, study)
- existential restlessness or meaning-seeking: pursuing beauty (art) or truth (mathematics)
- a sense of incompleteness or lack of accomplishment: the drive to create
If the activity primarily functions to relieve that kind of background tension, then it fits the 'scratch' dynamics, even if the activity itself is sublime. The pleasure is, in part, the relief of that subtle lack.
Could listening to Bach or contemplating an elegant proof trigger a similar non-acquisitive non-lacking joy? Possibly, if it is experienced with a mind free from craving - free from the 'itch' to possess it, to use it for status, to escape something else, or even to prolong the experience itself. The pleasure then is not a relief from a negative, but an appreciation of a positive that arises in a still mind. Then it should be called joy, really.
- is it addictive? Does its absence create a craving or a sense of loss? (Suggests a 'scratch' dynamic.)
- what is its emotional aftertaste? Does it lead to contentment and release, or to a craving for more? (The former suggests satiation; the latter suggests the 'sore' remains.)
- could I enjoy this equally if no one ever knew I experienced it? (Helps isolate it from the 'sore' of social validation).
Creating great art or mathematics often involves immense struggle (a 'sore'), but the moment of breakthrough can feel like a transcendent release from that very struggle. Yet, the appreciation of the final product by a still mind might be different - a pure non-contrived joy.
Therefore, the model doesn't automatically categorize all pleasure on the same level (there is a non-contrived joy which is beyond the scope of pleasure). What it does: it asks us to discern the underlying mental state. A huge portion of what we chase is relief-driven ('scratching'), and that a state of peace ('no sore') is superior and can itself be profoundly positive. So the pleasures you list could sit anywhere on this spectrum between pleasure and non-contrived joy. The final litmus test is whether there is craving or not.