<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Happiness as a Condition</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/06/13/happiness-as-a-condition/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/06/13/happiness-as-a-condition/</link>
	<description>The Sweet Release of Reason</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jul 2008 16:16:32 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Eric</title>
		<link>http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/06/13/happiness-as-a-condition/#comment-301197</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2007 06:16:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/06/13/happiness-as-a-condition/#comment-301197</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Eric...&lt;/strong&gt;

you have a very nice blog and very informative article...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Eric&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>you have a very nice blog and very informative article&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric Barnhill</title>
		<link>http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/06/13/happiness-as-a-condition/#comment-14365</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric Barnhill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Jun 2006 05:03:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/06/13/happiness-as-a-condition/#comment-14365</guid>
		<description>I've been enjoying your latest. One thing that I think gets lost in happiness debates is the factor of clarity. I see two facets of this, one of which connects to some Eastern practices and the other of which connects to Italian opera.

If there was one Eastern concept that I wish made the Western rounds more, it is "the watcher". In traditions of the watcher, our transformative efforts are not made towards adjusting any particular emotional reaction, but developing a capacity to be present to the  reaction and let it manifest without interference. The I is simply an accumulator of self-knowledge. Sufi, Gnostic, and Gurdjieffian traditions all self-watching and self-remembering a central feature. The goal is not the self-calming of much Ameribuddhism, but the building of a broader picture of the "human machine" which puts all emotional reactions in a perspective. In not getting identified with our manifestations, but not manipulating them either, a larger and more magnanimous concept of self emerges, even while we act basically the same externally.

I think a similar reason is at work in the great Italian operas. What is the power of these tragedies? Why is it so meaningful for us when heriones die in the desert or throwing themselves off of a bridge? Because there is a certain victory in feeling these tragic emotions with total clarity. I feel like the main message of Italian tragedy is: life throws us unfairness and sadness, but in grasping it fully, in pouring out heart out for it, we are there for it, we live it rather than run from it. And somehow, that issue is at least as important as what emotional situations come our way: whatever they are, we live them as clearly and fully as possible.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve been enjoying your latest. One thing that I think gets lost in happiness debates is the factor of clarity. I see two facets of this, one of which connects to some Eastern practices and the other of which connects to Italian opera.</p>
<p>If there was one Eastern concept that I wish made the Western rounds more, it is &#8220;the watcher&#8221;. In traditions of the watcher, our transformative efforts are not made towards adjusting any particular emotional reaction, but developing a capacity to be present to the  reaction and let it manifest without interference. The I is simply an accumulator of self-knowledge. Sufi, Gnostic, and Gurdjieffian traditions all self-watching and self-remembering a central feature. The goal is not the self-calming of much Ameribuddhism, but the building of a broader picture of the &#8220;human machine&#8221; which puts all emotional reactions in a perspective. In not getting identified with our manifestations, but not manipulating them either, a larger and more magnanimous concept of self emerges, even while we act basically the same externally.</p>
<p>I think a similar reason is at work in the great Italian operas. What is the power of these tragedies? Why is it so meaningful for us when heriones die in the desert or throwing themselves off of a bridge? Because there is a certain victory in feeling these tragic emotions with total clarity. I feel like the main message of Italian tragedy is: life throws us unfairness and sadness, but in grasping it fully, in pouring out heart out for it, we are there for it, we live it rather than run from it. And somehow, that issue is at least as important as what emotional situations come our way: whatever they are, we live them as clearly and fully as possible.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: genericface blog &#187; Re-evaluating Happiness</title>
		<link>http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/06/13/happiness-as-a-condition/#comment-13834</link>
		<dc:creator>genericface blog &#187; Re-evaluating Happiness</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Jun 2006 05:21:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/06/13/happiness-as-a-condition/#comment-13834</guid>
		<description>[...] Through Will Wilkenson&#8217;s blog I ran across a paper by Dan Haybron [pdf] on the idea of happiness: Why do we need a theory of happiness? Spoilsports like Hemingway or Nietzsche notwithstanding, it is hard to see how we could possibly claim to understand human welfare without having any clear notion of what happiness is. For the most part, happiness appears to correlate strongly with well-being: on learning that a friend is happy, we normally infer that she is doing well; if we find her unhappy, we just as reasonably conclude that she is badly off. It is quite plausible, in fact, that we regularly use happiness as a proxy for well-being in ordinary practical reasoning&#8230; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Through Will Wilkenson&#8217;s blog I ran across a paper by Dan Haybron [pdf] on the idea of happiness: Why do we need a theory of happiness? Spoilsports like Hemingway or Nietzsche notwithstanding, it is hard to see how we could possibly claim to understand human welfare without having any clear notion of what happiness is. For the most part, happiness appears to correlate strongly with well-being: on learning that a friend is happy, we normally infer that she is doing well; if we find her unhappy, we just as reasonably conclude that she is badly off. It is quite plausible, in fact, that we regularly use happiness as a proxy for well-being in ordinary practical reasoning&#8230; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: patry</title>
		<link>http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/06/13/happiness-as-a-condition/#comment-13809</link>
		<dc:creator>patry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Jun 2006 01:15:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/06/13/happiness-as-a-condition/#comment-13809</guid>
		<description>Interesting.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
