Happiness Purpose is a Good book Pirate

[_marg]

At least in my opinion.

So I noticed in a post you have received the book and started to read it.

I had suggested it to you in the thread you started 'The Book of Mormon is a good book marg". You had said it didn't matter to you whether the Book of Mormon was a fraud from its inception, that its stories were not literally true despite being presented as such by the Church, because you said I believe (paraphrasing) it offered you comfort and gave you inciteful advice.

So I'm wondering how would you compare the advice given in the Book of Mormon to the Happiness Purpose, the manner in which it is presented, the quality etc. What so far have you gotten out of, or what concepts have you gained from The Happiness Purpose in general about how to live life, and with regards to holding religous beliefs?

[_Imapiratewasher]

Hey, I have read a little. It appears to be about some "new religion". I took it to university with me to read when not doing anything and a few people were interested in the author. I was asked to let them know how it goes. I did however state that all books have the capability of bringing about good in one's life. I found it interesting that DeBono says something along the lines of religion being created to take away suffering. That christianity offers suffering as a means to an end. That happiness comes in the after life. The cover remings me of my avatar, the one on my other 'moniker'.

I do not see why boredom is suggested to be suffering in our day. I think with the increase in technology we shouldn't really be bored, but I do also suppose that we have expectations for greater things to come and are never satisfied with that which we have.

I feel it is a matter of reading between the lines. It seems to be promoting a way of life, I haven't quite discovered what that way is yet.

It suggests detachment from worldly view is a bad thing to do. This to me does not make sense, I feel to detach is often a good choice to make and it allows more room for spirituality and I feel this brings about more happyness than feeling of self importance. I get the impression he suggests no religion is true and that it is merely a device in which humans live by to provide them with a sense of happiness. I kinda can agree with this in some ways, but I feel it doesn't matter if our beliefs are in something false because it is our belief that makes it true. We just need to have the wisdom to base our beliefs on something infallable.

I will write some more when I have read more, I haven't decided whether it brings use into my life or not as of yet.

Thank you.


Pirate.

[_marg]

Hey, I have read a little. It appears to be about some "new religion".

A religion only in so far as he suggests just as religions offer reference 'systems' outside of oneself to help as a guide to living, moral values, so too what he suggests is a legitimate reference system. However he does say that maybe "religion" isn't the right word for what he suggests. In addition what he suggests can be used in conjunction with any religion.

I took it to university with me to read when not doing anything and a few people were interested in the author.

You could do a search to learn a little more about him.

I found it interesting that DeBono says something along the lines of religion being created to take away suffering. That christianity offers suffering as a means to an end. That happiness comes in the after life. The cover remings me of my avatar, the one on my other 'moniker'.

I do not see why boredom is suggested to be suffering in our day. I think with the increase in technology we shouldn't really be bored, but I do also suppose that we have expectations for greater things to come and are never satisfied with that which we have.

I'll quote and then address his words. "Today boredom has replaced suffering in the larger communities of the industrilaized nations. Boredom includes confusion, lack of direction, and a depression caused by the complexity of modern life"

So today, we live longer, have better health care, most children don't die in childhood, we have access to communication systems, transportation, books, entertainment options. All in all life is better now for the average person in industrialized nations now than at any other time in the historical past. We are talking on average. So people still have problems but they aren't associated so much with hardships but rather with the things he lists associated with modern life. People in the past died, or didn't have time to get bored. Their time and energies were devoted to survival, to get food, much more in the past, than for the average person of today.

I feel it is a matter of reading between the lines. It seems to be promoting a way of life, I haven't quite discovered what that way is yet.

It's more about an attitude than anything else. I won't for now say more than that.

It suggests detachment from worldly view is a bad thing to do. This to me does not make sense, I feel to detach is often a good choice to make and it allows more room for spirituality and I feel this brings about more happyness than feeling of self importance.

Detachment from decision making and/or self abdication are attitudes of mind which relinquish self responsibility. It is one thing to accept authority because what authority says you have evaluated and accept it is quite another to rely upon authority without any appreciation or critical thinking of that authority source.

With regards to self importance, he was contrasting that with denying the self. Many people think they deserve to suffer, they should deny themselves pleasure and some religions have encouraged that attitude. He is saying that seeking to enhance the self is a good thing, appreciating and valuing oneself is a good thing.

I get the impression he suggests no religion is true and that it is merely a device in which humans live by to provide them with a sense of happiness.

No I don't think he would argue that no religion is true. First of all what do you mean by a religion is true. Nor does he suggest one should discard their religion. What he argues against is operating with beliefs as if they are absolutely true. Many religions do promote that way of thinking. That one should hold a belief as if absolutely true. He says one should hold all beliefs as proto-truths as opposed to absolute truths. One can hold a belief as true for operational purposes but be willing to change that belief upon new information, should it warrant it.

I kinda can agree with this in some ways, but I feel it doesn't matter if our beliefs are in something false because it is our belief that makes it true. We just need to have the wisdom to base our beliefs on something infallable.

Why do you need to base your beliefs on something infallible? How would you possibly know something was infallible. And if you knew it was without error then it wouldn't be a belief, it would be knowledge.