History and Purpose

I am a “cradle atheist”, born to 1st generation atheists and raised in the Bible Belt of Alabama. On my own, I developed a particular way of looking at life, but my way seemed so different from what I heard from others, including other atheists, and I didn’t know why that was. After decades of looking, I finally found a philosopher who lived in ancient Greece, Epicurus, whose perspective seemed to match mine. I was thrilled to find out I was not alone! This led to the pleasure of finding new friends online, from all over the world, who also enjoyed practicing and talking about his philosophy.

Epicurus saw that the universe was material. He extended the work of early atomists and proposed a whole system of physics to explain what he saw in nature. He noticed that logic was not a way of actually getting data but a secondary process of working with data. He realized that there is no such thing as universal, absolute ethics, no realm of ideals or abstract virtues, and that what makes humans endorse certain social behaviors is that these behaviors tend to lead to our pleasure in life. He went beyond the early hedonists in realizing that pleasure is not just sensory but intellectual and social. In his Garden, he taught his students physics and how to observe nature. They practiced pleasurable friendship. He taught them how to make wise decisions, considering all the pain and pleasure consequences of their actions. Epicurus found the pleasure of friendship to be essential to his happy (pleasurable) life. It is the most joyful philosophy I know of!

By studying how Epicurus differed from competing philosophers of his time, I realized the specific reasons why my own outlook disagreed with many of my own contemporaries– I saw that I was surrounded with modern-day Stoics, Platonists, and occasionally Skeptics, in addition to believers in various religions. Epicurus’ words and discussions with friends in the philosophy helped me organize my thoughts more clearly. I have especially enjoyed participating in a podcast discussion of Lucretius’ On the Nature of Things. The joy of invigorating conversations with people who understand each other, even on points where we differ, is beyond compare!

Gradually, however, I began to see some difficulties with presenting my personal philosophy as Epicurean. Mainly, the modern academic interpretation of Epicurus converts him to some Stoic-lite or perhaps pop-Buddhism figure who endorsed painlessness without actual pleasure. It was frustrating to spend so much time arguing what I thought Epicurus was saying, as opposed to focusing on the philosophy itself.

Then a new member on one of the websites I helped moderate joined with the purpose of exploring the religious aspects of Epicurean Philosophy. This new member asserted that it was Epicurean doctrine that humans could receive “images” of the Epicurean Gods, from outer space, directly to our brains, and she wanted to find others to develop worship practices with.

I’ll write more on these gods later– they were described as material beings, not supernatural. I had been willing to consider that since pleasurable living skills occur on a spectrum, it is reasonable to propose that somewhere in the universe live the most pleasure-filled beings. However, the idea that we can directly receive an “image” in our brains, through some means which can traverse space, penetrate bone, and affect neurons, but not produce any detectible evidence of effects on matter besides people having thoughts about gods? That is not plausible.

Epicurus anticipated an amazing number of ideas now considered standard in modern physics– and of course, many of his specific conclusions have been updated by newer research. I had been more interested in his methods of deciding what was real, and in his practical ethics, and less concerned about specific details needing revision. After all, our knowledge base in science is constantly developing. A textbook in medicine is slightly out of date the moment it is printed on paper.

The new member’s religious statements caught me by surprise. She was unwilling to consider the possibility that any evidence could show that religious imagination could come from within the brain and not from actual beings elsewhere, because the images seemed so real. From my standpoint, her assertions were indistinguishable from supernaturalism as long as they were not subject to verification by other evidence besides the imagination. I wondered if Epicurean Philosophy contained arguments that could counter her, or if a new philosophy was necessary– and if so, what would need to be different to rule out this type of direction?

One of the problems with Epicurean Philosophy is that we are missing so much, really most, of his extensive writings. So it may well be that he wrote things which would have supported my perspective on this… but it is also possible he didn’t. I objected to people who twisted Epicurus’ words for their own purposes. Would I be doing the same thing, if I argued that based on current physics and neuroscience evidence, we should require actual evidence before making such implausible statements about getting images from outer space?

Maybe so. I thought about what would need to change, for a philosophy to be resistant to religious intrusion– faith instead of evidence– and I decided I would need to make it clear that evidence from sensory data (or instrumental extensions of our senses) is required to conclude that something is real. Imagination alone is not evidence for reality, in my philosophy, anymore than reason can replace evidence. Rather than worry about whether Epicurus said this or not, I decided to say it myself!

Epicurus was the first Epicurean, totally free to develop his philosophy as he saw fit. Like many of you, I enjoy having freedom of thought, and I want to make use of historical thinking without being confined by it. So let us be as free to think as Epicurus was! I hope you will read what I write here with a mind to decide on your own perspective. When you agree with me– why? Disagree– why, and how can you describe that so that you know your own philosophy? I look forward to hearing from you.

Next, read the details: https://pleasureinpractice.wordpress.com/2020/11/19/the-details/

then https://pleasureinpractice.wordpress.com/2020/11/19/who-i-think-may-benefit-from-this-page/

and https://pleasureinpractice.wordpress.com/2020/11/19/philosophy-in-action/

Solving for X: On the Pains and Pleasures of Grieving

It is the morning of November 27, 2020. My father, 82 years old, having been in declining health for the last few years, was admitted to the hospital 3 days ago. Only a few hours after finding out he had been taken there with shortness of breath, I received a call from my brother with alarming news. My father’s COVID19 test was positive, his oxygen had dropped, and the doctor said if they couldn’t get it up within half an hour, he would likely not survive. They were moving him to the ICU.

I was driving home from work when my brother called. I started crying on the phone and abandoned my plan to stop by the post office—I went straight home and called the nurse’s station, hoping to say one last “I love you, goodbye.” I live 10 hours away. There was no way I could get to Florida within half an hour, and even if I could, no visits were permitted for patients with COVID-19.

My father, because of a pre-existing condition, had advance directives requesting not to be intubated or given CPR. The doctors placed him on bi-pap and various medications, and he did not die in that half hour, nor was I given a chance to speak to him. In the past 3 days, when his family members have called, he has been sedated and the nurses have advised against us speaking to him by phone. We have received only rare, sporadic updates, because the ICU staff is very busy. This morning, I am waiting for an update. Things don’t sound promising, but we are still in a waiting condition. Anything could happen.

The first night after all this began, as you might imagine, I slept only fitfully, but the interruptions to sleep were sweeter than I expected. I dreamed of my father during my childhood, including times I had not thought of in years. In the past few days, this has continued into waking life—unexpected snippets of the past have accompanied my morning coffee, the washing of dishes, a card game with my son.

I remember him trying to teach me algebra, in his excitement perhaps starting a little before I was capable of understanding. He is a physicist and taught me science and math, worked into every opportunity of daily life. I attribute my love of these subjects to him. “Let x be…”, he began, and invariably I interrupted him with, “but what is x?” I don’t remember how many times this let-what? dance went on before my confusion won! But only for that day. Fortunately for both of us, eventually he was able to teach me to solve for x and much more. I do remember his earnest persistence, his confidence that he could make math sensible for me. It was an act of love, giving me the world of x and y and z.

If you have grieved, and almost certainly you have, this is all familiar to you, as are the periodic sudden sobs, also always unexpected, though predictable. What I am experiencing this week is anticipatory grief, a strange wavering state in which the loss is happening but not happening, a great maybe, an intense knowledge of probabilities, a metaphorical multiverse of the present.

The pain is obvious—but what about pleasure? Why would I say anything about the pleasures of grief? I think you know this as well. In this philosophy, I have said that pain is not required for pleasure to occur—each state is a real state, not dependent upon the opposite. There are pleasure neurotransmitters—there are pain fibers. But even though pain is not required for pleasure, and I would much prefer the pleasure of being with my father, solving for x, right now, with death a distant prospect, that is not the reality. The reality right now includes pain.

This philosophy is also not about deliberate denial of pain in order to achieve pleasure, although denial happens and is normal. I think there are at least some others like me who find that type of denial unsustainable. There have of course been moments this morning where I am intensely aware of the present. I gazed deeply at the colors in the sunrise through the bare branches off my deck, and I believe there was a moment when that was all there was. Most of the time has been a complex overlay of sensory awareness, memories, imaginings about the future, wonderings about my father’s present moment to moment experience, gratitude, and sorrow.

I am mildly synesthetic—many feelings and words have some color and taste—and complex emotions remind me of big chords spread across a keyboard, with the deep, solemn, mournful notes mixing harmonics with the middle and upper range. It is not that I need the mournful notes for the melody, but that the melody happens in spite of the rest. The harmony happens, and it has its beauty, profound and majestic.

What is this harmony? I believe it is meaningfulness. My closest relationships provide the strongest sense of meaning, a meaning largely ineffable. You who have loved will understand without any explanations. In times of grief, meaningfulness is the pleasure which makes the pain bearable, and although we still can enjoy, off and on, ordinary pleasures, it is meaningfulness we will return to most often.

I am listening to Peter, Paul, and Mary, because (of course) my father loves to listen to them. I am remembering how, when I was a kid, I noticed my knees were bony and knobby like his, and that I was glad. I am remembering sitting on the floor with him, playing card games, especially a fast one called “Spit.” I am remembering him caring deeply that I should eat eggs at least once a week, though I hated them, for my wellbeing, and the way he taught me to throw a football so it spun on its long axis, and how he taught me my times tables while we played ping-pong. I remember his glasses being taped up from handball games with the other physicists, and that once he stapled his pants together where they had ripped. I am remembering a couple of years ago after a difficult period in my family’s life, that he got up haltingly from his chair, walked over to where I was sitting, bent over and took my hands and said “You have had a hard life sometimes, and I am so sorry these things have happened to you”, although I had not complained and we weren’t even speaking about these events, and I remember the tears that came to my eyes as I said “thank you, Daddy, I love you, it will all be ok.”

Because of phone changes and because I usually answer right away if he calls, I have only one voice mail remaining from him, from last year. It is him calling to ask me, before a visit, if I want him to get half and half or heavy cream for my morning coffee. I have played that message several times a day this week, just to hear the sound of his voice, which by then was already slow.

Some people will say this kind of love is attachment. They will say we are always dying anyway—our atoms are being constantly replaced by other atoms—and so the father I knew last year is not the same father I knew the year before that, nor am I the same person. That in fact, because we are constantly interchanging parts with the environment, there is no fixed boundary to call a self—we are interdependent. That the nature of life is constant change. That there is not even anything, in a single instant, to label securely as self, that our sense of self is an illusion and maybe even a delusion. And if we experience the truth of this, we will see that there is nothing to grieve.

I find this to be a category error… if it helps you, though, use what you need to use. Of course, transience and interdependence are real. The experience of self seems to be brought about by particular networks in the brain, subject to contingencies of past events. But just because a self is formed of components and is contingent, ever-changing, and interdependent, does not mean it is unreal. At the practical level of experience, I am a person, with my experience of the now layered by the past, and my father is real, and we have met, we have encountered each other in the midst of this (incomprehensibly marvelous and strange) flowing stream of particles and energies over time, and we have struggled over letting x be whatever x is, and we have loved each other. My love for my father is not like my love for any other person—it is specific for him and for the whole of who he has been, from stories about his childhood to his dying or not-dying, alone in the ICU, right now.

You will have your own stories about the pains and pleasures of grief, and if you are moved to share them, I would be glad to listen.

*** the photo is of my parents, my infant sister, and me, standing by my mother, who died in 1986 at age 46.

The Details

Hedonic Pragmatics: Philosophy for a Pleasurable Life

Echoing Epicurus’ Principal Doctrines, here is a list of my thoughts for your consideration.

Starting assumptions:

1. There is a material reality which can be perceived.  
2. Methods for perceiving reality: the senses and the feelings

The senses give information about attributes of reality. The feelings give information about the subject’s attraction or repulsion to experiences of reality. These two types of information are distinct.

These starting assumptions have been selected pragmatically based on their reliability in predicting events, because of the usual human desire to be able to choose pleasurable actions. If a person is not interested in reliably describing the nature of reality and chooses different starting assumptions, such as reality being immaterial, their assumptions are so far outside the meaning most humans assign to the word “reality” that we will be unable to communicate.

Starting Attitude: Pragmatic

A pragmatic view of the reliability of assumptions and conclusions about reality; neither obsessive philosophical skepticism focused on the impossibility of perfect knowledge without any starting assumptions, nor dogmatism, an insistence on certainty. Assumptions and conclusions about reality are made pragmatically on the basis of usefulness in decision-making.

Ordinary, widely accepted meanings of words will be used. Although because language is abstract, it can be indefinitely deconstructed to the point of meaninglessness, this is a word game which subverts the purpose of communication. Most people have an understanding about what is meant by the word “reality”, even though the definition can be picked apart. This philosophy uses language practically, as an instrument of communication, while being aware that it retains the limitations of abstraction.

Observations and conclusions from perceptions, subject to revision based on evidence:

The Nature of Reality

1. Reality behaves predictably in a probabilistic fashion, with properties which can be investigated systematically.
2. There are so far no known process in material reality which require a non-material explanation, even when the full material explanation is not yet available.
3. No position has been observed from which it would be possible to perceive either local or universal reality objectively and not as a subject with a particular point of view. All known perceptions are subjective.

The Nature of the Self

1. A subject, a self, is part of reality but is not the whole of reality.
2. Although the self and the actions and decisions of the self are not in any way observed to be exempt from material processes and probabilistic events—reality remains participatory. The self is a participant in the creation of reality, an agent, despite being developed through contingencies. The experience of decision-making is not an illusion but a reality not undone by the material processes resulting in the decision process.
3. Sentient organisms have neurological mechanisms for processing perceptions and feelings, including innate pattern recognitions and pattern expectations, many of which are species specific. Reasoning is one of those processing mechanisms in humans. Memory and imagination are processing mechanisms. The sensation of “knowing” something is a processing mechanism. The part of empathy which is the ability to imagine the experience of another is a processing mechanism.  Human perception of reality completely without such processing is not observed to occur.
4. Some processing features are tightly bound to cognition, such as visually dividing input into objects according to movement against a background. These could be called involuntary. Some are more loosely bound, such as the sunk cost heuristic, and these could be called voluntary.
5. Some processing features are conscious, and some are unconscious.
6. Communication occurs between subjects. Intersubjective processing occurs.

Pleasure, Pain, and Ethics

1. Feelings can be separated into two basic groups: pains and pleasures. This includes all feelings/ emotions. If a supposedly neutral state is one a person wants to continue or does not desire to take action to end, it is a mild pleasure; if the supposedly neutral state is one the person wants to end or would exit from given the opportunity, it is a mild pain.
2. Feelings provide information about the subject’s experience of perceptions and about the experience of processing.
3. Feelings provide valuation of experience as positive or negative, also called good and bad.
4. Because no absolute, objective point of view has been witnessed or can be predicted as possible with observations of reality so far, no objective good or bad is known to exist.
5. The absence of an objective good or bad extends to the absence of absolute virtues.
6. Because humans share species-specific processing mechanisms and other physical similarities, they often share similar feelings about certain experiences. However, because humans are not identical, not all feelings will be in common.
7. Historically, what humans call virtues have included innate pleasurable feelings typical for the species about certain pro-social behaviors, as well as imposed behaviors producing pleasure to a subset of the group having power over the others, which can become learned pleasures in some cases.
8. The goal of all humans at the start of life is pleasure. The social pleasures of kindness and friendship are often the strongest pleasures for humans. Other pleasures include sensory pleasure, learning, understanding, meaningfulness, mastery of skills, and freedom from coercion.
9. Because there is no objective good, pleasure remains the goal throughout life, but some humans postpone their pleasure in hopes of an afterlife reward, or they sublimate their desired pleasure into the satisfaction of meeting a social expectation.
10. Philosophies which propose meaningfulness instead of pleasure are ignoring that meaningfulness is a meaningless term without the pleasurable feeling. They are also seeking pleasure.
11. Philosophies which replace a goal of pleasure with “happiness”, “flourishing”, “self-actualization” or other terms which are presumed to be different from pleasure can be evaluated by imagining those words without the pleasure we associate with their definition. Can you imagine “happiness” which has no pleasure? Most people can’t. Would we seek flourishing or self-actualization experiences which were not pleasurable? There is no evidence for this, and it is an example of redefining words so that they no longer communicate effectively. In Hedonic Pragmatics, we use words like happiness as they are used in the general public—words meant to communicate pleasurable feelings.
12. A redefinition of virtue based on the understanding that reality is subjective: virtues are deliberate behaviors which reliably produce pleasure for the subject. For most humans, this will require pro-social behaviors.
13. As Epicurus noted, a person will sometimes choose a lesser pain in order to obtain a greater pleasure or forgo a lesser pleasure to avoid a greater pain.
14. Pleasure and pain occur to varying intensities and in many different ways throughout the body.
15. When all pain is removed, pleasure is the only remaining feeling.
16. Pleasure does not require pain as a contrast to be felt. However, sensory processing habituates with prolonged exposure to a stimulus, and therefore stimuli may need to be varied periodically to continue causing pleasure.
17. Humans are not intrinsically insatiable. Contentment and satisfaction with enjoyments of life are a common experience.
18. Humans do not get bored with pleasure itself and need a pain break—they get bored with particular stimuli. With careful observation and planning, a person can learn to vary activities such that boredom is rare.
19. Humans often take pleasure in novelty, but the pleasure of the familiar can be strong as well.
20. The concept of a “balance” or “moderation” in pleasure is a common processing feature for humans. However, it is not actually pleasure which needs moderation, and there is no absolute definition of moderation, which is a concept and not a feeling. Making choices which reliably produce pleasure is a more direct means to accomplish the goal than inserting a proxy of moderation.
21. Because humans are social animals, typically with empathetic pleasure and pain, decisions about actions will wisely include predictions about pains and pleasures of others who are cared about by the subject.
22. This is not a balancing act between self and other, because the empathetic pain and pleasure is felt subjectively. The interest of the other is simultaneous with the interest of the self. This is not an abstract, mathematical calculation but a matter of feeling.
23. Such empathetic intermingling occurs on a spectrum, with some persons triggering less empathetic pain and pleasure according to their level of emotional bond with the subject.
24. A person who takes pleasure in using social utilitarian calculations to make decisions is still using pleasure as a guide or they would not be motivated to make such calculations. However, most social decisions for typical humans are made on the basis of personal feeling for other individuals and not pleasure over abstract moral concepts.
25. There is no objective moral superiority between one person and another, because there is no absolute morality. However, humans form preferences for others who share their moral opinions and will also feel pain or pleasure upon self-observation according to whether they violate or uphold their own moral opinions.
26. Humans have developed sometimes complex moral rule systems or value systems to guide decisions in social environments with high intersubjective complexity. However, any rule systems or values hierarchies come into internal conflict in specific situations unless there is a single over-riding determinant of decisions. At these times of internal conflict, humans can be observed to choose the rule or value that feels “right” (i.e., morally pleasurable) to them. A more direct and simple method is to use pleasure as a guide from the beginning. For most of us, lying is unpleasant, along with stealing or injuring another person. We refrain not because of laws but because of unpleasantness.
27. The most common type of pleasure in friendships is simply the direct pleasure of being with the other person, along with “shared pleasure”, which is two or more people taking both independent and empathetic pleasure in an activity simultaneously.
28. Using other subjects for instrumental pleasures—to obtain pleasures beyond that of friendship—may be a reason social pleasures evolved. However, a conscious instrumental motive tends to have a paradoxically dampening effect on social pleasures. This is likely related to a human heuristic which devalues actions for which one is extrinsically rewarded (for example, it sounds strange to say “eat all your ice cream and I’ll give you some pie” because we assume the ice cream must taste bad to require a reward). Since direct social pleasure is usually greater, most of us have an innate dislike for “using” other people. A contractual view of human relationships produces this same dampening effect, which is not seen in intrinsically enjoyable relationships. A person who experiences intrinsic social pleasure is unwise to take on a contractual or instrumental view of their relationships.
29. The most species-typical pleasurable social behaviors are pro-social, conditionally cooperative, and trustworthy. However, under coercive conditions, a different set of coping behaviors emerges, including aggression, dishonesty, passivity/ submissiveness, and “fawning.” In addition, pro-sociality is not universally distributed among humans even in conditions of low coercion. Some humans display higher degrees of anti-social behavior than others, and when a specific human is predictably more anti-social than pro-social, a wise person will make note of this and plan accordingly.
30. Idealist concepts which assert all humans, by virtue of species, “should” (an absolute standard) trigger some consistent feeling of respect and compassion within all other humans, without regard to individual pro or anti sociality, can cause some people pleasure. For example, there is a religious instruction to “love your neighbor as yourself.” People can be taught to override their innate conditional cooperativeness and to internally produce feelings of affection upon seeing a human form. This is a change in processing which inserts a concept “human” into an interaction with a particular organism. Such pleasure over a concept, such as the concept of humanism, is different from the pleasure of interacting with individuals specifically, and it can be opposed by pain when outcomes of social decisions fail to produce reliable results. The wisdom of adopting such concepts is measured by the reliability of producing pleasurable results.
31. Coercive hierarchies have been evolutionarily successful for humans in that we have reproduced effectively under those conditions. However, pleasure and reproductive success do not always coincide, and this is an example.
32. Because pleasures are a group of varied feelings with subtle differences, they are not convertible to abstract concepts. Abstract concepts never completely contain what they represent or signify. For this reason, attempting to use a mathematical calculation for pleasure is not as reliable as simply paying attention to the feelings which result from various actions.

What We Mean By Truth, Pragmatically

1. Sensory perception, feelings, and processing mechanisms are observed to be performed through physical processes.
2. The conscious experience of reality is part of reality, including the feelings and the processing of reality.
3. The neurologic processing of reality does not provide primary information about reality, even though primary information is itself never experienced without processing.
4. There are some known sensory anomalies which cause perception atypical for the species or a change in perception from the baseline of the subject. Processing of these anomalous perceptions can result in inaccurate conclusions.
5. Subjects make repeated perceptual observations and discuss their observations with others (intersubjective processing) and informally achieve what is called “knowledge” about reality. The integration of multiple senses and the addition of intersubjective processing allow for a stable sense of encountering reality and accurate predictions about simple events, such as whether water poured into a cup will stay within the cup. When a perception is not congruent with past perceptions, out of alignment with other perceptions, incompatible with intersubjective reports, or does not achieve the predicted result, the subject experiences doubt about the accuracy of the perception and can use these multiple perceptions to find the cause of the deviation.
6. Although humans apply intersubjective reports about perceptions and social environments affect perceptual processing, this intersubjective communication does not result in an objective perception of reality. Instead, it can increase reliability of predicting events.
7. Much of human knowledge is based on intersubjective communication rather than direct observation, given limits of time and travel, and in these cases reliability of information can be improved by selecting informants with a history of having given reliable information previously and/or informants using methods of prediction already demonstrated to be reliable, as well as by reviewing multiple sources.
8. The accuracy of perceptual conclusions (all of which are processed), also called truth, is judged by whether predictions based on the conclusions reliably come to pass as expected. This reliability occurs on a continuous scale from less reliable to more reliable. Relative accuracy is possible to quantify—it is not the same thing as a sensation of knowing something for sure. There is no absolute cut-off along this scale of reliability where a thing can be said to be perfectly certain. There is only an increasing degree to which it would be improbable for anything else to happen. At the far end of reliability, the probability of a different event occurring would be so rare as to not be expected by any observer in the universe.
9. Practically speaking, many decisions about accuracy have to do with comparing relative predictive reliability of two or more sets of perceptions.
10. The assignment of relationships between events, cause and effect, is done by processing functions even though the primary information is sensory.
11. Cause and effect conclusions are applied to every perception, although subjects are not always explicitly aware of having made conclusions.
12. For instance, a person who has the experience of seeing a table, if there is nothing unexpected about the experience, informally and automatically concludes that the perception is reliable and is caused by physical properties of reality located spatially external to the body—that if the eyes are closed and then opened, the table will still be there, that touching the table will give the expected tactile sensation, and that the spatial location of the table is stable unless acted on by a physical mechanism.
13. Perceptions don’t just happen on the surface of the body but internally. We feel the movement of our intestines, for instance, and various pains and pleasures within the body.
14. Memory and imagination are processing functions which make use of some neurologic systems also involved in processing perceptual information. Thus we can “see” our memories and our imaginations.
15. The experiences of memory and imagination are real, and a person distinguishes between these experiences and current sensory perceptions based on certain experiential features of memory and imagination which differ from current sensory perception in reliable ways. Thus it is possible to imagine a table and not expect to bump into it when walking across a room. The person can reliably assign the cause of the experience to imagination when predicted sensory perceptual characteristics are not met.
16. Some experiences of memory and imagination are extremely vivid and convincing, and a person may occasionally have difficulty predicting reliable causal relationships, such as whether an experience of communicating with an unseen being is caused by imagination or by perception. In these cases, investigating for measurable mechanisms of reliable causation can help the person distinguish between perception and imagination.
17. Humans have discovered ways to alter their species-typical processing functions, such as by meditation or psychoactive substances. The conclusions drawn from these practices about the nature of reality can be tested for predictive reliability, just as any other conclusions can be tested. Some humans who have used these practices conclude that species-typical processing is delusional or illusion. For instance, they may conclude that the experience of a self is not a real event, if they have inactivated neurologic functions producing the experience of a self. They may have the experience of being able to have a universal point of view, sometimes called “non-dual reality.” This conclusion has not been demonstrated as reliably predicting events, and there is no known mechanism for a universal POV. It appears to be a pleasurable experience for some and a painful experience for others. The degree of pleasure or pain in the experience itself can be combined with the pleasure and pain consequences of decisions made based on the conclusions of a universal point of view.
18. There are known processing errors, heuristics, that cause predictable inaccuracies in assigning relationships between events.
19. The scientific method is a way to bypass some of these processing inaccuracies, allowing for more accurate prediction of future events by understanding cause/effect relationships. This method involves making baseline observations, forming a prediction (hypothesis), and testing the reliability of the prediction by making additional observations.
20. Instruments can be used to obtain measurements as an extension of the senses, to reduce perceptual non-reliability (also called error). This does not remove the necessity for the information from the instruments to be perceived by the senses, so it is not possible to remove all opportunities for sensory error. Sometimes instruments themselves can add new errors to measurements.
21. The accuracy of analyzing cause and effect relationships between events is only useful insofar as it enhances pleasure, our valuation function. Accuracy in such circumstances is a virtue.
22. Informal day to day processing is often sufficient for reliable prediction of pleasure-producing activities. However, because of known errors of informal processing, a person is wise to be aware of how the experimental method can help produce more pleasurable decisions.
23. There are multiple human perceptual senses, not just the original 5 of vision, hearing, taste, smell, and touch, including but not limited to kinesthetic sense, positional sense, vibration, and possibly magnetic sense (other species have magnetic sense). All known senses have perceptual evidence to support their existence. The senses can act in this way upon the body to investigate themselves.
24. There is no confirmed or reliably observed occurrence of extra-sensory perception of information such as by telepathy or direct knowledge of material reality without observation. The test of such a proposed perception is in its reliability to a degree better than chance.
25. The assertion of extra-sensory, direct knowledge of material reality without evidence of perceptual reliability and without willingness to submit such knowledge to reliability tests is indistinguishable from assertions regarding an immaterial realm, and such reports can be safely disregarded in favor of reliable perceptions and conclusions.
26. Nevertheless, the assertion of such unreliable perception as reliable does also provide information about the subject making the report as well as information about human processing functions.
27. A subject may obtain pleasure from believing in immaterial realms, absolute ideals, and extra-sensory direct knowledge. However, the wisdom of maintaining such beliefs should include an assessment of how using unreliable information may produce other pains and pleasures in life, as well as a consideration of the pain of disillusionment when the unreliability of the information is uncovered.
28. Abstract thought, being only a partial signifier of perceptions and feelings, a map and not a territory, creates more opportunities for predictive error the more steps it is processed at a remove from the original perceptions.
29. Any one of the conclusions described here is subject to revision if more reliable observations are made in the future.
30. If a person studies reliability of perceptions closely and learns to make accurate decisions for pleasure, this person can become skillful over time.

More About Pleasure

1. For most typical humans, the most stable and reliable pleasure comes from developing friendships and treating other humans with the pro-social virtues of generosity, affection, patience, honesty, trustworthiness, loyalty, courage, noncoercion, non-harming, and playfulness, because of our evolved, innate pleasure in bonding with each other and in viewing each other’s pleasure. Your mileage may vary.
2. For most of us, engaging in creative activity, producing art and new ways of organizing information both for ourselves and intersubjectively, is an essential life pleasure.
3. Metaphors, symbols, and rituals can evoke feeling and are a way to “share” feelings between persons.
4. For a typical human practicing pro-social pleasures, memories of past events with friends provides a great pleasure, in addition to planning future pleasures.
5. For most humans, active engagement with reality and participatory production of events and objects appears necessary to enjoy the fullest pleasure in life. Passivity appears to be less enjoyable. However, this is a matter for each individual to determine, through self-observation.

Why Have a Philosophy?

The value of having a philosophy rests upon its usefulness in a person being able to make decisions leading to more pleasure than pain. Because reliability of predictions is key to successful pleasure decisions, this philosophy of Hedonic Pragmatics is an effort to give us the most likelihood of a happy (pleasurable) life.

Who I Think May Benefit From This Page

I am not attempting to create a philosophy everyone will enjoy– that sort of ideal is not the point. I think you will be most likely to enjoy my page if you:

1. Enjoy science
2. Are not able to discard evidence and have “faith”– you want a philosophy that is consistent with the evidence we currently have
3. Are not afraid of pleasure
4. Are not an idealist, a social utilitarian, a humanist, a minimalist, or a consequentialist
5. Have at least typical levels of empathy

I have a science and medicine background– I am also a poet and a lover of metaphors, rituals, and art. I do not take rituals literally but aesthetically.

Philosophy In Action

The whole reason to have a philosophy is for a pleasurable life. It provides a way to discuss thoughts about living with others, and it gives us a way of making decisions. I will be adding material periodically about how to practice pleasure. Remember that each person is different– what I take pleasure in, you may not. Please feel free to submit your own ideas. What do you enjoy? How do you lessen the suffering of hard times? These may seem like small, trivial things, but small daily actions can make the difference between habitual misery and habitual pleasure.

A thoroughly materialist philosophy leads some people to prematurely conclude they are nihilists– no meaning in anything. It is true that a materialist philosophy rules out absolute, idealist meaning. However, meaningfulness is a feeling, a pleasurable social feeling, and feelings are real. Most of us need the sense of meaningfulness for a fully happy life. This is not a nihilist philosophy. We fully embrace pleasures, including the pleasures of meaningfulness.

Here are some quick ways to add more pleasure to your life:

1. When making a decision, think through the results of previous similar decisions. Find out what has happened with other people who have faced this type of decision. Who else might be affected by your choice, and how does their happiness intertwine with yours? What are the short and long term consequences of pain and pleasure for you?
2. Savor your pleasures. Include all your senses, as well as social and intellectual pleasures. Today I am off work and looking out the window at hills I can see through the half bare branches of nearby trees… I am savoring the fall colors, the chill in the air. I enjoyed the feeling of my morning shower. At work, I savor gratitude that I have a job I like, getting to talk to coworkers I care about. Every day, I think about my family and friends whom I love, some of whom I have not seen for months due to the COVID19 pandemic. I savor the pleasure of doing something useful for someone I care about. I take a minute to taste my food, even if it is just beans and rice. I enjoy the feeling of breath passing back and forth over my nostrils… I listen to music I enjoy and dance around in my living room, and if someone is watching, I assume they will get a good laugh! Life is not just about seeking pleasure but enjoying it right now.
3. Make a list of your daily pleasures and some you get more occasionally. Remember to enjoy them when they happen. What pleasure habits can you add?
4. If there are things causing pain in your life right now– personal or broader social conditions– what can you do today to participate in changing conditions for future pleasure? Can you enjoy that process, even before the end result?
5. How do your politics affect your pleasure? In Epicurus’ time, it was more possible to retreat from political life and not be as affected by what others did. Today, I think that is less realistic– politics and policy affect us all, including by affecting those others whom we care about. I am closest to an anarcho-syndicalist/ left-libertarian– I find capitalism to be a painful situation, so I belong to the IWW. You may have a completely different opinion. How much do you know about your own political beliefs? Have you studied the evidence– have you considered the alternatives? Do you enjoy learning? What can you do to enjoy finding others who share your political desires?
6. What are you grateful for?
7. Please go outside, weather permitting– if possible, somewhere where there are trees or plants, or maybe beside some water. At night, go out and look at the stars. Take a minute to enjoy the scenery.
8. Your ability to control your attention is critical to enjoying life. How easy is it for you to shift your attention? Focus narrowly or widely, depending on the situation? Are you choosing the focus of your attention actively, or are you at the mercy of outside stimuli? I recommend against the use of “mcmindfulness” to avoid addressing painful situations that can be made pleasurable… and at the same time, if you are doomscrolling instead of using your attention pleasurably, this is low-hanging fruit for your happiness. Can you set aside a little time every day to practice managing your attention?