Post by Shira on Aug 1, 2018 2:19:48 GMT -5
I keep approaching Sharessan philosophy, and following it to a sort of 'natural end point' that seems very close to Zen, and very far from its base concept. First, "pleasure" is attributed (ultimate) innate value. But then, 'pleasure' is qualified (quality over quantity), and not-typically 'pleasurable' experiences/sensations are included in the purview of 'valuable sensory-based experience'. The value seems to shift more towards 'transient experience itself', and pretty much anything one might encounter in the diverse and minimally controlled set of experiences that is one's life. That's like, that type of Zen philosophy which attempts to engage with the world in a more practical way than the more 'inert' style. Essentially, heavily stressing immediacy, acceptance, and fulfillment through modified expectations and honed attentiveness.
How much is Sharess really about 'pleasure'? It's seemingly so central to her basic aesthetic and concept (cat, lips, etc), but following the philosophy seems to lead somewhere a little askew from that -- essentially shifting from 'pleasure' to 'transient fulfillment' or something like that, and they're not really the same.
It's like, Sharessan philosophy does care about 'quality over quantity', and yet by its very nature, 'pleasure' is at the lower-quality end of the spectrum, and 'transient fulfillment' is at the higher-quality end of the spectrum. (And yet it's a sensual cat with sexy lips).
And maybe Zen is Sharessan, because it's more or less based around immediate sensory experience? Yet still almost even an opposite of 'pleasure' as such, which is typically shallow, intense, and distracting. Pleasure can be more 'deep', but it seems to me it relies on contextual meaning for such, and Sharess seems to focus exclusively on the immediate sensory experience in and of itself. In which case something like the Zen perspective is what can make that meaningful. I.e. finding value in spontaneous 'living consciousness'.
If anyone can offer me any insight or clarity on this I'd be glad.
This is a resource I was using that went a lot more in-depth with ideas for me, based a lot on statements by Ed Greenwood apparently:
amiawiki.shatuga.com/index.php/Sharess
How much is Sharess really about 'pleasure'? It's seemingly so central to her basic aesthetic and concept (cat, lips, etc), but following the philosophy seems to lead somewhere a little askew from that -- essentially shifting from 'pleasure' to 'transient fulfillment' or something like that, and they're not really the same.
It's like, Sharessan philosophy does care about 'quality over quantity', and yet by its very nature, 'pleasure' is at the lower-quality end of the spectrum, and 'transient fulfillment' is at the higher-quality end of the spectrum. (And yet it's a sensual cat with sexy lips).
And maybe Zen is Sharessan, because it's more or less based around immediate sensory experience? Yet still almost even an opposite of 'pleasure' as such, which is typically shallow, intense, and distracting. Pleasure can be more 'deep', but it seems to me it relies on contextual meaning for such, and Sharess seems to focus exclusively on the immediate sensory experience in and of itself. In which case something like the Zen perspective is what can make that meaningful. I.e. finding value in spontaneous 'living consciousness'.
If anyone can offer me any insight or clarity on this I'd be glad.
This is a resource I was using that went a lot more in-depth with ideas for me, based a lot on statements by Ed Greenwood apparently:
amiawiki.shatuga.com/index.php/Sharess