Or have I just created a false dilemma, a non-problem? — I don't get it

:up:

Acknowledging the hedonic cycle is as good a start as any I suppose. Is life worth living due to constant satisfaction? Well that one's up to you. Meanwhile, you have people living in third-world, war-torn poverty who manage to find themselves amongst the occasional smile or chuckle every now and then so, again, up to you it would seem.

Thank you for your in depth analysis and striking insight into my post! I feel like I've had my mind read. This reply truly shows your depth of experience, intelligence, and readiness to embrace controversial issues. I always appreciate people like you, never willing to sacrifice truth or relevance for brevity.
You just earned a follow! Keep it up my man!

It's like we desire transcendence, but that desire manifests itself in us as a never ending cycle of constantly trying to improve, and hold on to what we've already got, never realizing that there's really no end game, and that if there was, we probably wouldn't want it. — I don't get it

I don't think everyone feels this or necessarily lives this.

Krishnamurti develops the ideas you have expressed rather well.

Many people I know have almost no interest in material things other than what is necessary. This is of course an inexact idea but that doesn't make it hard to live by.

Things such as air, food, water, shelter, family, friends, praise, affection, acceptance, status, career, land, possesions, not to mention all the personal goals and projects one might be interested in achieving or completing. — I don't get it

You've lumped all these ideas in together and they are not necessarily connected at all. Perspective.

I need to clarify that this is really more of an issue when one's base level of happiness is low, or when there's suffering involved. I'm aware that happines doesn't increase very much once one's basic needs are met, but that doen't really answer the question, "what to do now?"

To be alive is to desire, (there are obvious exceptions such as altered states of coniousness due to drugs, but these are generally temporary conditions) and to desire is to seek to obtain. The point i was trying to make in my post, is that it is seemingly impossible to reach any sort of peaceful equilibrium, since one is depressed that they can't obtain something, until they do, and then they set their sights on something equally difficult to obtain, thus continuing the cycle.

I don't really see how acknowledging that I'm unlikely to raise or lower my base level of happiness for very long is really an answer to my question, since that doesn't really help me determine how I'm going to manage the knowledge of this seemingly vicious cycle. If one is really just stuck with their poor genetics:

Subjective well-being might be largely determined by genetics; that is, happiness may be a heritable trait. — Wikipedia

Then it seems like this is pretty much only saying "those that are already happy will be happy, and those that are not will not." That doesn't really offer much guidance.

If you feel like your life can't be better, you become depressed. — I don't get it

Or, you could just become satisfied. Do you think no one ever feels satisfied with their life?

If you feel like your life can be better, you can't rest until you improve it. — I don't get it

Or, you just accept it for what it is. My life would be better if I had become a professional basketball player, for example. That isn’t going to happen, but I’m fine with that. I’m no longer trying to become a professional basketball player.

Is life even worth living in light of this view? — I don't get it

I’m of the view that things like happiness, satisfaction, and contentment are what makes life worth living. So, answering whether or not this view makes you incapable of feeling happiness, etc. will answer this question as well.

Krishnamurti develops the ideas you have expressed rather well.

Thanks for the recommendation, I will check him out. Can you recommend me specifically which of his stuff I should get into?

You've lumped all these ideas in together and they are not necessarily connected at all. Perspective.

No, they are connected, because they are all things in life that people try to obtain. To clarify, not all people try to obtain all of the things on the list, but they are all common "objects" (for lack of a better term) of desire. I don't really see how them being "necessarily" connected comes into play. Like I said, the reason I "lumped all these ideas in together" is because they are all connected to the central idea of the post, that us humans desire things that are obtainable, and once we obtain them, desire more, and we are hurt if we lose them or never obtain them in the first place.

Many people I know have almost no interest in material things other than what is necessary. This is of course an inexact idea but that doesn't make it hard to live by.

I don't mean this personally, as it is probably on me since I am not the best communicator, but you seem to be missing the point of my post. Maybe it's because i use the word 'obtain' and that makes it appear i am refering to specifically obtaining material wealth, but by obtain I actually mean getting or being anything or any state of being at all. The same issue of having to work hard to only just enjoy where you are for a moment, ( whether that is a certain state of mind, a certain relationship, a certain amount of money, etc...) only to just be faced with another burning desire for another thing.

Hope I clarified things a bit.

The problem I have with this natural tendency, is that it appears to be totally insatiable. — I don't get it

Of course, and obviously: our needs and wants are satiable, and are regularly satiated. There are outliers whose only response to desire is MORE. They are both outliers and abnormal. Most of the men I have known like sex and pursue it enthusiastically. What they do not do is spend more and more time obtaining more and more sex. The amount of sex they want (and get) tends to reach a plateau and stay there. Why? Because enough is enough--literally.

Most people desire more money, but not an ever-enlarging absurdly huge pile -- with the exception of the most wealthy people who appear to have no limit to their pursuit of money. (Remember: the love of money is the root of all evil!)

One might love learning, and spend a lifetime learning more and more (quite possibly about less and less). I have engaged in life-long learning, but like sex, like fine oysters, like perfect pears and the best cheese--we reach a plateau of accomplishment. We reach a point where we say, "I now know as much as I desire to know about the Romanov dynasty and it's rule over all Russia from 1613-1917." Or "I have learned as much as I want about the Chicago Public Housing Authority. I could learn more, but... No."

Moderation is actually necessary to maintain pleasure. If one drank only the finest and rarest of whisky in quantity (as much as one could drink) it would no longer be a pleasure. One would be too drunk to care what one was drinking, and one's taste would become jaded.

When Caesar learned he would never conquer as much of the world as had Alexander, he wept like a child.

Most of the men I have known like sex and pursue it enthusiastically. What they do not do is spend more and more time obtaining more and more sex. The amount of sex they want (and get) tends to reach a plateau and stay there. Why? Because enough is enough--literally

But they do still need to pursue more sex. They have sex once, then twice, then again, and again. Even if the time interval between instances of sex is the same, that doesn't change the fact that it is a process with no end. You don't reach a point where you say "I have had enough sex for life now, I have finally finished (no pun intended) once and for all."

Hope I clarified things a bit. — I don't get it

Sorry, Man, no. I rarely see this happening. Except where people are unhappy or have a mental illness.

Still think you need to separate out those things you have described which are necessary for life to exist - food, water, shelter, air.

that doesn't change the fact that it is a process with no end. — I don't get it

Yes, there is an end. I'm 75. I used to be very sexually active. Over the years, the urgency with which I have desired sex has gradually decreased to where it is now seldom. And even when I do desire it, it is sometimes more bother than it is worth (takes too long, doesn't feel all that great, etc.)

Frankly, if my sex drive disappeared 100%, it wouldn't be missed. That would not have been the case even 10 years ago.

Lots of things I used to enjoy are not that much fun now, I still like to ride my bike, but what was once a short ride (10 miles) is now a long ride, and I have quite a bit of pain. I don't go for long walks for the same reason. Food isn't quite as enjoyable as it used to be because the senses of taste and smell are not as sharp as they used to be.

This is the way aging works, and it's OK.

Yeah, but my question was about how best to live one's life with the knowledge that things are bad either way. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, to use a colloquialism. I don't think aging really solves that problem. I mean, I guess in a sense it does, but in that sense, death ultimately solves all your problems.

I'm not trying to be an asshole, I just really have had this thought that things are screwed no matter what lie heavy on my head recently. Maybe there isn't really a practical answer, since I'm really just bitching about how bad things are, which isn't always something that can be fixed.

Sorry, Man, no. I rarely see this happening. Except where people are unhappy or have a mental illness.

See what happening? People getting burned out? People feeling loss more than gain? That's all pretty basic human psychology if you ask me.

Still think you need to separate out those things you have described which are necessary for life to exist - food, water, shelter, air.

Why? Those things aren't seperate to my point. My point is that one needs to pursue things. Your "people I know have almost no interest in material things other than what is necessary" that you spoke of earlier, still have desires in life, right? They wake up to do things. They don't just sit on the ground and eat, sleep, and drink. They still have achievements. They still long for things, and experience loss in life.

See what happening? People getting burned out? People feeling loss more than gain? That's all pretty basic human psychology if you ask me. — I don't get it

I don't think your point is coherent. Sorry.

They still long for things, and experience loss in life. — I don't get it

Buddhism 101 - attachment leads to suffering.

Or have I just created a false dilemma, a non-problem? — I don't get it

It's by design. I mentioned in another thread that I just happened to watch a video about Edward Bernays, Freud's American nephew, who was the father of public relations. During WWI he did war propaganda to get Americans to support the war effort. After the war, manufacturers were afraid that once Americans got everything they needed, they'd stop buying things and the economy would collapse.

Bernays used his uncle's idea that every human has unconscious desires, to get people to WANT things rather than NEED them. For example at the time, it was socially unacceptable for women to smoke cigarettes. He had the idea of putting into women's minds the idea that smoking was freedom and power. He got a bunch of models to smoke cigarettes in public with news photographers around. He branded cigarettes as "Freedom torches" and got women to start smoking.

Bernays was the first person to realize that you can get the public to buy a war using the exact same psychological techniques that you use to get women to smoke cigarettes.

It's ironic and depressing to see these old film reels of cute 1920's flappers smoking cigarettes, and realize most of them probably died of emphysema, lung cancer, and heart disease years ago. But that's how the American consumer society came into being. Industry figured out that you don't sell to people's needs. You sell to their subconscious desires. Whether it's war or cigarettes.

Today the name of Edward Bernays is long forgotten. But we live in the world he invented. You don't actually need the latest iPhone. But you WANT one, for reasons you're not even conscious of. Status, sexual desire, and so forth. Freud's psychological insights harnessed to American hucksterism.

It's not an accident that our entire economy depends on people buying crap they don't need. It's a deliberate plan. And the government is brilliant at selling wars to the people. We've been in Afghanistan for 20 years. Why? Well, it's for democracy and freedom or something. Ask anyone. What's the latest? Women's rights. If we leave, Afghan women will lose their rights.

This came out just last week. A crucial moment for women’s rights in Afghanistan

https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/03/05/crucial-moment-womens-rights-afghanistan

Is that really why we're there? Or is this just another propaganda psy-op? I can hear people firing up an angry post. WELL OF COURSE we support women's rights, are you some kind of misogynist? It's important for people to start to see the programming and manipulation we're all subject to. The very thoughts in our heads aren't ours, they're put their by master manipulators who've spent the last century perfecting the techniques invented by Bernays. To sell us wars, cigarettes, iPhones, masks (ooh fire up the angry tweets, he's an "anti-masker"), lockdowns. Some of it's real, a lot of it is perfected propaganda. The government and the media are very very good at manipulating public opinion. It's incumbent on all of us these days to try to step outside the process, even a little bit, to see how it works. The past year has been extremely instructive, in the fullness of time that will become more clear.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays

It's not an accident that our entire economy depends on people buying crap they don't need. It's a deliberate plan. — fishfry

Yes, this phenomenon used to be called, 'Keeping up with the Joneses'. Very mid-twentieth century. Simple consumer capitalism. But I don't see it as described by the OP - suicidal despair if an endless appetite for more is not quenched. That seems like a different spin.

I'm not trying to be an asshole, — I don't get it

Most people don't have to even try.

I just really have had this thought that things are screwed no matter what lie heavy on my head recently. — I don't get it

Well, look: In the BIG PICTURE, everything is screwed no matter what. In the end the sun expands and the earth ends up a cold cinder. Death is the end. Sic transit gloria mundi. We may not like it, but that, as they say, is tough.

Yeah, but my question was about how best to live one's life with the knowledge that things are bad either way. — I don't get it

"How to live one's life well" is a huge topic. Sorry, I'm not up to answering it just right now (not that I have the answer anyway). There are lots of guides that have been written over the last few thousand years. Start with the Stoics, many here would say.

First, understand that the world was not organized for our convenience or designed for our continual happiness. Accept the world as it is; that's where to start. Accept yourself the way you are, too. You can improve, but the place to start is self acceptance.

Set reasonable goals to work toward for the next few years. What's important to you? Work towards your goals. If you achieve them, great. If you don't, reconsider the value of the goals and try again, or try something else.

Do things that make you feel good (happy) and avoid optional things that makes you fl unhappy. Work is often a major pain, but that's how we get money to live. Don't look for fulfillment in a job, unless you just happen to be lucky and find a fulfilling job. Even if you do, it probably won't last (the fulfilling part).

Live frugally. Save money. The less you need to live, the less you are dependent on specific jobs. Having money in the bank will solve a lot of problems.

Do what you can to maintain a positive outlook on life. Yes, it helps.

You are running your life. You are not a robot or driven by an algorithm you have no control over. You have some choices.

how does one live in the face of this knowledge? Is life even worth living in light of this view? — I don't get it

I think is worth living. Life is like a mountain we have to climb. The hardest is the better in this context. Everyone wants to improve whatever is around them. I don’t say it is innate but sometimes it looks like humanity in their nature wants to improve. Having the feeling of not changing to the better could be even counterproductive for our development.
I guess when you say

Things such as air, food, water, shelter, family, friends, praise, affection, acceptance, status, career, land, possesions,

you are somehow wrong. Everything is not related to this tangible things.
The most important thing we want always to improve is our knowledge. Thanks to this, look everything has changed for the decades.

That is life to some extent, however, first, "it is the journey which matters, not the destination", sometimes acquiring things in of itself is enjoyable such as a skill or getting fit or whatever. The experience itself is rewarding. Then there's the joy of acquiring these things and their value which fuels the drive, you work to make meaningful relationships or an enjoyable career that enriches your life, improves your psychology and brings about positive emotions.

So even though there's "no end game" and you're going to die and your life is meaningless, you won't enjoy life by doing nothing, wanting nothing and caring about nothing, so you're really left with no choice but to play the game.

I think the question might be, what is it that you expect to happen? What is the ideal here? Unfortunately there is no such thing as walking into the sunset, now totally fulfilled. The only thing similar to that is death. Is life really just about obtaining? Perhaps you need a more playful attitude to life in which exploring is the main 'goal'. One thing we do obtain is experience, it can stay with us til our deathbed. Even those with dementia remember experience, the experience of songs or persons. I think it is in our nature to consume, there's not much one can do about it, though the way we go about it (or restrict it) is interesting and worth exploring. I don't have an answer here, but hopefully hat I've written can help in some way.

So, my question is, how does one live in the face of this knowledge? Is life even worth living in light of this view? Or have I just created a false dilemma, a non-problem? — I don't get it

You have created a non-problem.
There are satisfaction and contentment in the world. Your diet of social media must have made you question this. Or something that made you believe this. There are people who actually shun spotlight and power.
You've heard the saying, evil takes residence in an empty mind, or something like that (not sure of the exact quote).

Start a "Community of Catharsis" where participants are encouraged to gripe about the negatives of human life and advocate for antinatalism to prevent harm for a future generation.

Hey, finally, a helpful post that adresses the op! Thanks dude. I'd have to agree with you, I did frame life as a continual unrewarding climb towards a destination, but
I suppose that isn't really accurate. You can learn to enjoy the ride.

Yeah, I'd agree with this. Thanks.

So, my question is, how does one live in the face of this knowledge? Is life even worth living in light of this view? Or have I just created a false dilemma, a non-problem? — I don't get it

In Early Buddhism, such an insight is a starting point for the quest for the end of suffering.

Then it seems like this is pretty much only saying "those that are already happy will be happy, and those that are not will not." That doesn't really offer much guidance. — I don't get it

But was it ever meant to offer guidance?

Of course, and obviously: our needs and wants are satiable, and are regularly satiated. There are outliers whose only response to desire is MORE. They are both outliers and abnormal. Most of the men I have known like sex and pursue it enthusiastically. What they do not do is spend more and more time obtaining more and more sex. The amount of sex they want (and get) tends to reach a plateau and stay there. Why? Because enough is enough--literally.
/.../
Moderation is actually necessary to maintain pleasure. If one drank only the finest and rarest of whisky in quantity (as much as one could drink) it would no longer be a pleasure. One would be too drunk to care what one was drinking, and one's taste would become jaded. — Bitter Crank

Sure, but this misses the point. The point is that one keeps having desires. Once one desire is satisfied, another one comes up. One satisfies the desire for food, and the desire for sex comes up; satisfying that, the desire for fine art comes up. And so on, so endlessly on. This is where the problem is.

the desire for sex comes up; satisfying that, the desire for fine art comes up — baker

Personally, I haven't found that a desire for fine art follows sexual satisfaction. A cigarette, maybe, but please, no fine art in the bedroom.

Are you sure the insatiable-and-ever-rising-desire model is valid? Left to our own devices, I think most people would be reasonably satisfied once their broadly-defined basic needs are met. We, though, are NOT left to our own devices. For at least the last 100 years, retailers and manufacturers of all sorts have been using an array of communication methods to entice us into continually desiring more and "better".

The amount of consumption that occurred in most households began to rise sometime in the late 19th / early 20th century. Why, in 1915, was a house with 850 square feet of floor space considered adequate for 2 adults and perhaps 1 child? It was adequate because people didn't buy so much stuff! A typical man didn't own 5 suits, 20 shirts, 6 pairs of shoes, and enough underwear to change at least once a day for a couple of weeks. Same situation for women. One small closet and a small dresser could contain a couple's clothing. Books were usually borrowed from a library. A couch, a chair, and a lamp furnished a living room.

People with a great deal of money have usually accumulated a much more stuff than ordinary people -- nice, expensive stuff because it helped them maintain their status.

Personally, I haven't found that a desire for fine art follows sexual satisfaction. A cigarette, maybe, but please, no fine art in the bedroom. — Bitter Crank

Jesus. One desire follows another. The selection and order are not universal. After sex, some people want to smoke a cigarette, some want to collect fancy sports cars and others collect garden gnomes, or whatever. The point is, they keep desiring things after they have satisfied one desire.

This latter is also the idea that underlies Maslow's theory; although Maslow posited that the selection and order of desires are universal (which is disputable).

Are you sure the insatiable-and-ever-rising-desire model is valid? Left to our own devices, I think most people would be reasonably satisfied once their broadly-defined basic needs are met.

It's not like people typically become desireless. They just stop desiring the things they already have (now that they've obtained them), and they desire other things. "Things" here means very broadly -- from material things like clothes and food to less material things like a successul career or reputation.

We, though, are NOT left to our own devices. For at least the last 100 years, retailers and manufacturers of all sorts have been using an array of communication methods to entice us into continually desiring more and "better".

And it works precisely because we operate by the insatiable-and-ever-rising-desire model.

The amount of consumption that occurred in most households began to rise sometime in the late 19th / early 20th century. Why, in 1915, was a house with 850 square feet of floor space considered adequate for 2 adults and perhaps 1 child? It was adequate because people didn't buy so much stuff!

You want to argue they were desireless?
That those prudent, modest people of old were helpless in the face of and succombed to the evil ploys of marketing?

They operated out of the desire to improve their lives. This is an insatiable and ever rising desire. It can become realized in many ways: whether in buying a new home, finding new, more attractive sex partners, changing careers, or in working hard to improve one's reputation, and so on.