It’s been quite a while since I’ve put anything with much thought on here, so here are my thoughts on an interesting article from K5 about the relationship between comfort, pleasure, and denial—particuarly pertinent during the fast of Advent:

The article begins by describing comfort as the state in which no desires are going unfulfilled. I think this is a fair definition of comfort. It’s something people put a great deal of effort into striving after. Unfortunately, having total comfort ends up being not such a great thing after all, because you end up with no desires.

A healthy balance is suggested in which wants are not satisfied as soon as they present themselves; for example, avoid being like someone who snacks constantly to avoid feeling any vestige of hunger. Such a person may have minimised his discomfort, but he cannot have the enjoyment of eating a full meal, as this would be more than he could take, and would only lead (ironically enough) to the discomfort that he has been trying to avoid.

Pornography and drugs are analyzed with similar results: they end up being shortcuts to placate our desires before they reach the threshold at which the desires are felt. The problem is while this minimises discomfort, it also minimises the perceived pleasure, as pleasure comes from relieving our desires. The inevitable conclusion is reached that denial is necessary for pleasure. A paradox, to be sure, but it’s honestly quite incontrovertible. Fasting is what makes feasting wonderful. Easter joy is somehow diminished when Lent and Good Friday are overlooked.

The article doesn’t mention it, but I’ve been thinking of another valuable aspect of denial. Denial teaches us to recognize the pull of our own desires. It familiarises us with the various tricks that our body uses to get us to do things. Even from denying oneself something that would be fine and appropriate, one can learn things that would be needed for when such things would be inappropriate. (After rereading that, it sounds like a complicated way of saying that denial strengthens self-control. Yes, I am a genius. Oh well.)

The last concept examined is that of a ‘wirehead’—that is, someone who can receive a blast of pleasure directly into the brain at the push of a button. It circumvents the problems of instant gratification through drugs and such; that is, tolerance for the pleasure is never built up, and denial of desire is not necessary to receive pleasure. While this sounds to some like the basis for a flawless utopia, it ends up being entirely self-destructive. One danger of the drug shortcut remains: that of addiction. The wirehead ultimately self-destructs because he cannot deal with life. Leaving his dream realm of pleasure to feed himself becomes too much of a burden. He can’t live without the rush. He would rather deal with hunger in a push of a button than in action. (Do you see why the first version of the Matrix was a failure?)

The article closes by saying

In the final analysis a man needs more than pleasure, he needs a feeling of purpose, he needs to feel he has achieved something, he needs to belong, he needs friends. The wirehead has none of these things, because the perfect pleasure of the wire denies him any possible source of motivation.

In the end, an honest inspection seems to be convincing enough to prove to almost anyone (not everyone, disturbingly enough) that living for one’s self is ultimately meaningless and essentially vanity. Pure empty pleasure destroys. Ecclesiastes remains true. (And we can’t say William Gibson didn’t warn us.)