<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Happiness</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.boldizar.com/blog/nonfiction/happiness/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.boldizar.com/blog</link>
	<description>Defending the anomic, drinking the chthonic, and using large rocks</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Aug 2010 00:44:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Alex @ Happiness in this World</title>
		<link>http://www.boldizar.com/blog/nonfiction/happiness/comment-page-1/#comment-4290</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex @ Happiness in this World</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2009 20:08:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boldizar.com/blog/?page_id=572#comment-4290</guid>
		<description>Outstandingly written post (as all your writing is, especially the fiction I&#039;ve perused so far).  Your thoughts on happiness are well-supported by the science, but the problem with even the most powerful causes of happiness looked at by science is that they all exist external to oneself and can all therefore be taken away.  As you argue, people tend to have an internal set point of happiness to which they tend to return over time even after suffering something as devastating as the loss of a limb (though maybe not so well the loss of a spouse as you also point out).  But how malleable is that set point?  Seems to me this is the key question.  I beg to differ, however, that artistry and happiness are two magnets of opposite polarity.  I find the happier I am, the creative and productive I become.  And as a Buddhist, I believe the set point of happiness to be quite changeable (though what exactly gets changed and how you change it is quite complex).  Thanks for such a thought-provoking post.  Really enjoyed it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Outstandingly written post (as all your writing is, especially the fiction I&#8217;ve perused so far).  Your thoughts on happiness are well-supported by the science, but the problem with even the most powerful causes of happiness looked at by science is that they all exist external to oneself and can all therefore be taken away.  As you argue, people tend to have an internal set point of happiness to which they tend to return over time even after suffering something as devastating as the loss of a limb (though maybe not so well the loss of a spouse as you also point out).  But how malleable is that set point?  Seems to me this is the key question.  I beg to differ, however, that artistry and happiness are two magnets of opposite polarity.  I find the happier I am, the creative and productive I become.  And as a Buddhist, I believe the set point of happiness to be quite changeable (though what exactly gets changed and how you change it is quite complex).  Thanks for such a thought-provoking post.  Really enjoyed it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
