I want what I want

(KK is one of the people I know quite well. I've spend hundreds of thousands of hours with KK.)

A lot of things for KK come down to "I want what I want" and the corrolary, "I don't want what I don't want".

 In behavioral economics, one scholar I knew reduced some things down to "de gustibus non est disputandum", often translated as "there is no accounting for taste". Which means different people just want different things. There is no use disputing that.

Yet dispute I do. And, in some ways, dispute the Buddha does.

First, the Buddha. The Buddha disputes that the taste for things is the essential thing. Taste relates to the flavor, the appeal, the craving (tanha). Taste is part of a process. Perspective, consciousness, etc are part of the causal chain (12 steps of dependent co-arising). Importantly, the chain can be broken or adapted. There are feedback loops and control variables.

The idea of Karma is exactly about the fact that we have choice and that choice can affect this chain. Think of a person trying to quit smoking. One day they decide smoking is worth it. Another day, their intention shifts: smoking not worth it. That volition is choice. That choice has consequences. 

The reverse choice, deciding to start smoking, is also an example or Karma and intentions.

If one chooses to enter the Buddhist path, the path leads to dispassion because the path points out that all clinging leads to suffering. So our enjoyment of gummy bears is not the essential thing. As we learn and decide that gummy bears or smoking has drawbacks, we can let go or loosen that "taste's" hold.

It's funny and instructive to hear that some of the great Thai Forest masters were addicted to smoking or to chewing betel nut. But, at some level, the action isn't the issue. The issue is the phrase "I do what I want." And the Thai masters, to the extent that they developed the path, we're not bound or fooled by that notion.

For me, even pre-buddhism, I was heavy on reflection and re-evaluation. If something I did didn't make much sense, I would change it. Like, right now, I am struggling with laziness fueled by rewatching old TV shows and playing dopamine-spiking blitz chess. I can see it doesn't serve me well, and I can change it.

But for KK, the phrase "I just like what I like" is the answer to internal conflict: I do things in X way. But I know X way doesn't work.  (I'm not sure I'm being fair... They may just be pointing to the allure side of X and that they are drawn to it. Down the line, they may be seeing the drawbacks and working towards a shift. So this may not apply to KK or all who say "I like what I like".) There are those (including my past selves) that used that justification to blind themselves to the drawback. And, accordingly, they just say stuck.

Being stuck is mostly awful. It is also comfortable, because it is familiar. But being stuck is a dead end. The worst dead end. A comfortable dead end. Like the Sirens luring in Odysseus to his demise. 

 For those who feel their tastes define them, they are painting themselves into that corner. By choosing not to see other options.