Nope, it still sounds like a personal problem to me.
Unless, of course, he’s right. 
And just to be clear. I think Iamb is toxic to have a ‘dialogue’ with Iamb - I put that in quotes because I don’t think that is possible. But it can be interesting and perhaps useful to react to what he is doing and to some of his implicit positions.
Note to others:
Let’s bring this down to earth.
As I have been abundantly clear in regard to religious narratives, my own interest revolves around connecting the dots between the behaviors that someone chooses on this side of the grave, what one imagines their fate to be on the other side of the grave, and how that is intertwined existentially – “here and now” – in the beliefs they embrace in regard to God or spirituality or enlightenment.
But: that the discussion pertain to a set of circumstances most here will be familiar with. A context in which behaviors are chosen by those who call themselves Buddhists or Christians or Muslims or Jews or Hindus or Shintos or Sikhs or Taoists etc…
How do they as individuals connect these dots? You all know how I connect them.
I propose that we engage in discussions [here or on a new thread] such that KT will be able to describe in more detail the relevancy of his accusations against me above. In particular the manner in which I am “toxic”.
On the other hand, I have already come to my own conclusion regarding the, at times, toxic reactions of many to me. In particular the objectivists.
To wit:
1] I argue that while philosophers may go in search of wisdom, this wisdom is always truncated by the gap between what philosophers think they know [about anything] and all that there is to be known in order to grasp the human condition in the context of existence itself. That bothers some. When it really begins to sink in that this quest is ultimately futile, some abandon philosophy altogether. Instead, they stick to the part where they concentrate fully on living their lives “for all practical purposes” from day to day.
2] I suggest in turn it appears reasonable that, in a world sans God, the human brain is but more matter wholly in sync [as a part of nature] with the laws of matter.
And, thus, anything we think, feel, say or do is always only that which we were ever able to think, feel, say and do. And that includes philosophers. Some will inevitably find that disturbing. If they can’t know for certain that they possess autonomy, they can’t know for certain that their philosophical excursions are in fact of their own volition.
3] And then the part where, assuming some measure of autonomy, I suggest that “I” in the is/ought world [as the embodiment of dasein] is basically an existential contraption interacting with other existential contraptions in a world teeming with conflicting goods — and in contexts in which wealth and power prevails in the political arena. The part where “I” becomes fractured and fragmented.
You’re quoting people who are not here to connect the dots.
You seem mainly interested in expressing your own reactions.
Nope, definitely nothing new here.
You know, in my opinion.
I guess that you are content with what you are doing and you will continue doing it.
On this thread, I am content to note that [so far] I don’t get Buddhism differently than others don’t get Buddhism. Why? Well, by and large, given the the manner in which I construe the self here as an existential contraption grappling with value judgments subjectively/subjunctively out in a particular world understood from a particular point of view.
Unless of course someone is able to convince me that there is in fact a necessarily correct way to get it. And then goes on to demonstrate how, in getting it correctly, they are able to encompass in turn how this enables them to embody an enlightened path on this side of the grave in order to attain what they imagine their fate to be on the other side of the grave.
Really, come on, here, what else is there?
We choose words that best describe the life that we live from day to day. Only here they revolve around value judgments that often come into conflict in either a God or a No God world.
Why your words and not mine? All we can do in this regard is the best we know how.
I wrote about the inadequacy of words. As did others. It’'s the most recent theme in this thread.
There is more in life than words. I can’t put it into words for you.
I can attest to that. My experience is that of being pulled into a web from which it is extremely difficult to escape. As long as you know how to escape, a ride with Biggy can be fun.
I forget, how did you escape?
On the contrary, there are any number of contexts in which words are perfectly adequate. For example, out in the either/or world.
One more word then: options. Some of us are living lives in which there are a hell of a lot more options available for going beyond words than other.
On this thread though it still comes down to one’s capactity to demonstrate that the options chosen in regard to enlightenment on this side of the grave as that relates to the fate of “I” on the other side of the grave is able to go beyond words and be linked to something [on or offline] that might persuade others to embrace those words and behaviors too.
Or, rather, so it seems to me.
Look, to the extent that someone’s frame of mind here provides them with a meaningful life, a font from which to differentiate right from wrong behavior and a belief in one or another rendition of the afterlife, they, uh, win?
I have none of that myself.
Gracefully.
I can think of many examples when words are inadequate even in that world.
But anyways, that’s not what we are talking about here.
Ironically, the option of direct experience does not end unless you are comatose. Certainly not when it comes to enlightenment.
I get that maybe you can’t go skiing or scuba diving or something else which would require you to leave your apartment.
And back to the words.
Win, lose, meaningful, meaningless, right, wrong … all words that can potentially drop away. That’s what oneness refers to - the state without words.
If you do say so yourself?
See, this is just crap. He is telling everyone what ‘it’ comes down to. Rather than taking responsibility for what he wants to focus on. it may come down to what he says for him, but he uses this kind of neo-passive voice formulation as if there is some universal same for everyone process and need.
All one has to do is just not respond, drop out. To NOT feel compelled by contraptions (lol) such as…
one should always respond to assertions and arguments
just around the next corner any reasonable mind must at least notice X
one can’t just allow ludicrous statements to stand
etc.
iow a bunch of ideas about what one should do and what it means if one does not do something in response to repetitive, but only seemingly rational responses that in general do not response to points made.
He’s not actually rational, there is no obligation to respond or even take him seriously - as in take his responses as serious responses to one’s own posts. He is a singular example of a few serious and problematic patterns out there in the world.
But his ‘responses’ are not responses.
Okay, you get up in the morning and you start to do things. Cite some examples of the things that you do in the either/or world – get dressed, brush your teeth, eat breakfast, drive to work etc. – in which the words describing your behaviors would be inadeqate to the rest of us?
Or, if they were inadequate given that you do something that another is unfamiliar with, couldn’t they be made adequate once the other understood what you were doing?
Again, the gap between agreeing about what it means to eat bacon for breakfast, and agreeing about whether that is a moral or immoral behavior from the perspective of, say, pig farmers or PETA.
On the contrary, with respect to understanding Buddhism, and accepting the meaning that they give to particular words placed in a particular order, that’s always what I am talking about: words expressing things and relationships that all rational men and women are obligated to share, and words rooted in existential contraptions rooted in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein.
Right, like it’s either being comatose or dead, or everyone has access to the options needed to be among the Enlightened. To become “one of us”. Like all of my arguments above just vanish into thin air. In the particular the one where there are hundreds “spiritual paths” out and one by one you are obligated to try them all. Or, rather, I am, not you. Why? Because you already embody the comfort and consolation you need to do the right thing here and now to gain your just reward there and then.
Huh? Each individual lives in a particular world understood in a particular way. They either embody the peace of mind that comes from seeing themselves as enlightened or chosen and on the path to immortality and salvation or they don’t. If they do, they are either willing and able to demonstrate why and how others should choose their own path in turn, or they aren’t.
They either back their words up or they don’t. But since merely believing their words mean what they think they do in their head is enough why push their luck, right?
After all, in discussions with people like me, they risk losing their peace of mind once they begin to understand how beliefs of this sort may well be but existential contraptions rooted in dasein.
So you have decided that it’s possible to adequately explain eating bacon for breakfast but it’s impossible to adequately explain the morality of eating bacon for breakfast.
You just maintain that arbitrary division.
But anyways, that’s not what we are talking about here.
So when I try to keep clear of the either/or world, you feel a need to contradict. 
I’m saying that you have the option to go for enlightenment and you insist that you don’t.
I’m saying that you are not obligated to try every spiritual path and you insist that you are.
I never claimed that I am enlightened. Or that I am getting any reward.
I have no idea why you are saying these things. 
The proof is in the pudding, not in words that describe the pudding.
You have to eat the pudding.
You are a Buddhist. And, insofar as you have come to understand what it means to be a Buddhist, this impacts on the behaviors that you choose on this side of the grave. And in turn this impacts on what you imagine your fate to be on the other side of the grave.
For some, religion in a nutshell.
You bump into people who choose behaviors in conflict with the ones that you do. For any number of personal reasons rooted existentially in the life that they have lived.
What is to be done? And isn’t that often what it does come down to? Now, sure, you can live in a cloistered community in which everyone is in sync with a particular assessment of enlightened behavior. And maybe you will be fortunate enough to go to the grave and never be challenged by those in other communities.
After all, there are in fact existing communities in existing nations where Buddhism is the predominant religious narrative. And I don’t doubt that there my own arguments will have little impact.
But: My own interests revolve more around communities in the modern world in which there are many conflicting moral and religious narratives precipitating many conflicting political agendas regarding behaviors either to be prescribed or proscribed. And of those who come into venues like this one and are prepared to defend certain behaviors as either rational or irrational, ethical or unethical. Using the tools available to philosophers.
What else is there in these contexts but to probe the extent to which what you believe in your head is able to be demonstrated to others as that which they are obligated to believe in turn. Whether in regard to the “self” to “karma” to “enlightenment” to “reincarnation” to “Nirvana”. After all, in regard to religion there is no getting around how big the stakes are here.
Again, let’s focus in on a situation in which Buddhists and those who believe in conflicting religious or secular assessments of good and bad behavior, describe in more detail what they mean by using “this kind of neo-passive voice formulation” to defend their own moral narratives.
Let him choose the context.
Ludicrously binary. And why does one frame an issue like this as utterly binary. 0 or 1. What benefits does one get from framing an non-binary issue as utterly binary? I can think of a few, but there’s one obvious one.
You talk about the is world and that parts of it can be hard to describe in words.
How does he describe that category?
as things like…
activities, at a general level, that one could put in a children’s book. Not anything from intra- and interpersonal realms, for example. IOW he stacked the deck as if what you had said was silly. Then came up with extremely limited, abstracted physical behaviors. Though of course even these can be hard to communicate across cultures and personalities, especially if there is emotion involved. He treated the is world as a world of robots with no subjective experience. As if all the is world that we experience would be exactly the same if carried out by robots.
And all this effort to demand a perfect demonstration so he never has to try anything. IOW he wants to drag us into his unbelievably convoluted and universalized justification for giving up.
If not worse, perhaps he wants to convince people they should also give up.
I mean seriously, can’t you see the teenager lying in bed saying there is no point in going to school - because of peak oil or the widening wage gap or global warming - and suddenly showing some cleverness with abstract concepts, all with the goal of not doing anything?