Peachy. But notice that in no way did you respond to the specific points I made about how you do this and in what context. As pointed out earlier in the thread, you are posting to non-Buddhists or people who take certain pieces of Buddhism at best - when there are in fact Buddhist forums, with experts. Second you are asking people how you or they would react IF they had a complete knowledge of Buddhism (and then also Western philosophy). Even that is silly in an expert forum for Buddhism and is extremely silly here, because how could anyone claim, here to know what it would be like and what one would think and say when one had a knowledge one does not currently have. Third, you just took a randomly chosen Buddhist article that did not deal with morality and only dealt with the afterlife in an example of how Buddhist logic differs from traditional Western logic. IOW it never goes on to look into what this might mean for someone who wants to nail down what they might experience in the afterlife, if anything, because that is not the topic of the article. This is trolling, if a complicated form of it.
You respond to my post as if I was criticizing what you want. My post was focused on the problems related to how you go about trying to get what you want.
YOu chose a not relevent article from a subject you know little about. You do not respond to the points made in the article, but rather cite from the article portions that you then follow with a repetition of you questions and ideas. You challenge people to assert what they would say if they had knowledge they do not have.
This is silly stuff and, as usual, you cannot admit any of it was silly, or at best, not clearly written.
IOW, as has been pointed out before, you assume that others are not fragmented and fractured because of contraptions So first you ask for their beliefs, then demand an argument that demonstrates that every rational person should follow their path, then if they can’t tell them they are using an intellectual contraption to stay whole. That they are comforting themselves with irrationality. And you do this, oddly, when they very practices they engage in have been show scientifically to reduce states that are unpleasant.
MOST important however: You never demonstrate that your fragmentation is actually caused by your beliefs or lack of them. This is assumed. And others must assume that their lack of fragmentation is caused by their belief system.
It’s not, for example, your sense that you must be able to resolve conflicting goods and fine an argument that all rational people would follow that causes your suffering. It’s not health issues and isolation. It’s not your particular dasein that was too rough on your psyche. It’s not PSTD or some other psychoemotional issue. It’s got nothing to do with your parenting of losses in your love life. We just must assume along with you that your fragmentation is rational, the outcome of bare rational thought, so anyone not fragmented bears the onus for proving that they are not using some intellectual contraption to irrationally soothe themelves. Your problem, oddly, has little to do with dasein. It is the ground experience everyone is hiding from. And you somehow know this (though you are willing to admit you might be wrong, but this possibility never leads to any actual exploration of the possibility that your fragmentation might have something to do with completely other things)
While you never need to demonstrate to all rational people that being fragmented and fractured is the natural state of anyone without irrational beliefs. You know why you feel the way you do and experience your self or ‘self’ the way you do. So, we don’t even have to look at that - which of course Buddhism would offer one very concrete way of actually looking at that experientially. It is off the table. Iamb’s ideas are off the table. Other people’s ideas bear the burden of proof and they must be able to convince all rational people.
You really think you know what you are doing?
A self-admitted fragmented and fractured person who sees no reason at all to question his modus operadi despite the fact that he is fragmented and fractured.
Now you can say ‘he is focusing on me’, well, sure, in part. Here I am primarily focusing on what you are doing, then what you are implying, and all of that sure does make me think certain things about you, but here you are participating in a discussion forum and my critique of that participation is central to this and other posts. And imagine, since for you it could only be imaginary, imagine if I am right, then my posts are not simply a critique, they would actually have something to offer you in relation to your needs, which is supposedly central to your purpose here.