A great way to not even take a stand yourself or to respond to any points made.
IOW we should know that you won’t really respond to what we or anyone writes. Sure, I do at least. I pretty much post to save them time.
This ladies and gentlemen is what proud cluelessness looks like.
It’s par for the course for someone who has never admitted he regretted saying anything here or admitted that his approach in any particular instance was rude or a poor way to go about achieving his claimed goals. In fact your inability to recognize yourself- which is a pretty good summing of the situation up- in what anyone ever says about you fits with never being willing to notice you every did anything problematic. No surprises.
Note to others: a man who is fractured and fragmented, who does not have a clear sense of an i, has never once, here, acknowledged a single contradiction in his posts or that he did in fact misrepresent another person’s point. It’s amazing how cocksure this broken shatter self is about himself.
Isn’t it all we have? Or are you aware of someone who has been able to demonstrate that in fact immortality and salvation are real things and not just something some believe are real in their heads?
Again, I often note the gap between what I believe is true or think I know about these things here and now and all that can be known about them.
My certainty here is more your rendition of it than mine.
Please. My focus here is always less on what others think and more on their capacity to demonstrate to me that all rational men and women are obligated to think the same. And I would never argue that others are obligated to think about these things as I do.
This is called shifting the onus. You have made the claim that it is only in their heads, period. But now he suddenly, when he points out your claim, must demonstrate the opposite,w hen in fact you bear the onus for you own claims.
[/quote]
What he quoted would be taken as certainty by anyone. No qualitification, it address when ‘we all’ share in common. If you didn’t mean it, then take responsibility for your poor communication. Don’t blame him for reading statements of certainty and noticing it.
It is also well known that constant rumination is one of the main symptoms of depression. What we need is to gain freedom from the mental chain reactions that rumination endlessly perpetuates. One should learn to let thoughts arise and be freed to go as soon as they arise, instead of letting them invade one’s mind. In the freshness of the present moment, the past is gone, the future is not yet born, and if one remains in pure mindfulness and freedom, potentially disturbing thoughts arise and go without leaving a trace.
My experience confirms this. Mindful meditation can free one from depressing obsession. I think iambiguous is stuck in such an obsessive pattern. It wouldn’t surprise me if many here on ILP suffer from unhappy obsessive thinking and could benefit from the practice of mindfulness.
I have a different approach which is more expressive, getting underneath the ruminations to the emotions that are being avoided by the ruminations and/or driving them. If I express these emotions - in sound as much as possible with few or no words except for the occasional outburst (sometimes a realization of something with a lot of emotional charge) - this also ends the rumination. More to my taste as a process, though I also meditate, but even there not quite in the mindfulness way. And I agree that rumination can be a real problem. I noticed that part of the interview also and thought it applied as you mention below. It can certainly be part of feeling fractured and fragmented.
If someone is not satisfied that Gautama Buddha aka Siddhattha Gotama aka Siddhārtha Gautama did really exist, then he did not exist?
If someone is not satisfied that Buddhists believe in reincarnation and Nirvana, then Buddhists do not believe in these things?
Or: if someone is not satisfied that Buddhists have demonstrated the actual existence of reincarnation and Nirvana…?
That is the distinction that I make. In the either/or world [relating to Buddhism or Christianity or any other religious faith], there are any number of facts that can be established. Established such that those not satisfied with them don’t make them go away.
Again, choose a context and a set of behaviors in which religious or moral or political values are likely to come into conflict. We can discuss our own moral philosophies and you can note all of these certainties of mine that seem to suggest something to you about the gap between things I either deem certain or uncertain.
So, do you ‘go to mindfullness’ also when you are under stress, or is in primarily a regular practice with sessions, like an hour in the morning. And then you notice this practice seeps into your daily being mindful. Or some other possibility?
But, as always, I am noting the clear distinction between anything that anyone believes to be true in their head and their capacity to demonstrate that all rational people are obligated to believe it in turn.
The difference between believing in your head that Donald Trump is president of the United States and believing in your head that he is doing a fantastic job in leading the nation against the coronavirus outbreak.
What both liberals and conservatives believe in their head about him being the president would seem to be within our capacity to demonstrate objectively. But what of the job he is doing in rallying the country around beating back the virus?
Unless, again, this is some “technical” point you are making relating to epistemology or a “category error”.
From my frame of mind, it can either be “immortality and salvation” or “Trump doing a fantastic job against the coronavirus”. What counts is the extent to which what you believe about them “in your head” is able to be demonstrated by you as that which all rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn. And here it doesn’t make any difference if you are a Buddhist, a Christian, a Scientologists or an atheist.
Note to others:
I’ll be the first to admit the problem here may well be my own inability to understand the point that he is making.
If you believe that to be the case please attempt to reconfigure it into something that might be clearer to me.
Come on, what else is there but our capacity to at least make an attempt to demonstrate that immortality and salvation exist; and that Trump is doing a bang up job in the Oval Office?
Or are you really willing to go about the business of living your life interacting with others such that the only thing that counts is what someone believes about these things [and everything else] in their head?
Again, note to others:
What really, really important point is he making here that I keep missing? Or, perhaps, what really, really important point am I making here that he keeps missing?
