I don't get Buddhism

Well, that’s your approach to it. My approach is to ponder what some think can be done coming into conflict with what others think can be done. The part embedded in dasein and conflicting goods. Then the part where the objectivists among us move beyond what they think can be done and insist in turn that they know what should be done.

"Then, from time to time, some of them gain access to political power in order to make sure that you share their political agenda too.

History, let’s call it."

Yeah, people who you don’t agree with get power. You gotta live with that. And I don’t mean live with anger.

Well, you have to be realist about what is doable.

Does your pondering achieve anything?

Again, my interest is in exploring with them why and how we come to conflicting assessments regarding particular contexts. To what extent are they convinced that “right makes might” – their own – is the one true order of the day.

And, no, sometimes you don’t have to live with it. Sometimes anger can be used to yank that power away.

But then what? Only to replace it with your own “right makes might” agenda?

That is when I introduce the objectivists among us to dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

As for the “realists” among us, some are more “fractured and fragmented” than others.

As for what is “doable”, some have access to more options than others.

Sure. Since you don’t have some magic power which gives you access to the one true agenda, the optimal agenda, what else could you do than to replace it with your own agenda.

So? Somebody is still going to implement his/her agenda.

I don’t know what you except to happen.

You manage to post on the internet so you are not entirely without options.

Um. You didn’t respond to anything I wrote here. I don’t even know what the phrase ‘access to enlightenment and karma’ would possibly mean. So, responding as if I said anything of the sort is odd.

I haven’t made any claims about having access to those things, don’t know what you mean by ‘access’, am not a Buddhist. Not responding to me.

Bizarre so your fragmented and fractured state in relation to morals has no effect on how you feel in interactions with other people. Morals have to do amongst other things with how one should behave in relation to others and often how one judges their actions. But being utterly fragmented and fractured about morals has no effect on your interactions with others.

But most important: I note that you do not mention you’re putting I in citation marks: ‘I’ - all the time. And all your tying this in to identity, in general!!! Noticed, again, that you avoid stuff, make up stuff, can’t really be bothered to interact with others. Perhaps that’s a sign that you’re fragmentation around morals has no affect on your interactions with others.

We can just ignore statements of yours like…

Note the generalization over human interactions in total. Note the refernce to identity (not just for example moral conclusions or something else)
and…

Note the inclusion of social. Note the conclusion related to life in general.

and what is a whole thread here…
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=173716&p=2186078&hilit=identity+real#p2186078
that first paragraph being also extremely Buddhist.
and your second post is also Buddhist and note that morals are not even peripheral.

You’re not honest. You are not an honest person, here at ILP at least, Iamb. Not that you’ll ever ever admit it even on the smallest little mistakes, let alone hilarious large issue contradictions like these.

and more…

That sentence there about acknowledging that identity is an existential contraption that is always subject to change without notice is extremely Buddhist. And precisely what I was referring to that you deny above.
and

Where, yes, there are moral values mentioned, but the fragmentation is obviously related to the whole spectrum of the self AND BEHAVIOR which in your mind does not come up in interactions with others. Note: ‘truth’!!! was included in what is affected, not just virtue and justice.

About, lol, what morals to believe in, but not how to be with other people, the interactions with whom you consider meaningless, a conclusion that also, somehow magically, does not affect your interactions with other people.

My guess is you will feel tempted to quote yourself from other posts where it seems you only meant the effects had to do with some mental assessment of correct values as if this somehow erases what you have said many times.

My guess is you will also wonder where this interest comes on my part. It is fascinating to watch you deny things even when presented with overwhelming concrete evidence.

But the objectivists don’t need “some magic power”. On the contrary, all they need is to believe…to believe that their own moral and political agenda already reflects the optimal triumph for the human race. Think back to, say, the mid-twentieth century, when the “right makes might” fascists did battle with the “right makes might” communists.

Or today when the “right makes might” conservatives do battle with the “right makes might” liberals. The anything goes factions.

That’s how objectivism works out in the real world when those who claim it gain access to actual power.

What would you command if you had access to it. Here for example.

Of course. If I am unable to persuade them that objectivism is rooted in the manner in which I convey it in the arguments I pose in my signature threads. On the other hand, I may well succeed. But instead of embracing moderation, negotiation and compromise, they choose moral nihilism instead. The sort preferred by the sociopaths, narcissists and the “show me the money” crowd.

Right, like posting on the internet is even close to the equivalent of when I was active 24/7 in all manner of political groups. All at the time deemed to be “one of us”. Protesting, demonstrating, organizing, arguing eyeball to eyeball with dozens of different folks in dozens of different contexts.

That’s just complaining that some people are more certain of themselves than you think that they ought to be.

Apparently uncertain fascists battling uncertain communists is better than certain fascists battling certain communists. #-o

Well, you don’t actually make a case that moderation, negotiation and compromise are the better way to go. So why would anyone do it?

I was thinking in terms of you taking up meditation in order to feel less F&F rather than overthrowing the overlords.

[i]Let’s try this. Note the top 3 things you posted above on this thread that I did not respond to. [/i]

And since [presumably] Buddhists do have some measure of access to what the Buddha meant by enlightenment and karma, how do they apply that to the behaviors they choose so as to embody what they believe the Buddha meant by reincarnation and Nirvana down the road. Which, as I note time and again, reflects my own personal interest in religion.

Not theirs though? Not yours? Then, sure, steer clear of my posts.

Huh?!

In my interactions with others involving conflicting goods, there are things in the either/or world we can all agree on. The facts embedded in abortion, the facts embedded in gun ownership, the facts embedded in vaccination policy. Facts in which neither I nor they feel fractured and fragmented. But in reacting to those facts as that impacts on one’s moral and political convictions, my “I” is fractured and fragmented here in a way that the objectivists sense of self is not. Why? Because they have either been indoctrinated by others or thought themselves into believing they are in sync with a “real me” in tandem with the conviction that “as one of us”, they know the right thing to do.

Then it’s all about focusing in on a particular context and examining each other’s moral philosophy.

I don’t agree. It’s bullshit. Sometimes I go with “I”, other times with I. Then again your accusations. Accusations not centered on an unfolding discussion revolving around a particular set of circumstances whereby in detail you can note when I do all of these things.

Over and over and over and over again, I make a distinction between essential meaning in the either/or world – things that mean the same for all of us – and what appears to me to be a lack of essential meaning given our moral and political reactions to that which we can all agree is in fact true.

Abortion as a medical procedure. A particular abortion in a particular context bursting at the seams with facts that everyone concurs regarding. Essential, objective truths here. At least as I understand the meaning of it.

Then the ethicists and all the rest of us weigh in on the rightness or the wrongness of abortion. The part “I” construe to be rooted far more subjectively in the existential fabrication embodied in dasein. Now, there may well be essential truths here as well. Rooted in God, or, if No God, rooted deontologically in a demonstrable philosophical argument.

And, if so, produce this God. Produce this secular argument.

As for this…

…a little help from others here please. What exactly is he arguing here about me? Reconfigure his point so that I might actually grasp these contradictions of mine more perspicuously. Same with my dishonesty.

There is an enormous gap between my argument here and Buddhism. Again, “the existential interpretation” revolves around “I” in the is/ought word, and not in the either/or world. How in fact did the Buddha himself make this distinction?

And my fractured and fragmented “I” here does not conclude that through enlightenment and karma I will continue on in being reincarnated after death with the potential for achieving Nirvana.

Whatever that actually means and however that might actually be demonstrated.

Again, all of this revolves around “I” in the is/ought world. I would never conclude this regarding the biological, demographic, experiential [u][b]I[/u][/b] embedded in the laws of nature, embedded in the actual unfolding empirical world around me.

Here, instead, my uncertainty revolves more around the extent to which determinism might be the case. Rendering the distinction between “I” and [u][b]I[/u][/b] entirely moot.

So then you’re undecided about determinism? Lol

Aren’t you, Curly? :sunglasses:

On the other hand, seriously, aren’t you?

No. I love a good paradox.

Yes, the really big questions. The ones that religious denominations explore – answer? – on the one true path.

Their own, for example.

Is Karma a Law of Nature?
It seems Matthew Gindin is destined to ask, and answer, this question.

To me this is somewhat analogous to compatibilists reconciling the laws of matter with free will. Which is to say, I simply cannot wrap my head around it as it pertains to actual human interactions.

What part of the behaviors that I choose are the embodiment of karma. And how specifically does this karma intertwine with the laws of nature, biological imperatives, human psychology and the truths taught by Buddha?

In other words, to the extent that a believer does not, will not or cannot take me through a sequence embedded in an experience of their own and note in more detail how, for all practical purposes, these five factors unfold together [and separately] resulting in this choice rather than another, I can only assume instead that what really counts here is what/how they have come to think about this “intellectually”/“spiritually” as a general description of karma “in their head”.

The parts they can’t explain [philosophically or otherwise] then get subsumed in what many Western religious denominations embed in their own God’s “mysterious ways”.

Thus, whatever in the universe is “behind” karma – “which operates without recourse to a deity or any other metaphysical grounding” – does its thing and we just have to accept that.

Or, sure, am I way off base here?

The quote in that post that lists three primary foci of Buddhism that even a housecat could see directly connects to your issues. You didn’t respond to two of those. Then the point that your approach, distinct from Abrahamic and in general scientists ways of determining, or trying to, how to act in the world, has to do with intra-psychic approaches. IOW you are more alligned with Buddhists than with most objectivists and also those you might align with epistemologically (such as scientists and those who accept scientific epistemology). All that you ignored.

You brought up Karma and Reincarnation. Then act as if my pointing out that you did not respond to what I posted was not accurate. I mena, you couldn’t even bother to look at the post when it is pointed out that you didn’t respond to it. Further you brought up reincarnation and Karma AS IF these were relevent to my post. It was mentioned as irrelevent in my posts as far as the many striking similarities between Buddhism and your own conclusions.

This would be a relevant point IF I said that all Buddhist ideas were shared by you. I did not.

If you had actually checked the link you would see nothing there about morals, just blanket statements about a mind that constucts potentially fallible ideas. One piece…(though, of course, it pisses me off that your continuous denial, inability to interact with ideas and laziness mean I have to repeat myself. This hallucination that others will come in an explain is religious in nature)

Further, it has repeatedly been said to you that your focus is on concepts that are very hard for even long practicing buddhists to understand. Let alone someone who has no interest or experience in Buddhism.

You are dishonest.

The post I wrote was directed to others, pointing out something obvious to others with some knowledge of both you and Buddhism. You could have honestly ignored it and said nothing. Instead you dishonestly post as if you are responding to it, when you were clearly not. When I point this out, you act like this cannot be shown, which is so dumb it boggles the mind.

I pointed out in a good half dozen quotes precisely what I was pointing out to others: the tremendous affinity between many things you say (and repeat) and Buddhism.

[/quote]
Obviously it does not just revolve around that and I pointed out specific portions of those posts that make that clear.

Notice what Iambguous does. Instead of actually responding to the places where I point this out - iow dealing with the justification for my conclusion, he simply makes a blanket claim.

It is easy to make a blanket claim. It is harder when one has to actually respond to specific points. So, he avoids the latter.

He is dishonest.

Iamb you are dishonest.

And this is one of the main reasons you generate ire in others. The story you come up with for the ‘real reasons’ is simply convenient.

Seriously: how does it feel to have to lie about yourself over and over. And look, I know you are capable of posting a denial that you do this. Or playing to the gallery.

But if you respect yourself at all, even if you play those bs games, how does it feel that after all these years of struggle, you can’t even be honest with yourself and have to lie over and over about what you do in relation to others?

You can play dumb and pretend I am one of three stooges, but you know better.

Lie again here to me publically. Easy as pie. But ask yourself, what the fuck do you gain from that lie? And what might you lose?

And notice the narcissism in a thread that is not yours, that if we are not focusing on what you want to focus on, this is somehow a failure to address something. I have responded to you in a myriad of ways, including being right on point with what you want to criticizing to your behavior and assumptions and more. what I did here was to point out an irony to others. I don’t have to satisfy your need for a solution to conflicting goods and fragmentation - though I have come at that issue elsewhere in a variety of tones and approaches. I think the truly fascinating thing is how much I avoid the conclusion that you might just be a moron. I would never have pictured a moron stringing together some of you posts, but maybe this is why you repeat yourself so often. You had an idea and you just keep repeating it. A one trick pony. Like someone using the same response in a dialogue, regardless, and you literally cannot conceive of anything else.

Eliade said that man was created in order to serve the gods, who, first of all, needed to be fed and clothed. We want to make reality match our fantasies–to please the gods, so to speak. Shall we blame them if they each claim to show the one true path? They are gods after all. Perhaps there is but one path with many “denominations”. Who are you, fractured and fragmented, to say? There is wisdom in humility, many religions, common sense, and experience unite in teaching us.

These “three foci” of Buddhism. What are they again? But only as they relate to that which is of interest to me on this thread: connecting the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then.

You note things like this. And I don’t doubt that “in your head” the claims are all perfectly legitimate. But, again, what on earth do they have to do with Buddhists connecting the dots between enlightenment and karma on this side of the grave, and reincarnation and Nirvana on the other side?

In no substantive sense do I see my own rendition of “I” here aligned with Buddhism…or with any religious denomination. We seem clearly intent on exploring these relationships differently.

Note to others: Weigh in here please.

I bring them up only in order to explore the choices that Buddhists make themselves in connecting them to their behaviors from day to day insofar as it impacts on the fate of “I” then. Anything else is of considerably less importance to me.

Again, what interest me about Buddhism is in how it deconstructs “I” – the “self” – given how clearly demonstrable one’s identity often is in the either/or world. Sure, it changes over time. But these changes can be measured reasonably given an understanding of human biology, demographics, and the extent to which the empirical world is in sync with the laws of nature, mathematics, and the logical rules of language.

Here the Buddhist “self” is just like the rest of us.

Instead, it is only when we explore identity given conflicting moral and political value judgments, that, in my view, “I” becomes an ever more shifting/evolving existential fabrication – given new experiences, relationships and access to ideas in a world inundated with contingencies, chance and change.

All I can note here is that I am not able to grasp what it is exactly that you are accusing me of here. Which is why our only recourse is keep the focus on particular sets of circumstances involving the components of Buddhism. Here you can point to specific examples of the claims you make about me.

That’s your assessment. My assessment of the irritation I spark revolves more around this:

[b]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 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.[/b]

On the contrary, I don’t doubt that the iambiguous you have conjured up in your head here is guilty of all these things. But then you keep insisting that your own assessment here is by default the starting point for any and all discussions of him. And to the extent I don’t agree I am merely continuing to be dishonest.

Your whole argument about me has devolved into this sort of thing:

I don’t recognize myself here at all. And, again, it speaks considerably more about you than it does me.

Now, I have my own speculations regarding why I seem to generate this sort of reaction from you. A reaction that in the past has almost always come from the objectivists. So, sure, maybe it will come to the surface down the road. Or maybe not.

Yes, there are many experts or experienced practitioners who do not consider there to be one true path. This assumption makes it easier to dismiss people if one assumes that a path is valid is one must prove that everyone should follow it and need have no experience of it to know this.

It’s a recipe for not doing anything to present the issue this way.

A good rule of thumb is that if you want to dismiss something rationally, find the proponents of it who are the hardest to dismiss, not the easiest.

Unless your goal is to dismiss rather than to potentially learn something.

Contingency, Impermanence, and one could even say dasein interlock in Buddhism…

I was actually referring to the gods themselves not their practitioners. Look at the Greek gods for example. They’re very selfish and demand sacrifice. Or Yahweh. He called himself a jealous god, and he certainly acted like it in the Hebrew Bible. Now I have encountered a very different spirit in Buddhism and with the liberal Jesus. We could talk about the historic Buddha versus the mythic Buddha, much as scholars talk about Jesus. But I refuse to discuss Buddhism as if I am an objective authority. Let someone who claims to be a Buddhist do that. For better or worse, my philosophy of life is religiously eclectic and subjective.

He also said, “…and I realize how useless wails are and how gratuitous melancholy is.”

All the more reason to invent religion. God – or the Buddhist equivalent? – hears your wails. And your melancholy will be weighed as well.

Here, however, with potent thinkers of this sort, I prefer Fernando “the book of disquiet” Pessoa and Emil “the trouble with being born” Cioran.

And, no, I certainly don’t blame the multitude of religious denominations for claiming the “one true path”.

On the contrary, over and over and over and over again, I come back to this:

LOOK WHAT IS AT STAKE!!!

Nothing seems more important to me than morality on this side of the grave and immortality on the other side. How the two are intertwined in the minds of the faithful.

But: that is no less my own existential contraption rooted in dasein.

And if there be “one true path” with many denominations what happens when they are up and down the moral and political spectrum when embracing enlightened behavior and sin?

Nope, it’s not for nothing I suspect that these denominations tend to claim the “one true path” as their own.

But, sure, if you and others are 1] able to convince yourself it is the other way around and 2] this brings you comfort and consolation then, well, it worked!