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.
Not unlike you, right?
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.
His sense of self. He puts ‘I’ often in citation marks. He talks about experiencing himself as fractured and fragmented.
Ah, but only in regard to moral and political values in the is/ought world. Whereas in my interactions with others in the either/or world, I don’t feel fractured and fragmented at all.
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…
Iambiguous: Only I have come to conclude that human interactions are essentially meaningless. And I have deconstructed human identity into the fractured and fragmented “I” that I have come to embody myself.
Note the generalization over human interactions in total. Note the refernce to identity (not just for example moral conclusions or something else)
and…
Iambiguous: Instead, the assumption that life is essentially meaningless has become an important factor for me in that it has precipitated a “fractured and fragmented” sense of identity. At least in regard to my understanding of human social, political and economic interactions.
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 is the question that has always fascinated me the most. Once I become cognizant of how profoundly problematic my “self” is, what can “I” do about it? And what are the philosophical implications of acknolwedging that identity is, by and large, an existential contraption that is always subject to change without notice? What can we “anchor” our identity to so as to make this prefabricated…fabricated…refabricated world seem less vertiginous? And, thus, more certain.
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
It all basically revolves around this:
1] In the “here and now” I – “I” – am entangled in a dilemma that pulls and tugs me in conflicting directions. There does not appear to be a way [for me] to choose behaviors as anything other than existential leaps to one or another political prejudice. In other words, I don’t have access to this:
- there is a “real me” that transcends contingency, chance and change
- this “real me” is in sync with one or another understanding of “virtue”, “truth”, “justice”
- “virtue”, “truth”, “justice” as embedded in one or another rendition of God, deontology, political ideology, nature
But: How to convey this grimly fragmented “frame of mind” to those convinced that they do have access to it? Especially given the further conjecture that the access they embrace is more reflective of a psychological defense mechanism [comfort and consolation…a foundation] than a quest for truth and wisdom.
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.
Now I am hopelessly drawn and quartered, hopelessly fractured and fragmented, hopelessly tugged in conflicting directions.
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.