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.
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 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.
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.
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, 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.
Obviously it does not just revolve around that and I pointed out specific portions of those posts that make that clear.
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.
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.
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.
Iamb you are dishonest.
And this is one of the main reasons you generate ire in others.
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]
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.
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:
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.
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.