Prismatic567 wrote:I am not going to waste my time getting into the details with your "intellectual contraption" when you are not equipped with the foundations.iambiguous wrote:Try again to actually respond to the points that I raised in the post above.
Then we can [perhaps] resume our exchange. You know, substantively.
Again and again and again: take what you construe to be the "foundations" of Heidegger's Dasein out into the world of conflicting goods [precipitating conflicting behaviors] and juxtapose it with the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Instead, it's straight back up into the clouds of abstraction:
Prismatic567 wrote: Here is one rival 'good' from Being and Time;Heidegger in BT wrote:Da-sein is a being which I myself am, its being is in each case mine. p114
It could be the case that the who of everyday Da-sein is precisely not I myself. p115
In BT as above there are two perspectives to what is Dasein.
Thus your clinging to one perspective of eternal torture of being-in-a-HOLE is definitely inauthentic [you need to understand this term precisely].
As I had mentioned you need to understand [not necessary agree] fully re 'What is Dasein?' and what is authentic/inauthentic in relation to this particular hole-issue of yours.
What "on earth" does this means with respect to an experience that you have had in which a value judgment of your own was challenged by another?
All I can do here is make an attempt to grasp how and why you are not down in that hole.
In other words, for all practical purposes.
And then when I try to bring Buddha down to earth here...
How would Buddha -- "the one who is awake" -- have reacted to a context in his days in which different people embraced conflicting value judgments that precipitated conflicting behaviors.
What does being "awake" mean when confronted with any one of hundreds of moral and political conflagrations that have cleaved the human species over the centuries? Bring the knowledge/information/ideas provided here -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_ethics -- to bear regarding a particular set of conflicting goods.
In other words, out in the world where behaviors are actually judged by others...where very really consequences can be meted out to those who behave in the "wrong" way.
....I get this:
Prismatic567 wrote: You quote the above re Buddhist Ethics without understanding the full picture which I am sure you will NEVER ever bother to read and understand.
If you understand the full perspectives [the details of the 4NTs and 8FPs - I have posted very often previously] of what you quoted above you would be able to get an effective head start to your dilemma.
Note to others:
What crucial point about the Buddha here do I keep missing?
From my frame of mind, Prismatic's take on Heidegger and Buddha and 4NTs and 8FPs, is analogous to Phyllo's take on Communism. If I truly understood them the way that he does then I would share his assessment/argument about them.
And then -- presto! -- I would be up out of the hole.