I don't get Buddhism

[phyllo]

Why on earth would I talk about myself here? Why would I talk about my behaviors?

What would be the point?

[iambiguous]

If so, he's lying because he has described how fear of oblivion for himself and people he cares about is chewing him up.

Yo, chill, dog. He be messing wit our minds, feel me? Prometheus, he like Flava Fav to Iamb's Chuck D, Tony Yayo to 50 cent. He just splainin' Iambs banging shit, like, transcends our craniums. Lying? nah, it be freedom, word, yo.

We got's to suss Iamb's fly posts full time, bro, or we be just dissing his bluh.

Iambiguous, man, he's, like, the shit. We been bumrushing a Boddhisatva. His posts be pointing at the moon, not describing it.

Gots to grow up, you and me.

Above all else, it is that I am able to reduce otherwise intelligent and articulate posters like KT down to truly hapless attempts like this at being "clever"!

That still boggles my mind. Though, admittedly, less and less.

[iambiguous]

:-k
Why on earth would I talk about myself here? Why would I talk about my behaviors?

What would be the point?

Huh?

No, seriously: HUH?!

As a mere mortal, you interact with others who may well come into conflict with you over value judgments. For many, these conflicts go beyond the existential and encompass one or another equivalent of Heaven and Hell.

For me that revolves around moral nihilism here and now, oblivion there and then.

What about you? In a philosophy forum, you have no earthly reasons to discuss how these relationships impact on your day to day existence?

If not, we are put together differently.

[phyllo]

If I go to a history forum, then I talk about history.

If I go to a science forum, then I talk about science.

I don't talk about myself.

[iambiguous]

If I go to a history forum, then I talk about history.

If I go to a science forum, then I talk about science.

I don't talk about myself.

If I go to a religion forum, I want to discuss the relationship between the behaviors that religionists choose here and now as this is related to what they anticipate will result from this there and then on the other side.

And, in that regard, as someone not able to believe in God or Enlightenment, I am not able to not think as a moral nihilist who is just around the corner from oblivion.

Not to talk about how these relationships are crucial to an understanding of the life I live is [to me] ridiculous.

If, on the other hand, thinking like I do seems ridiculous to you, then steer clear of me on threads such as this. Just accept that we think about these things differently.

[phyllo]

That's very general.

What on earth does it mean?

We need a context. For example:

A Christian volunteers at a soup kitchen every year at Thanksgiving. He is inspired by what Jesus said about helping the poor.(Cite NT passages if necessary.) He "earns points" towards entering heaven.

I suppose that another Christian may be inspired to volunteer as well, when he reads the story.

What does an atheist get out of the Christian's story? He might, or might not, volunteer at a soup kitchen but for reasons other than Jesus and heaven.

Where is the philosophy?

What am I missing?

[Karpel Tunnel]

Well, I see nothing has changed around here: 30 pages of the same group of guys perpetually peddling perceptions like some sort of philosopher purgatory

Nice perception!

I must say that it is good to see everyone is still around.

Nice to see you, again.

[iambiguous]

That's very general.

What on earth does it mean?

Well, when I am exchanging insulting retorts with objectivists of your ilk, what's the point of specificity?

We need a context. For example:

A Christian volunteers at a soup kitchen every year at Thanksgiving. He is inspired by what Jesus said about helping the poor.(Cite NT passages if necessary.) He "earns points" towards entering heaven.

I suppose that another Christian may be inspired to volunteer as well, when he reads the story.

My point revolves around how, given a particular trajectory of personal experiences, the volunteers and the folks being fed came to be in this soup kitchen in the first place. "I" here as an existential fabrication rooted in dasein.

And then the extent to which the Christian volunteer is able to demonstrate that his role model actually did in fact exist; and was both God and the Son of God; then died for our sins; then was resurrected.

And how, say, even though Jesus was a Jew, any number of Christians today reject the Jewish faith. As do Muslims who rally around Muhammad instead. Even though they all claim to worship and adore the God of Moses and Abraham.

And that's before we get to the reaction of all this from the Buddhists here.

And what of the Marxists who claim that soup kitchens are an inherent manifestation of capitalism? That those in them should choose instead to struggle politically against a ruling class that creates such disparity between the wealthy and the poor? And that Christianity is just one more example of religion being the opiate of the masses? And how politicians like Trump use evangelicals as chumps in order to sustain their own class interests.

What does an atheist get out of the Christian's story? He might, or might not, volunteer at a soup kitchen but for reasons other than Jesus and heaven.

Again: what particular atheist, in what particular set of circumstances, viewing the world around her from what particular set of assumptions? Philosophical or otherwise.

Sure, she might be in the soup kitchen for her own reasons. But what are those reasons? How did she come to embody them?

Indeed, how is the "I" of any of these characters here not a profoundly problematic manifestation of the manner in which "I" construe the meaning of dasein?

[phyllo]

That doesn't sound like philosophy. It's more like an interest in personal history - biography or autobiography.

[iambiguous]

That doesn't sound like philosophy. It's more like an interest in personal history - biography or autobiography.

Like I said:

Not to talk about how these relationships are crucial to an understanding of the life I live is [to me] ridiculous.

If, on the other hand, thinking like I do seems ridiculous to you, then steer clear of me on threads such as this. Just accept that we think about these things differently.

Let's leave it at that, shall we?

You know, after you discuss it with Karpel Tunnel.

Pick one:

[phyllo]

It could explain why the discussions don't go anywhere. One person is interested in personal histories and the other person is interested in something else.

The overlap could be small.

Then there comes the time when we start talking about the person. And suddenly that's off limits for some reason.

It's quite confusing.

[iambiguous]

It could explain why the discussions don't go anywhere. One person is interested in personal histories and the other person is interested in something else.

The overlap could be small.

Then there comes the time when we start talking about the person. And suddenly that's off limits for some reason.

It's quite confusing.

Okay, let's leave it at that then.

Yo, KT, does that work for you too?

[Karpel Tunnel]

Above all else, it is that I am able to reduce otherwise intelligent and articulate posters like KT down to truly hapless attempts like this at being "clever"!

If my attempt at humor was a hapless attempt at being funny or clever, (both certainly possible failures on my part)...

it wasn't you who did this, it was prometheus who did it - if such control is possible - with his street talk, calling people whose posts he must have skimmed at best...niggas, etc. lol. His post led to my response, not yours.

His style of posting.
And then...his explanation of what you are doing here, not your explanation of what you are doing here.
I was obviously mocking his style of posting and his claims about you - which, again, it bears repeating, do not match what you say you are doing, so my humor in my post doesn't relate to your posts or claims, but his.

Yet here you are taking credit for controlling the behavior of other people, again.

With a dash of mind reading powers as well.

I couldn't just be someone who sometimes thinks he's being funny or clever when he's not.

No, Iambiguous 'reduced me'.

Talk about comforting contraptions.

And you still haven't driven me away as you claimed you had already managed to do, now quite a while ago. Being a psychic doesn't become you. You might want to make claims consistent with your philosophy.

To put this in a Buddhist context, here is a Zen story about hubris...

Once upon a time, there used to live an unhappy man, who set out on a quest to find the true meaning of life. He went through mountains and valleys, talked to all the sages known to the world for their great wisdom. Yet it was all in vain for he deemed their knowledge unworthy compared to what he assumed he already knew. After years of tiresome journey, he finally went to an old Zen monk, who lived in a monastery in the forest. Upon hearing the desire of this miserable person, the monk offered him tea. The man held the cup while the monk poured tea into the cup. He kept on pouring into the cup even after it was full and overflowing. The man screamed, ‘stop!’ thinking that the monk was crazy and regretting coming to the monastery in the first place. The monk smiled and told him, ‘You must first empty your cup! You will not learn anything new, while you fill and take pride with what you think you already know.’

Have my posts made you believe in immortal life or the resolution of conflicting goods? No. Of course, they have not attempted that.

But will you manage to learn about some more humble, smaller things, about yourself and life...? or from others?

About how you view yourself and your project, about what you are doing or claim to be doing?

And notice that the guy in the story, at least, he tried to find actual practitioners of religions, actual experts, where they might be. I know, you are limited in mobility. If only the internet existed.....and one could actually find the email addresses of experts...if only.....

But what you lack in certain options you make up for in your ability to reduce people.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Then there comes the time when we start talking about the person. And suddenly that's off limits for some reason.

It's quite confusing.

I thought this was interesting and it is part of a pattern....

Above all else, it is that I am able to reduce otherwise intelligent and articulate posters like KT down to truly hapless attempts like this at being "clever"!

He 'reduced me.' He has elsewhere bragged about driving people away and predicted he had done enough to drive me away and I would be soon leaving. He has said that he knows why people get irritated at him and that his posts are triggering their fears, loss of comfort. There are other examples of what I would call a general pattern of him

claiming to control the behavior of others.

So perhaps he views interactions like this as a situation where someone else might potentially control him.

If he admitted someone else was right about what he had done or said, they would be 'reducing' him, or compelling him to some feeling or behavior. IOW he views it as a kind of power struggle where someone can actually gain control of another person. And since he assumes that the only possible issue someone might have with his process is to avoid losing comfort and consolation, I think it is fair to wonder if this is how he views interacting with others: they are going to take something away from him if he admits anything or changes in any way in response to what they right.

And of course actually engaging in the practices of a school of therapy or at a Buddhist temple is verboten. That would be potential loss of control in spades.

Which fits with his concern that for all he knows he will have some new belief system in the future. He has no way to know if he will be a Buddhist or Catholic or racist later in his life, even though these, now, do not fit is values and beliefs.

And his concern that he has gone through a series of belief systems before, as he has pointed out hundreds of times. (which actually is an observation very much in line with Buddhist thinking. There they do not think there is any self, with him he bemoans this changing self, which he calls fractured. And any Buddhist worth his or her salt would recognize that he has become aware of something most people have not, but is frozen at the stage of being afraid of it)

Now (to protect himself from being controlled by others) if anyone is going to affect him it has to be via something that would change every single rational person's mind on the planet.

No one is going to control him, certainly not in particular. Won't get fooled again.

So when he is the subject it is taboo. Though he is happy to make claims about others and what is going on in their minds, even unconsciously, and further it is sometimes under his control what they think, feel and do.

The last thing he wants is for someone else to have, what he conceives of as, control over him AGAIN.

Now the Buddha argued that what one thinks and feels is not who you are. So he would have seen such a defensive position and a view of dialogue as people controlling other people (selves) as confused and clinging....

https://suttacentral.net/mn148/en/sujato

If anyone says, ‘thoughts are self’ … ‘mind consciousness is self’ … ‘mind contact is self’ … ‘feeling is self’ … ‘craving is self,’ that is not tenable. The arising and vanishing of craving is evident, so it would follow that one’s self arises and vanishes. That’s why it’s not tenable to claim that craving is self. So the mind, thoughts, mind consciousness, mind contact, feeling, and craving are not self.

This is the conclusion, the full argument is in that link.

So, from a Buddhist perspective focusing on the contents of thoughts (and feelings) is confused. It is the relation to the thoughts and feelings in general that need to change. He's fighting a war of control with others - celebrating victories where he drives people away or reduces them - and making sure it never seems like they won a battle by controlling his thoughts and feelings and behavior.

Buddhism offers a release from this battle.

It's not the release for me. But I think Buddhism can give a little insight into what is happening and why it might be confusing to interact with him.

[iambiguous]

Then there comes the time when we start talking about the person. And suddenly that's off limits for some reason.

It's quite confusing.

I thought this was interesting and it is part of a pattern....

Above all else, it is that I am able to reduce otherwise intelligent and articulate posters like KT down to truly hapless attempts like this at being "clever"!

He 'reduced me.' He has elsewhere bragged about driving people away and predicted he had done enough to drive me away and I would be soon leaving. He has said that he knows why people get irritated at him and that his posts are triggering their fears, loss of comfort. There are other examples of what I would call a general pattern of him

claiming to control the behavior of others.

So perhaps he views interactions like this as a situation where someone else might potentially control him.

If he admitted someone else was right about what he had done or said, they would be 'reducing' him, or compelling him to some feeling or behavior. IOW he views it as a kind of power struggle where someone can actually gain control of another person. And since he assumes that the only possible issue someone might have with his process is to avoid losing comfort and consolation, I think it is fair to wonder if this is how he views interacting with others: they are going to take something away from him if he admits anything or changes in any way in response to what they right.

And of course actually engaging in the practices of a school of therapy or at a Buddhist temple is verboten. That would be potential loss of control in spades.

Which fits with his concern that for all he knows he will have some new belief system in the future. He has no way to know if he will be a Buddhist or Catholic or racist later in his life, even though these, now, do not fit is values and beliefs.

And his concern that he has gone through a series of belief systems before, as he has pointed out hundreds of times. (which actually is an observation very much in line with Buddhist thinking. There they do not think there is any self, with him he bemoans this changing self, which he calls fractured. And any Buddhist worth his or her salt would recognize that he has become aware of something most people have not, but is frozen at the stage of being afraid of it)

Now (to protect himself from being controlled by others) if anyone is going to affect him it has to be via something that would change every single rational person's mind on the planet.

No one is going to control him, certainly not in particular. Won't get fooled again.

So when he is the subject it is taboo. Though he is happy to make claims about others and what is going on in their minds, even unconsciously, and further it is sometimes under his control what they think, feel and do.

The last thing he wants is for someone else to have, what he conceives of as, control over him AGAIN.

Now the Buddha argued that what one thinks and feels is not who you are. So he would have seen such a defensive position and a view of dialogue as people controlling other people (selves) as confused and clinging....

https://suttacentral.net/mn148/en/sujato

If anyone says, ‘thoughts are self’ … ‘mind consciousness is self’ … ‘mind contact is self’ … ‘feeling is self’ … ‘craving is self,’ that is not tenable. The arising and vanishing of craving is evident, so it would follow that one’s self arises and vanishes. That’s why it’s not tenable to claim that craving is self. So the mind, thoughts, mind consciousness, mind contact, feeling, and craving are not self.

This is the conclusion, the full argument is in that link.

So, from a Buddhist perspective focusing on the contents of thoughts (and feelings) is confused. It is the relation to the thoughts and feelings in general that need to change. He's fighting a war of control with others - celebrating victories where he drives people away or reduces them - and making sure it never seems like they won a battle by controlling his thoughts and feelings and behavior.

Buddhism offers a release from this battle.

It's not the release for me. But I think Buddhism can give a little insight into what is happening and why it might be confusing to interact with him.

We'll need a context of course.

[iambiguous]

Beyond true and false
Buddhist philosophy is full of contradictions. Now modern logic is learning why that might be a good
Graham Priest

Western philosophers have not, on the whole, regarded Buddhist thought with much enthusiasm. As a colleague once said to me: ‘It’s all just mysticism.’ This attitude is due, in part, to ignorance. But it is also due to incomprehension. When Western philosophers look East, they find things they do not understand – not least the fact that the Asian traditions seem to accept, and even endorse, contradictions. Thus we find the great second-century Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna saying:

"The nature of things is to have no nature; it is their non-nature that is their nature. For they have only one nature: no-nature."

Once again, we are off to an inauspicious start. Exactly: another general description intellectual contraption.

They can originate in Western philosophy and religion or in Eastern philosophy or religion.

To wit:

What contradiction regarding the nature of what things and relationships in what particular context? Again, as though before we go there, we've got to be clear in our mind about the definition and the meaning of the words we will use that by and large will hardly ever actually leave our minds and become entangled in what we either can or cannot demonstrate is true for all of us in our interactions.

In other words, suppose you were able to grasp Buddhism without any ignorance of anything at all? Suppose you had a complete comprehension of it?

How would that change my point?

The same with Western narratives. If someone was able to actually transcend all ignorance and comprehend rationally all that is of most importance in our interactions with others, where would that leave them in regard to that which is of most importance to me in regard to both philosophy and religion: morality here and now, immortality there and then.

[iambiguous]

Beyond true and false
Buddhist philosophy is full of contradictions. Now modern logic is learning why that might be a good
Graham Priest

An abhorrence of contradiction has been high orthodoxy in the West for more than 2,000 years...As Avicenna, the father of Medieval Aristotelianism, declared:

"Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned."

So, sure, why not, through either God or No God, extend that frame of mind to value judgments. One is either right about the morality of abortion or they are wrong. And, even though a distinction can clearly be made between the objective fact of having an abortion and conflicting subjective reactions to the morality of choosing to have one, you simply embrace one or another rendition of obligatory or deontological or metaphysical morality as true. Thus, from Plato to Kant to Ayn Rand, it's the reality in your head that counts.

That way the act of being beaten or burned and one's point of view regarding the morality of the beating and the burning become interchangeable in the objectivist's mind.

Now on to the East...

Let’s start by turning back the clock. It is India in the fifth century BCE, the age of the historical Buddha, and a rather peculiar principle of reasoning appears to be in general use. This principle is called the catuskoti, meaning ‘four corners’. It insists that there are four possibilities regarding any statement: it might be true (and true only), false (and false only), both true and false, or neither true nor false.

We know that the catuskoti was in the air because of certain questions that people asked the Buddha, in exchanges that come down to us in the sutras. Questions such as: what happens to enlightened people after they die? It was commonly assumed that an unenlightened person would keep being reborn, but the whole point of enlightenment was to get out of this vicious circle. And then what? Did you exist, not, both or neither? The Buddha’s disciples clearly expected him to endorse one and only one of these possibilities. This, it appears, was just how people thought.

Okay, so what are the "four corners" here?

What does happen to enlightened people after day die? How, choosing each corner at a time, would one go about demonstrating that this is in fact what happens to enlightened people after they die?

After all, were there not people like me around back then who refused to just accept what people believed about things like this "in their head"? Buddhist or not. Or, perhaps, since the "vicious circle" is really only created in one's head, then why not the solution as well.

And, again, the reason that this is just "how people thought" about things like this [then and now] is because, in convincing yourself that it is true, it comforts and consoles you. Whether it be in regard to Nirvana or Heaven or the Promised Land or Paradise or Canaan or Elysium or Arcadia.

The only thing that really changes on this side of the grave are the particular behaviors that one is obligated to embody in order to pass muster on the other side.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Why on earth would anyone choose an article called... Beyond true and false
Buddhist philosophy is full of contradictions. Now modern logic is learning why that might be a good thing

and expect it to answer questions about whether abortion is moral or not?

And he actually expressed a kind of frustration that the article was not meeting your needs.

Here's in reaction to just the very beginning of talking about non-contradiction, it seems to me, Iamb has no idea what non-contradiction is. He writes what he always writes without even trying, it seems, to integrate anything he is citing. Now I think it would be tricky to do this, but the following does not respond to, integrate or critique what he quoted. It seems merely triggered by what he quoted.

So, sure, why not, through either God or No God, extend that frame of mind to value judgments. One is either right about the morality of abortion or they are wrong. And, even though a distinction can clearly be made between the objective fact of having an abortion and conflicting subjective reactions to the morality of choosing to have one, you simply embrace one or another rendition of obligatory or deontological or metaphysical morality as true. Thus, from Plato to Kant to Ayn Rand, it's the reality in your head that counts.

Then we have this....

What contradiction regarding the nature of what things and relationships in what particular context? Again, as though before we go there, we've got to be clear in our mind about the definition and the meaning of the words we will use that by and large will hardly ever actually leave our minds and become entangled in what we either can or cannot demonstrate is true for all of us in our interactions.

and

The same with Western narratives. If someone was able to actually transcend all ignorance and comprehend rationally all that is of most importance in our interactions with others, where would that leave them in regard to that which is of most importance to me in regard to both philosophy and religion: morality here and now, immortality there and then.

He is asking people what it would mean in relation to his 'point' if we had completely knowledge of Western tradition?
I mean, must one actually point out the idiocy. We aren't the person who has this, so how could we possibly answer.

He complains that there isn't a particular context...as if the article said it was going to resolve something like conflicting goods or immortality. When in fact, oddly enough givne the title, it is talking in broad terms about how what seemed just plain wrong, in terms of logic, in Buddhism, is not not considered to be. IOW the article is on topic and one not directly related to his issue, but it is failing somehow since it is not answering his question.

Sound familiar?

Yup, that's how he treats us.

I am putting his quotes in a different order.....in case someone thinks this is unfair they can check his posts above to see if I have changed something significant...

In other words, suppose you were able to grasp Buddhism without any ignorance of anything at all? Suppose you had a complete comprehension of it?

How would that change my point?

OK, again, first issue: who does he think he is talking to? He is asking non-Buddhists to answer what they would answer or could resolve if they had complete Buddhist knowledge. Now it is the internet and I am sure one can find people idiotic enough to answer that, but...why bother?

[iambiguous]

In other words, suppose you were able to grasp Buddhism without any ignorance of anything at all? Suppose you had a complete comprehension of it?

How would that change my point?

OK, again, first issue: who does he think he is talking to? He is asking non-Buddhists to answer what they would answer or could resolve if they had complete Buddhist knowledge. Now it is the internet and I am sure one can find people idiotic enough to answer that, but...why bother?

As always, I am attempting to spark an exchange between those who embody one or another religious denomination; or are on one or another perceived spiritual path to enlightenment. As that relates to the behaviors they choose on this side of grave. As that is reflected in their moral philosophy. As that is derived from one or an rendition of God or His equivalent.

As that can be understood by me given the manner in which I perceive discussions of this sort as embedded in my own moral philosophy derived from my assessment of dasein confronting conflicting goods out in a world where political economy is always going to be an important factor in human interactions.

Or, for those do not subscribe to either God, religion or an objective morality, how they manage to sustain "I" without it fracturing and fragmenting as mine has.

Given a particular context explored in depth.

[felix dakat]

In other words, suppose you were able to grasp Buddhism without any ignorance of anything at all? Suppose you had a complete comprehension of it?

How would that change my point?

OK, again, first issue: who does he think he is talking to? He is asking non-Buddhists to answer what they would answer or could resolve if they had complete Buddhist knowledge. Now it is the internet and I am sure one can find people idiotic enough to answer that, but...why bother?

As always, I am attempting to spark an exchange between those who embody one or another religious denomination; or are on one or another perceived spiritual path to enlightenment. As that relates to the behaviors they choose on this side of grave. As that is reflected in their moral philosophy. As that is derived from one or an rendition of God or His equivalent.

As that can be understood by me given the manner in which I perceive discussions of this sort as embedded in my own moral philosophy derived from my assessment of dasein confronting conflicting goods out in a world where political economy is always going to be an important factor in human interactions.

Or, for those do not subscribe to either God, religion or an objective morality, how they manage to sustain "I" without it fracturing and fragmenting as mine has.

Given a particular context explored in depth.

But, you seem to put religions into the box of the religion you occupied in the past. One where it was all about the connection between objective prescribed or proscribed behavior and an objective afterlife. There are many other approaches to religion that you dismiss as contraptions because they don't fit in that box. The Buddhism of my experience is ill suited to your model. It's all about the rewards of meditation in the present moment. It's not primarily about some objective morality or some future afterlife. The bliss of meditation is the result of a practice that is compassion toward myself. A peaceful self is more able to express compassion toward others. A peaceful and compassionate life is its own reward. No need to know what comes after. After never comes. We always live in the present. Cultivating awareness of that fact through meditation is the centerpiece of Buddhism according to my experience.

[felix dakat]

iambiguous--Concerning your kind of objective religion there is a Zen saying that applies. "If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him."

[Karpel Tunnel]

As always, I am attempting to spark an exchange between those who embody one or another religious denomination; or are on one or another perceived spiritual path to enlightenment. As that relates to the behaviors they choose on this side of grave. As that is reflected in their moral philosophy. As that is derived from one or an rendition of God or His equivalent.

Peachy. But notice that in no way did you respond to the specific points I made about how you do this and in what context. As pointed out earlier in the thread, you are posting to non-Buddhists or people who take certain pieces of Buddhism at best - when there are in fact Buddhist forums, with experts. Second you are asking people how you or they would react IF they had a complete knowledge of Buddhism (and then also Western philosophy). Even that is silly in an expert forum for Buddhism and is extremely silly here, because how could anyone claim, here to know what it would be like and what one would think and say when one had a knowledge one does not currently have. Third, you just took a randomly chosen Buddhist article that did not deal with morality and only dealt with the afterlife in an example of how Buddhist logic differs from traditional Western logic. IOW it never goes on to look into what this might mean for someone who wants to nail down what they might experience in the afterlife, if anything, because that is not the topic of the article. This is trolling, if a complicated form of it.

You respond to my post as if I was criticizing what you want. My post was focused on the problems related to how you go about trying to get what you want.

YOu chose a not relevent article from a subject you know little about. You do not respond to the points made in the article, but rather cite from the article portions that you then follow with a repetition of you questions and ideas. You challenge people to assert what they would say if they had knowledge they do not have.

This is silly stuff and, as usual, you cannot admit any of it was silly, or at best, not clearly written.

Or, for those do not subscribe to either God, religion or an objective morality, how they manage to sustain "I" without it fracturing and fragmenting as mine has.

Given a particular context explored in depth.

IOW, as has been pointed out before, you assume that others are not fragmented and fractured because of contraptions So first you ask for their beliefs, then demand an argument that demonstrates that every rational person should follow their path, then if they can't tell them they are using an intellectual contraption to stay whole. That they are comforting themselves with irrationality. And you do this, oddly, when they very practices they engage in have been show scientifically to reduce states that are unpleasant.

MOST important however: You never demonstrate that your fragmentation is actually caused by your beliefs or lack of them. This is assumed. And others must assume that their lack of fragmentation is caused by their belief system.

It's not, for example, your sense that you must be able to resolve conflicting goods and fine an argument that all rational people would follow that causes your suffering. It's not health issues and isolation. It's not your particular dasein that was too rough on your psyche. It's not PSTD or some other psychoemotional issue. It's got nothing to do with your parenting of losses in your love life. We just must assume along with you that your fragmentation is rational, the outcome of bare rational thought, so anyone not fragmented bears the onus for proving that they are not using some intellectual contraption to irrationally soothe themelves. Your problem, oddly, has little to do with dasein. It is the ground experience everyone is hiding from. And you somehow know this (though you are willing to admit you might be wrong, but this possibility never leads to any actual exploration of the possibility that your fragmentation might have something to do with completely other things)

While you never need to demonstrate to all rational people that being fragmented and fractured is the natural state of anyone without irrational beliefs. You know why you feel the way you do and experience your self or 'self' the way you do. So, we don't even have to look at that - which of course Buddhism would offer one very concrete way of actually looking at that experientially. It is off the table. Iamb's ideas are off the table. Other people's ideas bear the burden of proof and they must be able to convince all rational people.

You really think you know what you are doing?

A self-admitted fragmented and fractured person who sees no reason at all to question his modus operadi despite the fact that he is fragmented and fractured.

Now you can say 'he is focusing on me', well, sure, in part. Here I am primarily focusing on what you are doing, then what you are implying, and all of that sure does make me think certain things about you, but here you are participating in a discussion forum and my critique of that participation is central to this and other posts. And imagine, since for you it could only be imaginary, imagine if I am right, then my posts are not simply a critique, they would actually have something to offer you in relation to your needs, which is supposedly central to your purpose here.

[iambiguous]

iambiguous--Concerning your kind of objective religion there is a Zen saying that applies. "If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him."

Here is one reaction to that at Quora:

Ben Rode, The King's Council at The Rode Institute

People who don't truly understand this statement think that it means to resist charlatans who claim they are enlightened. Crucify the teacher...

Here's the trick: In order to see the Buddha, you have to BE the Buddha. If you aren't the Buddha, you can't really understand the Buddha. Once you understand the Buddha, you can let him go. Not before.

Once you stand nose to nose with the Buddha (you "meet him on the road") then you have no more to learn from the Buddha. At that point, holding on to those teachings becomes a crutch. an identity. No teaching is meant to be held onto. They are meant to provide an experience for where you are at in the moment. Hear the same thing later, and it will provide a new meaning, and a new experience.

Each teaching is a stepping stone to take you to the next level of understanding. Holding onto a teaching keeps you in place. It holds you into an identity.

"Kill the Buddha" doesn't mean the Buddha is bad or wrong. It means you don't need him anymore. In order to be done with him, you must first use him up.

Each teacher can only show you what they know. Once you know that, you will add to it what you know and transcend those teachings. Use the truths AND untruths of teachings to help you find your own truths. Then let go of the teachings. Then kill the Buddha. Not before.

Or, perhaps, as Michael Beraka at Quora suggested:

Like all Zen tropes, this famous dictum is multifaceted and highly dependent on context.

So, what's your assessment? How multifaceted is it in any particular context of your choice.

And, more to the point [mine], how is this sort of assessment reconfigured from a "general description intellectual contraption" into an assessment of the behaviors one chooses on this side of the grave as that pertains to what one thinks one's fate will be on the other side of the grave given the religious values that one holds near and dear here and now.

In other words, the part that you ever and always wiggle out of addressing by turning everything here into a discussion of me instead.

My kind of "objective religion"? In what [detailed] sense do you ascribe this to me?

[felix dakat]

iambiguous--Concerning your kind of objective religion there is a Zen saying that applies. "If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him."

Here is one reaction to that at Quora:

Ben Rode, The King's Council at The Rode Institute

People who don't truly understand this statement think that it means to resist charlatans who claim they are enlightened. Crucify the teacher...

Here's the trick: In order to see the Buddha, you have to BE the Buddha. If you aren't the Buddha, you can't really understand the Buddha. Once you understand the Buddha, you can let him go. Not before.

Once you stand nose to nose with the Buddha (you "meet him on the road") then you have no more to learn from the Buddha. At that point, holding on to those teachings becomes a crutch. an identity. No teaching is meant to be held onto. They are meant to provide an experience for where you are at in the moment. Hear the same thing later, and it will provide a new meaning, and a new experience.

Each teaching is a stepping stone to take you to the next level of understanding. Holding onto a teaching keeps you in place. It holds you into an identity.

"Kill the Buddha" doesn't mean the Buddha is bad or wrong. It means you don't need him anymore. In order to be done with him, you must first use him up.

Each teacher can only show you what they know. Once you know that, you will add to it what you know and transcend those teachings. Use the truths AND untruths of teachings to help you find your own truths. Then let go of the teachings. Then kill the Buddha. Not before.

Or, perhaps, as Michael Beraka at Quora suggested:

Like all Zen tropes, this famous dictum is multifaceted and highly dependent on context.

So, what's your assessment? How multifaceted is it in any particular context of your choice.

And, more to the point [mine], how is this sort of assessment reconfigured from a "general description intellectual contraption" into an assessment of the behaviors one chooses on this side of the grave as that pertains to what one thinks one's fate will be on the other side of the grave given the religious values that one holds near and dear here and now.

In other words, the part that you ever and always wiggle out of addressing by turning everything here into a discussion of me instead.

My kind of "objective religion"? In what [detailed] sense do you ascribe this to me?

You ignored my explanation above. Why should I repeat myself or elaborate further, when you haven't responded to what I already said? I do think it's funny that you said that I turn everything into a discussion about you and then you asked me what kind of a objective religion I ascribed to you. Ha!

[iambiguous]

Or, for those do not subscribe to either God, religion or an objective morality, how they manage to sustain "I" without it fracturing and fragmenting as mine has.

Given a particular context explored in depth.

IOW, as has been pointed out before, you assume that others are not fragmented and fractured because of contraptions So first you ask for their beliefs, then demand an argument that demonstrates that every rational person should follow their path, then if they can't tell them they are using an intellectual contraption to stay whole. That they are comforting themselves with irrationality. And you do this, oddly, when they very practices they engage in have been show scientifically to reduce states that are unpleasant.

And around and around we go.

Here is how I think about "I" at the existential juncture that is identity, value judgments and political economy:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

Now, with regard to an issue like abortion, to what extent are your own value judgments understood by you given that at one end of the spectrum are those who, re God, ideology, deontology, enlightenment etc., believe that they are in sync with the real me in sync with the right thing to do. While those at the other end of it [folks like me] see their value judgments as "existential contraptions"...moral and political prejudices rooted in dasein, confronting conflicting goods ultimately "resolved" by those in any particular community who have the political and economic clout to call the shots. Legislatively, say.

You see this in the abortion wars all the time. Those that are adamant at either end of the political spectrum, those who are willing to accept moderation, negotiation and compromise, and those, even in acceding to democracy and the rule of law, who recognize how thinking and feeling about their own value judgments never gives them any real solid ground to stand on.

I'm simply trying to ascertain the extent to which you feel more or less fractured and fragmented than I do out in a particular context when for whatever reason others challenge what, as a political prejudice rooted in dasein, you believe about abortion.

For me it is in how I have come to believe this instead of that because of the points I raise here on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

How is it different for you...given your own intertwining of experiences and what, among other things, philosophy has taught you about identity, conflicting goods and political power intertwined in turn to your reaction to a particular set of circumstances.

MOST important however: You never demonstrate that your fragmentation is actually caused by your beliefs or lack of them. This is assumed. And others must assume that their lack of fragmentation is caused by their belief system.

But my point is that this sort of thing can never be fully understood or demonstrated other than by way of trying to grapple with your own personal experiences out in a particular world understood in a particular way, given your own particular access to information, knowledge and ideas.

Thus, taking into account all of those experiences and access to information, knowledge and ideas that you did not encounter. How your life and your thinking about it might have been profoundly different given a different trajectory. And then the part where, in a world of contingency, chance and change, new experiences and ideas can reconfigure "I" again. And then the part where philosophers are able to take that into account in attempting to pin down the optimal or the only rational thinking and feeling and behaving. In regard to abortion or any other conflicting good.

The rest is just you back up in the clouds of general descriptions. It's not so much that you "focus in on me" as that in doing so you remain embedded in your intellectual contraptions. We need a context. An attempt on our part to explain [to the best of our ability] what goes on inside our head when we either experience a situation in which our moral philosophies come into conflict with others, or in regard to a conflicting good [like abortion] that is always popping up on the news.