On a forum one is stuck with words and intellectual interpretations of words. “All is one” can be a feeling.
Fine. But given my own interest in religion, the fact that the overwhelming preponderance of religious adherents around the globe clearly are intent on connecting these dots existentially…? This [to me] speaks volumes regarding the nature of religion itself. It’s not a game to them and the manner in which you presume this is all a game to me encompasses only the gap between us.
I’m not suggesting I’m closer to the truth than you are, only that our motivation and intention seem to be trekking down different paths. And that, for any particular one of us, truth itself here is always subject to change given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information, knowledge and ideas.
Again, fine. But the bottom line [mine] is that, to the extent we choose to interact with others, rules of behaviors are a necessity. Call them morality, call them something else. And millions of us do connect the dots between them and the fate of “I” the other side. So there is certainly a gap between the word games that philosophers might play on threads like this and the manner in which religions out in the world precipitate very real conflicts, precipitating very real consequences, that often have a profound impact on the lives of millions.
Introduce the intellectual construct of “games” to these folks.
What can I say: let’s focus the exchange here on a set of circumstances relating to morality/immortality in which you can point out specifically the suggestions of others. And the manner in which I refuse their help.
Also, over and again, I aim my arguments here at those religious objectivists who insist that others can only be helped in connecting the morality/immortality dots by embracing their own dogmatic/denominational agenda.
I’ve already acknowledged the embodied complexities here:
Tell me this isn’t the embodiment of dasein. Given the life that you have lived and the circumstances in which you now find yourself, this is how you have become predisposed to think about the world around you. Here and now. And, like you say, “[t]his is why I described your earlier statement on this front as hyperbolic–though I know for many others it’s not”.
That’s basically how it works all right. At least until you become a religious objectivist/zealot. Then it’s also how it ought to work for everyone else too. I’m mainly curious as to how Buddhists connect these dots given a No God religion.
As for the meaning of “conflicted goods”, well, I took that from the manner in which William Barrett described “rival goods” here:
I merely deconstruct the “self” here more radically still: as a “fractured and fragmented” frame of mind.
No, I would just prefer that when we discuss “aligning our interests” or “making progress”, it be in regard to an actual set of circumstances involving morality/enlightenment on this side of the grave and immortality/reincarnation of the other side of it. How are these words fleshed out given a situation that most here would be familiar with.
This part:
Okay, you “alleviate” suffering. But how is alleviating the suffering on one side not probably going to aggravate it on the other side? And if you are a Buddhist confronting a context of this sort, how is enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana understood given the very, very real intertwining of “I” here and now and “I” there and then. Once we move beyond Buddhism’s capacity to offer up the sort of stuff that Karpel Tunnel and others here focus on.
Again, the stuff – morality —> immortality – that most interest me about religion. The stuff that, if not the most important thing to others, would/should/could incline them to ignore my posts.
And I’m certainly not arguing that they ought to be interested in my own propensities here, only that these are the things that do interest me about religion most of all.
But my point in regard to the Buddhists among us is to focus in on sets of circumstances in order to illustrate texts of this sort. I have made any number of attempts involving any number of moral and political conflicts to describe why “I” am fractured and fragmented in regard to both morality and immortality. In fact, I created a whole thread of my own in order to explore this very thing: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=186929
And then to everyone I always request that they choose a context involving behaviors that are of particular importance to them.
Instead, the “question” you want answered here…
…pertains to no particular context at all.
Again, my own interest here in regard to Buddhism revolves around individual Buddhists who find their own lives becoming embedded in actual contexts that do involve race relations…how is their understanding of enlightenment and karma on this side of the grave factored into the behaviors they choose in regard to what they believe regarding the fate of “I” on the other side of it.
The role that religion plays in their day to day lives. My “thing” here.
This part:
No, my focus revolves around the extent to which the moral, political and religious convictions of any particular individual are derived more from the manner in I construe the “self” here as an existential construction/deconstruction/reconstruction rooted in dasein from the cradle to the grave; or, instead essentially in a scientific or philosophical or theological assessment able to be demonstrated as obligatory for all rational/virtuous human beings.
Again and again and again: we need a context here. What particular conflict in this particular world [our own] construed in what particular way?
You choose it. And, then, when you do in regard to an issue like capital punishment above, I react insofar as my own interest here revolves around how individual Buddhists address it in terms of the main components of their own religious denomination.
I’ll be very straight forward with you guys:
Eradication of consent violation is the only possible purpose in life. Minus the prize mentioned before, it’s about reducing it as much as possible.
If our lives don’t continue (which they do), the most moral possible decision is to commit suicide.
So… decide which road you choose here … that we continue or that we don’t.
I always prove it to these boards in a non-spiritual way, but I’m ignored!
If YOU ever die, then the YOU right now can’t exist, as the YOU right now is a subset of the TOTALITY of you!
Sorry, you don’t die. Ever. If you think life is stacked with shitheads, then you might want to think twice about pissing them off!
There is only now. If you are alive now then you exist. If not then you don’t exist.
I’m sorry, but my reaction to this post is but one kind:
[s]1]
[b]"I have told you repeatedly that I am of the opinion – and that is all it is, my own personal opinion – that you are afflicted with a “condition” that prompts you to post things here at ILP that make absolutely no sense at all. Surreal, bizarre things. You pummel us with all of these assumptions about everything under the sun but you fail to convince me that you are actually able to demonstrate that they are true much beyond you believing that they are.
Something is proven only in the fact of you having posted it."[/b][/s]
2]
Now is a concept of past and future. Even if there is only now… without past and future or even more extended concept of past and future, now = 0. (Which truly means you can’t exist!)
That’s in your mind. The present exists no matter what you think about now, past and future.
A mind cannot be sentient without stimulus. Past and ideas of future are that stimulus. You’ve been reading eckart tolle too much. Zero point doesn’t allow for sentience to occur.
Stimulus is in the present.
Not if no past ever occurred! Honestly phyllo, do you really think you’ll win this debate because of a few new age ideas you came across ?
I don’t need to win.
Win, lose, draw … these are thoughts in your mind.
Ok, whatever, you hypothetically posited an argument which you think is the correct one (otherwise you’d be a troll)…
I reiterate… if there was NEVER a past, how can there be a present!!! Think about it and get back to me! (If you so desire)
Feel free to borrow a few from me.
Hurl them at both of us. 
There is a past and a present because you think there is.
You have divided it in this way.
The past is a memory which does not exist. Nor does the future exist.
Really? The future doesn’t exist? Then how the fuck do you keep on living for another second?!?!
The past doesn’t exist? Then how the fuck do trees and shit exist who’ve been here thousands of years before us??!!
Are you anti-logic / anti-science ?
No wonder you believe in god!
Whoa!
This is admittedly an insightful observation.
But: How is it relevant to this particular thread?
Buddhists, like all the rest of us, only embody a present because they once embodied a past. And to the extent they are still around as the clock keeps ticking, they continue to embody a future.
What I then focus on given this is the extent to which the past, the present and the future embodied in any particular “I” becomes intertwined in the behaviors that “I” choose here and now as that becomes intertwined further in what I would like the fate of “I” to be when the future unfolds beyond the grave.
Over and again: There is what “I” believe is true and there is what “I” can demonstrate to others is in fact true for them too.
After all, here there is so much at stake: enlightenment on this side of the grave reconfiguring into chosen behaviors reconfiguring into the future as karma reconfiguring into the future as…a soul?
Again, if you are a Buddhist, you tell me.
Religion without God? How?
I live now. Trees exist now.
Hardly.
Be here now.
So you’re a zero point solipsist! Good to know!
It’s actually impossible to prove that we weren’t born in the instant of any point with all our memories there. (All of them lies) - but I will guarantee that you trust most of them, like not jumping off cliffs!!! Thinking it’s an illusion that can harm you!!
Phyllo, I need to be honest with you. I’ve always found you an absurd poster. Sure you say interesting things sometimes… but you have an absurd big picture… as I just demonstrated.
You believe in zero point solipsism but never act like it… hmmmmmm…
No thanks. I’ll just go with the idea I’m more than a nanosecond old and behave accordingly!
Yes, it is nt anti-science to think the future and the past do not exist. Some scientists (physicists) think they do exist (for example those who believe in a Block Universe) but this is one theory amongst others. Further if the past exists, what is it made of?
And then, ironically. If the past exists, then there is no death.