"don’t get Buddhism either. But I don’t get you even more. And no one gets me most of all.
Except You have repeatedly expressed that sentiment about Buddhism and Meno, yet Meno has never once expressed in any way, shape or form not to understand Iambiguous.
So the 3 way correspondence is more difficult by powers far exceeding X3.
Morality here and now. Immortality there and then. There’s how a particular Buddhist understands this relationship given his or her day to day interactions with others in a world bursting with conflicting goods.
There’s how “I” understand it.
There’s how you understand it.
But it only makes sense [to me] to discuss this relationship given a set of circumstances that most here are likely to be familiar with.
Let’s try to imagine the reaction of Adolph, Benito, Joseph, Pol, Jung Il, Vladimir [both of them] and Donald to that.
And then the manner in which Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Scientologists, Rastafaris and all the rest of the religious denominations react to their reactions.
His unstated idea was that Adolf, et al, should not “live every act fully”. Only those who “I” agree with, ought to be doing that … Adolf ought to make a half-assed effort.
But that’s not my position. And I don’t think that it’s Buddha’s position either.
Everyone ought to live every act fully … including the serial killer.
No, what he attempted to state is this: that when your approach to life revolves around “live every act fully, as if it were your last” you have to acknowledge that this can also be made applicable to the acts of those that many construe historically to be moral monsters.
But acts that he himself has thought himself into believing are rooted existentially in dasein.
Of course if the serial killer – refinery29.com/en-us/2020/0 … ate-killer – does in fact pursue his acts as though they were his last, Buddhists and others are bound to react to them. And from moral and political and spiritual perspectives that some suggest are rooted in “I”.
Joseph James DeAngelo will either be judged by a God, the God, your God or there is no God and his fate will be in the hands of whatever Buddhists believe is encompassed in reconfiguring enlightenment on this side of the grave into the posthumous self.
Or human existence is essentially meaningless and all of our [presumably autonomous] reactions are subsumed in an oblivion that reflects the brute facticity of an existence completely devoid of teleological fonts.
Just so.
Note to Gib:
I need some real intellectual simulation here. Your reaction to all of this please.
Sure, stop a hundred people at random walking down the street and ask them about it. A few will shrug and say, “so what?”. But most will be troubled by it. Some scared shitless.
But one thing seems rather clear. Or factual let’s call it. Down through the ages, those who are troubled by it [and the “essentially meaningless” part of existence on this side] have invented literally hundreds and hundreds of religious and spiritual paths in order to make it go away and to sustain at least some measure of comfort and consolation on their sojourn to the grave.