Once again I have no clear understanding of what “on earth” you mean to convey here. In fact, I’m still not entirely certain if that isn’t your intention.
Anyway, you know my own approach to religion:
1] one either believes in or does not believe in a spiritual/denominational path
2] if one does then it either does or does not sustain a moral narrative he or she has come to embody
3] if it does sustain a moral narrative then in any particular context it will propel/compel the believer to choose particular behaviors in a world bursting at the seams with conflicting goods
4] if one does choose what “spiritually” is the right thing to do then this dot in turn either is or is not connected to the one revolving around the fate of “I” on the other side of the grave
And, then, in whatever one believes here, they either are or are not able to go beyond a leap of more or less blind faith in order to actually demonstrate that what they do believe is in fact that which all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to believe as well.
Now, you will either take the discussion here or you won’t. And Wittgenstein may or may not be relevant if you do choose to take it there.
No, I do want to. Except, and again i consider You an exception mentioned earlier, of potential gifts which can be shared.
Except, the bind is very strong, within and without the basic choice, and i surmise it signifies IT to be intended, unawares or not.
Within these bounderies, it is near impossible to inflect through even the mirror stage.
In leaving to Utah on a panic, givies time to reflect on the severity of possible fracture.(s)
At this moment it is impossible to realise rationally., except by aforementioned images, the significance of tying positively to Wittgenstein. ( except by aphorism)
Will comment time to time to the best , as it indulges ,and pertains to this I beg Your pardon if perhaps a more immediate ready reply. was expected.
Okay, I missed that you stated that “over and again.” Your assessment of course ignores the whole realm of human/mammalian social empathic and compassionate feelings common to all but the sociopath or psychopath. Of course, I expect you will make the perfect the enemy of the good in your quest to deny humanistic values.
You have your reward.
Why not? You address your points to a third party, the “They” of your own imagination. Take it up with Them.
I double dare you to note a particular context relating to the main components of Buddhism relating to your own personal conceptions regarding the existential relationship between morality here and now and immortality there and then. Allowing you to clear up misconceptions that relate to both premises and conclusions as the exchange unfolds.
Double dare did not occur to me, not even a single one, as You bring it up. It appears to a show and tell type devolution into a truth and dare kind of debatable issue.
If that, then some rules of engagement must be prefaced and I dont think that this may ne appropriate or not. If You go along with such a scheme, rather then an informal , mutual discussion , then that should be made clear.
This should not be a combat type situation excluding one point of view from the other , with a jury forming a conclusion regarding a winner and a looser, but a joint effort to avoid the fractures and possible oblivion.
Does not conflict resolution entail the type of things Buddhism suggests? It is adverse to matters of ego. Rather the opposite matters, that of finding balance with disattachment old such actions.
It attains a simple quietness , a Zen-hush, where grievences are not fueled by denied fears.
A number of posts back Iambiguous challenges me and Felix to demonstrate a number of things. A reader joining the thread in the middle might think this reasonable and of course would not realize that these arguments
have been countered and responded to many times before in this and other threads
Forget my assessment and your assessment here. Both are intellectual contraptions sustaining a “point of view” in a world of words.
Let’s focus in instead on a particular set of circumstances in which both of us explore our respective moral philosophies, given the manner in which we come to choose specific behaviors based on the assumptions we make about the existential relationship between morality and immortality. As that comes to pertain to the actual rewards and punishments we have experienced in our life. You can choose it or we can decide together. Based on issues that are of particular importance to us.
And, if there are any Buddhists here among us, they can contribute given their own frame of mind.
Yes, but my point is that, given my own subjective perspective rooted in dasein, the punishment far and away outweighs the rewards. Why? Because I am no longer able to be in sync with the real me in sync with the right thing to do. Instead, I am drawn and quartered time and time and time again when confronting conflicting goods. And there is still oblivion awaiting me around the corner.
How about yourself? Where does the part about reward and punishment fit into your own experiences when confronting conflicting goods?
And, again, why don’t you and Karpel Tunnel explore each other’s moral/spiritual philosophies in regard to rewards and punishments on both sides of the grave. If nothing else it can be an object lesson in how not to be a troll in threads of this sort.
Basically, I noted how, just as with most of us, KT and Felix have probably spent some time pondering the distinction between right and wrong behavior on this side of the grave; and in how the conclusions we come to in regard to that have implications for what we imagine the fate of “I” to be on the other side of it.
And that there are hundreds and hundreds of religious/spiritual paths out there, all of which basically argue that their own path is the one true path.
So I noted this:
Now, Curly responds to that in the post above by noting he is only interested in “what one is drawn to”. As though this is not in turn embedded in the life that he has lived, the embodiment of “I” as an existential contraption rooted in dasein. Like somehow in regard to religion, he is different from all the rest of us.
Besides, just because he is not “drawn” to certain denominations doesn’t mean that this excludes them from in fact being the “one true path”?
You said that you are somehow bothered by thoughts of a meaningless life that ends in oblivion.And you are somehow bothered by thoughts of being fractured and fragmented.
People suggested that you try Buddhism or mediation to help with those issues.
If you don’t want to try it, then don’t. Look for some other solution. Talk to other people who may have different ideas. Or don’t.
Nobody is forcing you to do anything. It doesn’t matter to us whether you solve your problems or not.
You said that you are interested in Buddhism.
KT has both practical and theoretical knowledge of Buddhism. Yet you mostly ignore what he has to say about it.
You said that you want to discuss Buddhism with real Buddhists. Yet you don’t seem to be going to Buddhist internet sites to talk to them. You can Google it. And I already provided links in this thread.
It really looks like you’re not very interested in Buddhism.
And in case you are tempted to suggest that I should research the hundreds of religions and spiritual paths that you keep linking … don’t bother.
I’m perfectly content to live a meaningless life that ends in oblivion.
And this then is clearly the bottom line. If you have come to conclude that you are living a meaningless life that will end some day in oblivion…and that you are perfectly content with it? Well, in this case, you only have to contend with that part of my own frame of mind suggesting that, given new experiences in your life, out in a world teeming with contingency, chance and change, you may well come to think and to feel otherwise. You may come [as some do] to dread it.
Right?
My point is only that this sort of thinking seems more the embodiment of an existential contraption rooted in dasein than an objective truth rooted in a philosophical assessment able to establish how one ought to feel about life and death as a rational human being.
Then the religious objectivists among us attach that to one or another God or denomination, and insist their own path is the one true path.
To write a meaningful post like the one above contradicts its own conclusion that life is meaningless. It’s a kind of extended self negating tautology.
Buddhist Retreat
Why I gave up on finding my religion.
By JOHN HORGAN at Slate Magazine
Conclusion
That’s number three for me. The first two revolve around morality and immortality. Only God or a No God religious path can provide us with a sanctioned way “from on high” in which to differentiate our behaviors as right or wrong when confronted with conflicting goods. And only God or a No God religious path can provide us with a sanctioned way “from on high” in which to believe that death is only the beginning of our sojourn into eternity itself.
On the other hand, it is also far-fetched in my view to suppose that science has pinned down that in fact we are “incidental, accidental”. There may not be much in the way of evidence that our souls are intertwined in a spiritual quest for the final explanation, but who is kidding whom in regard to the gap between, say, what science knows now about that and what it will know even just a hundred years from now. The very existence of existence itself is a profound mystery. And I challenge any scientist to demonstrate otherwise.
So to conclude that…
…is to presume considerably more than we can given the gap between “I” and “all there is”. On the other hand, look at all that I presume here in regard to human interactions in the is/ought world. Dasein, conflicting goods, political economy. But I would never be foolish enough to presume that I actually am closer to whatever that “final explanation” might possibly be than others here.
On the contrary, that is only one of many “remaining questions” in regard to “I” in the vastness of what may well be a multi-verse. What always astonishes me is how men and women can latch on fervently to actual denominations like Buddhism and convince themselves that they really are on the One True Path. Until I remind myself that I once did so myself. And more than once.
And, again, the reason for this isn’t hard to come up with: What. Is. At. Stake.
