Again very thoughtful and well articulated. You may be right, however here's what I make of it. Written in haste.

Hence, people say things like "I have ruined my life," or complain that "my life has become meaningless to me." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Hmm. Perhaps. But it seems to me generally only when things go wrong. If you can lie and cheat and stay on top... regrets are less frequent. Success is often experienced as virtue.

It's also clear that "what is good," is generally not obvious. People often make choices that, upon later analysis, they decide were bad. "If I only knew then what I know now," etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think the issue is that what is good is often also what is bad. It often depends on how we choose to look at it. But it might be better to consider specific examples.

The nihilist might say, "but there is no Good, so any search is doomed." However, it's hard to see how they can know this from the outset. — Count Timothy von Icarus

For me, a responsible nihilist will say, 'I have yet to see a demonstration for how the good can be identified and I have no reason to think it can be done'. But it should remain an open question. Just as a responsible atheist should probably see no good reason to believe in gods but is open to any evidence or new reasoning.

No one buys a car without any consideration of if it is a "good car." — Count Timothy von Icarus

You haven't met my wife. She buys cars based on the colour. Good is something she can't even conceptualise when it comes to cars.

Think about it this way: people don't knowingly want to believe falsehoods. People are often upset with what the truth reveals itself to be. They might even prefer to not know the details of certain specific truths. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Based on my experience of people, I'm not convinced this is the case. I'm not sure true or false comes into people's process unless pushed.

If Aristotle is correct, and there is an identifiable purpose to human life that can effectively guide us to happiness and flourishing, who would want to remain ignorant of this fact? It seems like everyone would want to know it. But then certain virtues are required for exploring this question effectively. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think Aristotle may not be right about this. I think it's certainly a cultural belief held by many throughout history. We long for meaning and coherence because as sense making creatures this works pragmatically. But it is very loose and tentative and often leads to problems, such as dogma and doctrine.

Likewise, if the Good reduces to personal preference, it is still true that we can make better or worse choices relative to this deflated Good. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Hmm. Well only subject to some criteria of value. Again which one to pick?

But I am not sure how you plausibly explain the development of the natural philosophy into the modern scientific method or mathematical proofs being emotion "all the way down." It doesn't seem like any methodology for solving problems should be any better than any other in this case — all claims about methodology would reduce to emotional preferences. — Count Timothy von Icarus

As I said earlier, pragmatic results are pleasing to us and emotionally satisfying. I do believe that empiricism and experience play a role in modifying chosen methodologies so that what begins as emotion may be continually modified by experience and results. And I didn't intend to argue that people arrive at decision making in a vacuum of emotionality. Obviously we all see had hear stories about things working, or not working (from science to method acting) and chose to participate or not, subject to our affective response. I think this is a very complex interplay of interpretations and concomitant choices.

Isn't the "mustn't" there an ought statement? But wouldn't this just be an expression of emotion? Or something to the effect of "I am fine with people discussing things so long as it is frivolous. But no one can make meaningful decisions about how society works unless their position agrees with my view." — Count Timothy von Icarus

No, I think I'm right to say one mustn't mistake this for absolute truth (but if you insist, we can say 'had better not'). And yes, I believe I arrived at this, like you, based on a complex interplay of emotional reactions and empirical feedback which is reinterpreted again by one's affective response.

I suspect that most of us share a bedrock desire for connection, coherence and comfort. They are probably all elements of the same preverbal or primordial impulse, located in the amygdala. I suspect that we all work towards satiating these feelings through any number of ways, noting results and consequences. But maybe I'm just saying all this because I find it comforting. I live for performative self-refutations.

Maybe, Tom Storm is right to see it as an artistic statement more than anything else and, despite the way McCarthy's book is seen as a literary classic, I wonder to what extent the quote has been looked at as a philosophy statement. If anything, I saw it as having a Nietzschian feel or criticism of ideas of morality. — Jack Cummins

I didn't say that was all there is to it. I would probably agree with (and not endorse) McCarthy's statement. But in the context of that baroque ode to violence and moral depravity and America's moral history, the quote takes on additional meaning.

I think people generally interpret morality to suit their worldviews. No one can demonstrate they have access to an objective morality - even the religious folk can do no better than interpret god's will based on personal preferences, which is why even within a single religion views on moral issues are subject to manifold disagreement.

The basis for my partial agreement with Cormac McCarthy is a fairly negative view of human nature, based on reading of history and so much which is going on in the world currently. — Jack Cummins

Sure. It's also a standard nihilistic account. A view I held from childhood. Morality is a code of conduct that ususally supports the powerful. But while this is how things transpire in the world, this does not mean that morality is meant to be this way.

But only a very few are born into property, and everyone else has more access to debt than to property. There is no free market and there never has been. — Vera Mont

Indeed. The myth of the level playing field is pervasive.

(Btw, fucking "healthy livers" are overrated, mate.) :smirk: — 180 Proof

:up: Could be. I gave up smoking, then booze and now I'm kind of healthy but bored.... :death:

I don't see why Cormac McCarthy's ideas should be dismissed as simply 'a novel'. — Jack Cummins

Not dismissed. Just hoping to sharpen your OP. You'll note your examples were of three different phenomena. 1) an artistic statement (not necessarily the author's view) 2) a notorious conservative zealot who sought to gatekeep public morality and 3) an untheorized charity service worker, who may or may not be following actual policy.

None of these seem to be connected to political correctness, which is generally a product of the Left: a phenomena seeking to modify or rehabilitate public discourse through correct speech, cultural representation and inclusivity. It is often accused by the Right of being overly censorious.

I think it's important in discussing censorship to parse what the motivating factors are. Censorship is a multifactorial equation and a similar result can be arrived at through utterly different paths.

'Moral law is an invention of mankind for the disenfranchisement of the weak. Historical law subverts it at every turn. A moral view can never be proven right or wrong by any ultimate test'. — Jack Cummins

It's only a novel. The quote matches the bleak, bereft setting of the book - circumstances where god seems to be missing.

It made me think of the previous movement of the 'moral right', as represented by Mary Whitehouse, which argued against pornography and art forms which showed forms of violence. — Jack Cummins

Mary Whitehouse was a fanatical Christian moral guardian with ties to fundamentalism. She wanted Dr Who banned.

She said that as it is a charity supporting children, they will not stock CDs, in case there has been any exploitation of children in the making of the music'. — Jack Cummins

There are many intellectually backward fanatics working for charities, I've met many of them. Who knows if this was policy or just the views of a store cooridanator? Given some of charities (often religious) are also anti-women's rights, anti-trans and highly judgemental of others in general, this is hardly surprising.

What do you think about the relationship between ethics and politics? Also, what is 'right' or 'wrong' about political correctness, and how far should such correctness go in outlawing what may some may regard as being 'offensive'? — Jack Cummins

I don't see how anything you have raised is connected to political correctness.

Your question seems to be about censorship and this is a pressing issue all around the world where books are banned for all sorts of reasons, generally through religious fundamentalism or political autocracy.

Perhaps the salient question is how do certain discreet communities led by fanatics who do not represent mainstream views, end up causing culture to be censored?

I think we have a need to strive. To struggle. Nothing worthwhile comes easy. We don't appreciate what we don't work for. — Patterner

That's certainly a commonly held view. But frankly I appreciate greatly the things I got for 'free' or without work, so I'm not sure about this. It sounds a little too close to Calvinism for me.

which is why sports is the most important thing in the world. Unfortunately, it can also mean fighting, and taking from, each other. — Patterner

This doesn't resonate with me at all. I have never watched or played any sport. I dislike games and sport with something approaching a passion. I do agree with the point that many men are aggressive creatures and as long as they are running around on the field like thugs chasing after a ball, they are not out on the streets rioting. That's a cartoon summary with perhaps some truth to it?

I think we need to find more ways to strive for, and gain satisfaction from, things that don't involve other people. Me against nature. Me against myself. Who knows? — Patterner

I think this is the impulse i lack. I have never had any desire to challenge myself or do any of the kinds of 'growth-based" righteous middle class rituals you read about in self-help. That doesn't mean I haven't had to face challenges and overcome obstacles, but this happens without planning.

Lots of things are outside our control. I tried to be stoical about it but I failed. Perhaps I failed because I am currently depressed. I scored 23/27 on https://patient.info/doctor/patient-health-questionnaire-phq-9 today. — Truth Seeker

I can't speak to your situation, but sometimes when people are seeking to change the world, what they would be better off doing is changing themselves.

Thanks for your perspective. Appreciated.

I'm not sure why you would post these two websites as representations of true and authentic religions. Remember I don't share your worldview, so I have no idea what your intent is. I thought you were being satirical at first. It's certainly not self-evidence and the content I see is standard religious fare. I grew up in the Baptist Church and I worked for the Catholic Church for many years so I'm familiar with the frames and concepts.

I'm asking why these two churches and not The Church of England or Quakers? How do you determine which version of Christianity is true and which one is not - other than via personal preferences?

You're a Pope Francis fan? What is it about these two religions?

The teachings of Jesus are preached by the true Churches. — Lionino

What are the true churches and what teachings do they preach?

I have saved and improved many lives but I can't save and improve all lives - I find this very distressing. — Truth Seeker

Perhaps it's not so much a question of facts versus opinion but a matter of values and worldviews. And whether it is realistic for you to want people to share your worldview.

From a Stoic perspective, there's no point worrying about that over which you have no power. I generally hold that life is a bucket of shit for many people on earth, even the successful ones, and I sleep fairly soundly knowing that virtually none of this is in my control.

I'll respond to the rest later, but it's worth pointing out that that cocoon interest in Thomism, and his conversion to Catholicism, come after the publication of After Virtue. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I thought you might argue this. But he's obviously been working through religious perspectives for some time and his official conversion came shortly after the book came out. As you suggest, I'd bet that he's been thinking along these lines for many years. I've known a number of Marxists and atheist like this. As it happens, both Wayfarer and I have been waiting for Nagel to come out as a theist, but perhaps it won't happen.

His religious conversion then seems to follow from the shift in philosophical beliefs, or at least being concurrent with it, rather than him writing After Virtue as a sort of apology for beliefs he has always held. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I'd probably argue that After Virtue is a transitional work. Never intended to suggest it was more significant than this.

Indeed, a flaw in After Virtue, at least from my perspective, is that it fails to adequately account for how metaphysics and epistemology are essential to ethics in the classical/Christian tradition, and this seems to be because he embraces the ethics without having yet come around on the metaphysics. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Maybe he just needed to believe in something transcendent for emotional reasons and the metaphysics might have come later. :wink: I've often thought Marxism was held by many as a kind of a substitute for religion.

Do you think we are in worse trouble today compared to previous eras? I sometimes think humans are addicted to crisis. We almost seem to need a belief in a coming apocalypse and given we have been primed for this by politics, religion and decades of innumerable movies and TV shows (zombie apocalypses, sci-fi dystopias), it's no surprise.

As you suggest, one man's opinion is another's fact and visa versa. But if we don't argue over that then we will argue over what method we can use to determine what makes it into Fact City and what is banished to the badlands. I'm not entirely sure we need to worry. I doubt that pluralism or difference of itself is the problem. It's how difference and diversity is managed, which is a separate issue. And I wonder too if this isn't yet another thread about the nature of truth.

:up: There's something even more curious. I know some professional string instrumentalists. They experience something completely different to me even when they hear that Bach. Their experience seems to be even more embodied, even more specific, even more intense. As qualia goes, theirs seems to be of an entirely different order to mine. This I find fascinating.

A very thoughtful and nuanced response.

MacIntyre suggests meta goods that one can observe vis-á-vis the "good life": "the good life for man is the life spent in seeking for the good life for man, and the virtues necessary for the seeking are those which will enable us to understand what more and what else the good life for man is.” The virtues are those qualities/habits that “achieve those goods which are internal to practices and the lack of which effectively prevents us from achieving any such goods.” — Count Timothy von Icarus

This kind of frame seems circular.

A person who is ruled over by appetites and passions cannot transcend their current beliefs and desires; their actions are determined by a mere part of themselves. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Perhaps, but I'm not certain if this is true or how common it is for anyone to transcend their beliefs and desires, regardless of passions. But I can see the point. Are there not those who consider one's passion to be a driver towards radical reappraisal of self, a la Nietzsche?

But I think you will have a problem explaining how it is the natural philosophy eventually gave us penicillin, air planes, and cars. If all theory is just following emotions, why should the tools of reason appear to work so much better than simply doing what one prefers? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Is it not the case that humans find results emotionally satisfying? One reason people embrace scientism might be the notion that only science, with continual demonstration of its effectiveness, can provide us with reliable knowledge about reality. You can see how emotionally satisfying this might be.

But looking for "what is necessary for the 'good life' in all contexts," is already moving away from MacIntyre's more poignant criticism of Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment era ethics. The more important question would seem to be: "in what context is the good life for man best achieved." This is sort of (in a vague way) like the difference between trying to find the optimal point on a social welfare function and trying to find the input conditions that produce the best possible social welfare function (i.e. finding the utility maximizing point on some single line versus figuring out which inputs create the lines with the highest peaks.) — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think this is a good point. But isn't it the case that MacIntyre is a type of Christian (a Thomist?) so he is bound to see the world as having intrinsic meaning. Surely underpinning his views is that God's nature is conceived as perfectly good, and moral values and obligations are grounded in this divine nature. The enlightenment, from his worldview must be an affront to the classical tradition (in theology, if not philosophy).

I am fine with people engaging in discourse and making agreements about what they think society should do and what is best pragmatically in certain situations. But one mustn't mistake this for absolute truth. It's just an ongoing and evolving conversation and the source of morality therein lies within human society and its evolving beliefs and practices rather than in any external, objective or 'perfect' reality.

Where the rubber hits the road is when we talk about specific moral issues. This is more interesting than the interminable debate about whether morality is objective or not. What to do about abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, trans rights, etc? I think we'd learn a lot more from these sorts of conversations - where an actual issue is explored - rather than partake in more theoretical embroidery.

It doesn't seem that value should have to be immutable to be objective, grounded in something outside emotion, or subject to rational understanding. From the classical view, it seems like what we generally term value has to relate to relative good. What would be immutable is the Good which mutable things participate in. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Fair point.

this is generally its polite way of saying "what a load of bullcrap! — Pierre-Normand

Ha! Not at all. I am genuinely interested in phenomenology and the snippets I have gleaned are tantalising and do suggest a way out of some of our dilemmas. Evan Thompson’s work in embodied cognition has interested me in recent times.

I’m old and tired. I have never privileged philosophy in my life, so much of what I read is incomprehensible and, I have to say, dull. But I’m happy enough to scratch around the periphery looking for shiny things I can use. Especially the things that go against my beliefs. I like ideas I would never have thought of. Thanks for your reply and the reference.

Thanks. I do find this reply intriguing, particularly as someone outside of philosophy.It does sound (to a neophyte like me) as if the phenomenological approach essentially side steps the question. But as you say this belongs elsewhere.

Thanks. Do you subscribe to a particular model of consciousness? Idealism?

A lot of folk seem to dislike Dennett's ideas - especially those with romantic, spiritual or religious inclinations. Do you think he is generally strawmanned as the dude who says consciousness is an 'illusion'?

Anyone know of an interview where he addresses this and restates his position? I recall reading one wherein he said something like consciousness is not exactly an illusion, it just isn't what we think it is.

I recall reading passages by Dennett and thinking, yes that sounds right based on my own reflections. In my experience, I've often found my own consciousness to be rather underwhelming, comprised of fleeting impressions and fragmented moments that I stitch together with narrative to seemingly make sense of it all.

A very interesting reply.

In terms of going deeper, Alasdair MacIntyre's After Virtue is one of the more influential works comparing the classical/medieval tradition and modern ethics. His thesis is that most modern moral discourse is not truly reasoned, but emotive and rationalized after the fact. That means that systems that appear to have rational principles are in fact voluntaristic frameworks disguised as rational. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I've generally suspected that most, if not all philosophy or theory, is rationalisation after emotion. How would one demonstrate that virtue, in the context of such venerable system building, is an exception?

Is MacIntyre's advocacy of a coherent moral framework (essentially by way of Aristotle), not just an example of that which pleases him emotionally or aesthetically? It also seems to be an appeal to tradition.

I have generally assumed that one can be a virtuous serial killer if one values excellence in a slightly different way to usual intersubjective custom. But is this difference an indication of flawed reasoning, or simply a different way of constructing values? What makes a value immutable?

Some recent archeology in Central America indicates that some of the civilizations were so successful that they depleted their resources. I think that is culture and not a result of our survival instincts. — isomorph

Is it not possible that our 'survival abilities' are a double edged sword? What makes us strong could also be what can takes us out. — Tom Storm

We seem to be in agreement.

I guess I'm trying to understand what you want the focus of this thread to be about.

In an absurd universe, nothing we do ultimately matters, but if our survival abilities are clouded, we will never be able to adapt, and that is what I think has happened. — isomorph

Is it not possible that our 'survival abilities' are a double edged sword? What makes us strong could also be what can takes us out. Are you saying that our ability to address issues like climate change and political tribalism are fraught unless we can get back to some 'more pure' state?

Rather than frame morality in terms of principles, I think it more productive to think in terms of moral deliberation. We are in the realm of opinion, not absolutes or truths handed down from a higher authority. In the absence of such authority morals are by default relative and subjective. This does not mean that distinctions between right and wrong or good and bad cannot be made, but that we must critically evaluate and defend such opinions in an attempt to determine and do what seems best, while also recognizing that about certain things we may be wrong or that there may be others who hold defensible opinions that differ from our own. — Fooloso4

Nicely put.

I'm still unclear why any of this matters.

Are you saying that you want to identify the nature of the human (beyond culture) in order to determine who we are and what commonalties we have which might be useful to solve some of the challenges we face?

what I'm really trying to explore is the human condition without the culture that seems to make us all different — isomorph

Are you positing an essentialist project? What do you mean by different?

Propositions:
1. As we progress, our idols are destroyed and replaced, e.g., Ptolemy/Copernicus.
2. Improved instrumentation allows us to verify our perceptions and correct our thinking. Aristarchus saw a heliocentric universe before Ptolemaic geocentric universe was replaced by Copernicus’ heliocentric universe.
3. History can be an idol to be destroyed as in the case of Pythagoras and his theorem, which was known in other cultures long before Pythagoras. Also the victor usually wipes out the history of the vanquished.
4. Our historical idols did not spring up by the prowess of their own genius, but stood on the shoulders of giants as Newton said.
4. We should be conservative in accepting changes, but remember the priests have always had a vested interest in maintaining status quo. — isomorph

I'm not sure that idol is a useful metaphor personally, but I understand the general sentiment. I tend to hold that what we call knowledge is contingent, a product of social practices and linguistic frameworks rather than a reflection of an objective reality.

New Zealand is heading there, the brain damage can already be seen in England, Canada, and starting in Australia. — Lionino

What's starting in Australia?

I like Rohr but I am not sure what he means there. Guess I would need to read the full text.

As it happens, Rohr often rolls his eyes and says 'that's just religion' too.

“Christians are usually sincere and well-intentioned people until you get to any real issues of ego, control power, money, pleasure, and security. Then they tend to be pretty much like everybody else. We often given a bogus version of the Gospel, some fast-food religion, without any deep transformation of the self; and the result has been the spiritual disaster of "Christian" countries that tend to be as consumer-oriented, proud, warlike, racist, class conscious, and addictive as everybody else-and often more so, I'm afraid.”

― Richard Rohr, Breathing Underwater: Spirituality and the 12 Steps

Throughout history and across cultures many many nonbelievers have sacrificed their lives in order to protect their families / communities and/or to oppose various tyrannies. "Belief" in some "afterlife" – or any fact-free, faith-based story – in order to gain a "reward" (or punishment) isn't a necessary motivator and, IMO, more often than not, is only useful for deluding weak minds into throwing away their lives "in the name of (the cause)". Ethically, as a rule, martyrdom isn't an argument (& ends don't justify means – especially those means which undermine or negate their ends). Just my 2 shekels. :victory: — 180 Proof

I like your 2 shekels. For me the afterlife is all the life that takes place after mine is over.

If you don’t like to explore different ways of thinking, what is the point of doing philosophy? — Angelo Cannata

Well, I'm not sure about 'doing' philosophy. I don't do it. I read a little about it. But my interest is superficial.

People seem to take an interest in philosophy for a range of reasons. Often simply to find more sophisticated post hoc justifications for what they already belief. I also think a lot of people are attracted to philosophy to undertake a bit of a survey of what other (seemingly) crazy ideas there are available.

I have always thought that human knowledge was simply the best inferences we can make given our limitations and the perspectives available to us. We can apply some of our knowledge with prodigious results. But we seem unable to avoid wars, famines, environmental catastrophe and hideous internecine religious and political conflicts. We have just enough knowledge, it seems, to take us to the precipice.

Well, Christianity is known as a pretty big tent.

Kastrup's analytical idealism suggests that the ground of existence is experiential, rather than material, and that the universe is ultimately a single, universal mind. As discussed previously, there are convergences between that and schools of ancient Greek (nous in neoplatonism) and the Brahman of Vedanta (not to mention more recent schools of idealist philosophy). The model of the self as a "dissociated alter" originates from this. In this understanding, individuals are like "alters" (a term borrowed from dissociative identity disorder in psychology) of this larger consciousness. — Wayfarer

Nice summary of Kastrup.

The key point is that popular religion cannot traffic in high-falluting ideas of cosmic consciousness and the unitive vision. 'Believe and be saved' is much nearer the mark. — Wayfarer

This is a good point and wherever anyone says this I think, yep that's true. Unfortunately in reducing spirituality to such a simplistic or 'dumbed down' terms (the Magical Mr God) I wonder how useful/meaningful it is. It seems awfully easy to turn this into a tool of oppression and Calvinist-style retribution.

I'm while I'm coming around to the understanding that those who really do practice charity, empathy, self-control and agapē really may be 'saved' — Wayfarer

Which would include most secularists, I'd imagine. David Bentley Hart makes the point that universalism was central to the early Christian tradition. We are all 'saved', regardless.

I'm not sure what 'saved' means however, once you articulate this in more sophisticated spiritual terms. Liberated? Moksha? Any thoughts? Saved seems so binary and one suspects a more nuanced vocabulary is required.

Is it not the case that Camus and Nietzsche, start with nihilism, more or less as foundational - there is no inherent meaning, value or purpose - and then devise a response to this, which is essentially subjective or personal? Maybe I'm the only one who thinks this, but no matter what one does to rehabilitate the implications of nihilism, it remains in some way a nihilist project.

Can you say some more about how Deleuze, Derrida and Heidegger put consciousness into question alongside subjectivity and objectivity? Does this come out of their critique of the binary/emphasis of pluralities?

I think I'd make a pretty hard distinction between existentialism and nihilism.

Existentialism is the philosophical response to the necessity of nihilism: given how we've lived meaningful lives before, and given how things have progressed this world feels absurd: the absurd is always an encounter. And absurdism is different from existentialism in that absurdism is a little more specific -- Sartre was no absurdist, so far as I can tell.

Nihilism is something like solipsism, but in the ethical realm -- it's an extreme point that people diverge from in various ways, and few (if any) actually adopt it philosophically (though they may in practice). — Moliere

This is interesting. Existentialism comes in various forms, including Christian existentialism. But isn't existentialism of the secular variety built upon similar notions as nihilism? The absence of meaning. Nihilism holds that life, existence and reality itself are devoid of inherent meaning, purpose, or value. It rejects the notion of any objective significance or ultimate truth. Existentialism tends to identify same lack of meaning and then moves in to fill the void.

I would often consider myself to be a nihilist. But I don't tend to see this approach as one of destructive apathy, or assertive repudiation, rather a more cheerful springboard to make decisions about what choices you will make and what you will do. I would not consider myself to be an existentialist.

Camus is no moral nihilist, and is a deeply ethical thinker. — Moliere

I'm not arguing that Camus isn't an ethical thinker.

This all depends what you understand a nihilist to be. I don't think all versions of nihilism preclude morality. It rejects inherent meaning and morality.

Hence what I wrote:

Camus rejected the idea of inherent moral values or an objective meaning to life, but he didn't deny the possibility of creating subjective meaning and ethical principles. — Tom Storm

Non-dualism represents the absence of a distinction that seperates reality into subject-object, appearance-thing in itself, becoming-being, nothingness-somethingness, necessity-contingency etc. In short, binary distinctions created by our langauges and thoughts dissappear. — Sirius

Do they 'disappear' or is it the hope if we frame things this way?

I suspect we could do an entire thread just on this paragraph.

My understanding of the Vedanta is that there is no distinction between the individual self (atman) and the absolute reality (brahman). In Western terms I guess this is idealism. Everything is consciousness and we are all aspects/expressions of a 'great mind' - for want of a better term.

My somewhat crude question is, why should we care? Is this frame really just for people who enjoy 'wanking about oneness' or does it have a tangible use in daily living?

Interesting. Would you mind saying a little more about A? D resonates with me but I am not well read on this subject.

Does A equate with Metzinger's 'self-model theory of subjectivity'?