Morality is always an act of either interpreting or creating what we believe to be right. — Tom Storm

:up:

And that difference is not only biological, it is also existential. — Wayfarer

I submit it is not biological, but only exisistential. Does that change anything?

viewing existence purely through the lens of Darwinian theory is inevitably reductionist, which is one of the unfortunate characteristics of today's culture. — Wayfarer

I presume you have read my various related posts to be claiming that all we really are is a set of feelings and drives. Hence, biological reductionism.

You would be correct, except that, you have either missed, or--and this I admit, is more likely--I have failed to communicate a seemingly subtle, but actually significant variation. I'll do my best (note Real=ultimate truth or reality, universal shared irrespective of species, and not just, as i submit, that reality constructed by that anamolous species, us--I know you are already straining, indulge me):

1. Yes, the Real human organism is the Body with its drives and feelings, plus whatever is our organic aware-ing of that. The reason, "whatever is," is because that's the very "problem" we face as humans. That Real and organic consciousness is displaced so we cannot access it via the mediator/displacer.
2. Call that reductionism if that's what it is. I'm not sure labeling ideas is always helpful but I respect that it can be. But note,
a) I am not suggesting a lump of flesh in any derogatory way, not even dumb flesh. For all we know, that organic aware-ing is, especially for us super sophisticated humans, an ecstatic state of bliss, etc.
b) accept that (only maybe, until recently) the entire history of metaphysics and religion has been our desperate effort to do the opposite: to suppress the flesh and silence Real organic being, for the sake of glorifying the very thing displacing it.
3. My personal query (of course I do not know) is, what am I really? Not the I who is asking, nor the I that I want it to be. I am that Organic body (Descartes confusion was remaining with the I that wants). That is the consciousness I share with the rest of Nature. So what is all this other stuff? This stuff unique to the I who (thinks) hopes it is (real) Real. It is not some Reality occupying the Spiritual realm. Why would it be? Does that not reek of wishful thinking? Ockhams razor. How are our dualistic explanations not overly complex fantasy?
4. Yet there truly seems to be a dualism. What is Mind? Yes, there seems to be one, because there is. Mind is something other than the organism, unique to humans. It exists, but only in the billions of images stored in our memories. And here's where I've already occupied more than my fair share and must end. But though those images exist, they are empty representations. Reality for us, like all beings, is in our magnificent and cherish able nature: matter. Not the Fiction we write. Final note: lest I further confuse into "nihilism". Yes human existence beyond its Organic Truth, is constructed. But so what? It, like the beehive and beaver dam, serves many great (and harmful) functions. Let it be.

As a lame courtesy to this overall post, this ties in because I am suggesting that a "sick" spirit is just maladjusted Narrative which can be corrected narratively. No need to fret. Find your True Spirit by breathing presently. By the self inhabiting Being, and not becoming. Not new age. Philosophy.

But these entanglements conceal the nature of ethics itself for the question is not raised here if there is anything indefeasible about these affairs. — Astrophel

But the Real the underpins ethical entanglements and makes ethics what it IS, is value, and by value I mean the good and the bad that generates obligation outside of, logically prior to, the language constructs we use. — Astrophel

Asking you authentically, not to set up some argument (sorry, I have learned that some think queries are concealed gotchas):

1. Are you saying there is an ontological "Real" for Morals/Ethics, and that that "Real" is good vs bad? That these are what is indefeasible, or, absolute?

2. Why aren't "good" and "bad" also just "features of a society's entanglements"? Granted, I see that good and bad speak to the pith and substance of ethics. But why isn't Ethics itself, right down to its pith and substance, a functional construct?

Addendum: simplified illustration. In prehistory/prelanguage/preconstruction, X 's mate is killed by Y, X feels the negative feelings which arise from the lost bond. Y might feel the satisfaction of protecting her offspring. Y feels the positive feelings of that. Where is the prehistoric, ontological value? Where does it fall? I say, post history, good and bad were constructed to displace those natural feelings. Only they are ontologically real and prehistoric, because they are organic.

The Brothers Karamazov a character asks: “But what will become of men then?” I asked him, “without God and immortal life? All things are permitted then, they can do what they like?” — Tom Storm

I am a little bewildered at how often I've heard versions of this in response to submissions that God either doesn't exist, or if It does, is beyond good and bad, right and wrong, (and all other dualisms arising only to a species like us who have constructed difference.)

Why do we need God to cooperate (which is ultimately the drive behind morality)? Do people not see that ultimately matters such as these fall only to their "functionality"?

If we, not God, permit murder, people will die. If we steal, there would be chaos. Etc etc etc.

I choose to confess because I feel it is more personal. It is like a redemption with myself — javi2541997

Sure! And why not? If it works, it works. I just say, that "it works," is the workings of Mind.

But, ultimately, who am I?

not until you showed up — Astrophel

While it's likely there was deliberately no logic. If there was, I'd wager this:

While sequestered he was not alone, but with his Body, and thus one with everything.

The reporter reminded him of his Subject (because Subject requires Other) and thus the seeming utter isolation/alienation.

But ultimately, we are utterly not alone; neither in Body where we are one with Nature/Reality, nor in Mind where we are one with History/Maya.

not until you showed up. — Astrophel

:up: :up: :up:

Paraphrased to illustrate:

Jesus: nothing beats belief. Belief will move mountains. If you have belief the size of a mustard seed you will say to that mountain move, and it will move.

Hui neng: came across two of his disciples debating over whether the wind was moving the flag or the flag was moving. "It is neither wind nor flag," said the 6th patriarch of Cha'an. "It is your mind moving."

if there is no access to "reality," then presumably there is no reason to set up a knowledge/belief, reality/appearance distinction in the first place. But claims that beliefs are "merely appearance," presuppose such a distinction. — Count Timothy von Icarus

But there is a reason. That is how IT functions, this anomalous human existence. We built sky scrapers and rockets out of belief.

But in reality, in the Timeless Reality before/beyond/outside of our constructions, we have only constructed belief to stand in for Truth (knowledge), having no access therefrom to Real Truth

It would better be put “there is only belief.” Or “there is no knowledge.” — Fire Ologist

Totally. There is only belief, ultimately. Knowledge is the sneaky tool we've evolved to hide that fact. Or...so I believe.

I think there is a valid distinction between knowledge and belief, — Janus

Does not all knowledge require a final movement to ordain it? And isn't that step belief? I would define knowledge as that "information," input into Mind(s) which, following a dialectical process, ends at a settlement which is believed by said Mind(s).

Now we must be careful not to miss a step. One might say, I know some say the earth is flat but I don't believe it. My knowledge did not require belief. But actually you must believe that some say the earth is flat. If you don't, your statement is that you don't have knowledge that some say the earth is flat. Rumors? I [believe] there are rumblings about the earth being flat. And I don't believe them. But I do believe there are mumblings. Or, I hear there are rumors and I don't believe them.

All knowledge requires belief.

if the idea is simply to live a less stressful life, then fine. But this is not what Gautama Siddhartha had in mind so long ago. — Astrophel

Totally agree. This is not what Buddha had in mind; i.e. the relief from stress. But he did have in mind that the root of all stress, suffering, is the attachment to this profane, including the Ethical (the universal) etc. But while one might argue that Buddha was calling for the annihilation of this "self" who is so attached, I believe he was calling more for its "recognition," as its annihilation is likely impossible.

I agree with you

that it is impossible for a language possessor to remain silent on things one feels inquisitive? Therefore he broke his own code as soon as he uttered the sentence? — Corvus

Yes, and so do we all

As far as I understand this, confessing only heals the spirit because the latter is sacred, religious, etc. I mean, they are different concepts with different results. Don't you think? — javi2541997

Yes. I like "confession" for healing the "spirit" more than apologize. You're right. Or repent. Repent and sin no more. If we want to think religiously.

But still I think we are talking about healing one and the same thing. Whether we call it Mind or Spirit. It might be convenient for discourse to think of the Mind as, for e.g., the seat of reason, and the spirit, for e.g., as the seat of the sacred, and thus of guilt and despair. They are not divided, but the same thing.

You suggest that the Spirit alone can be healed by confession. Yet many forms of psychotherapy involve speaking out your mind's issues to a qualified other. As long as it needs healing by apologizing, confessing or repenting it's "sins" we are speaking of the Mind, the psyche, the whole of human consciousness, and not the Truly Spiritual, which is the Organic body uninvolved with such inventions, but rather carrying on with the life God is giving it.

God could be contacted in some other way than seeing or hearing him. It proves human reason and thinking is not really the 100% certain criteria for all the knowledge in the world.

What are the other means for employment you suggesting? — Corvus

I think God--if there is--transcends our human constructions/conventions, including reason and morality. If God is the Creator/Sustainer/Recycler of all that there is beyond such constructions/conventions, i.e. the "Lord/Lady" of Nature, then accessing God would be by being that nature, your true nature, that living breathing organism. Be-ing a human creature, accepting that reality, as opposed to what we spend the vast majority of our time doing, creating our own reality becoming a human "god."
To incorporate the Abrahamic tradition, the former is the tree of life, the latter is the tree of knowledge.

If we cannot speak on something, we need no imperative not too. We cannot. — AmadeusD

Ha. True. But, and this might have been the point (?) , yet how we do.

Hey, myself more than the next guy! It's irresistible.

Yah I didn't bother looking it up. Do you know the Wittgenstein line?

As for who is morally culpable. Here's my take.

From the perspective of human Consciousness, collective consciousness, or History, we must settle upon the belief (making it a truth) that an individual is morally culpable. History functions under that "we know but we act as if," mechanism best in this scenario. If we were to settle upon the belief that we are all culpable, there would be a need not just for a radical paradigm shift, but one that would take generations to assimilate into functionality.

But from the perspective of an outsider, a being not, like we all are, "trapped" in History, we all built history together, and we continue to do so. Every expression of a single mind to at least one other, triggers at least one reaction (no matter how minute), and so on, building history. Thus given the interconnectedness of all things mediated by human mind, i.e., all things human, we are all morally culpable and all morally credited for every action in said history. Not because there aren't degrees of culpability from locus to locus, but because it is ultimately one structure. As painful a pill to swallow, maybe there is something to the Catcher in the Rye killing Lennon.

have studied most of the religions on Earth but not all of them. I have tried praying to many gods and goddesses. None of them answered my prayers. — Truth Seeker

Could it be the case you might have had prayed to the unreal or fake Gods, and there were no response for your prayer from them? — Corvus

Right, and a variation on Corvus, could it be they answered your prayers in a "language" you have closed yourself off to?

I'm not saying I agree with the depiction of God Gods Godesses here. Who knows, i might agree more with Truth Seeker's view of God/No God.

But, if God exists as Ultimate Reality, I dont think we can establish, judge, understand, discuss God in our terms. So, though I am yet to be a reader or student of Wittgenstein, I've come across enough to say, and I paraphrase, that of which we cannot speak, we must remain silent.

But that doesn't mean the door is closed on God. Only that God cannot be accessed by our Minds. Other means must be employed...

meditation is an annihilation of ones "existence". — Astrophel

Sorry Astrophel, annihilation? Would you accept, a rest, vacation, respite? I think I know what you mean, but meditation is a simultaneous turning away from "existence" and turn toward Reality, or True Being.

I think, like Abraham's temporary suspension of the ethical ( specifically the law against infanticide, broadly, "existence," our world) meditation as we are using it here, is a temporary reprieve from our world, which removes its obstructions and allows brief glimpses of Truth. But the world has become the inescapable* default setting for humans in human existence.

*I think there might theoretically be a "meditative" process which might allow one to exist in a permanent state of Truth, hence "annihilating" existence; but, man, is that unlikely.

Have I misunderstood? Intruded?

I appreciate how thoughtful you are being, and I feel the earnestness in your tone. So, please note (I acknowledge you probably do anyway) that I am not providing answers with any authority beyond the opinions which have collected in my tiny locus of history. I would only hope that you throw them into your own dialectic and I would be interested in learning what eventually comes out. Anyway, because I'm lazy, I won't keep repeating, "in my humble opinion." I just wanted to clarify that I know I sound like I know. But like you, like everyone, I don't.

... I feel my spirit is sick and if I attend meta-ethics they will teach me about principles to motivate better behavior — javi2541997

You're right. But not how you think. The meta-ethics will assuredly heal your "spirit," but you are (respectfully) unwittingly using "spirit" when you mean Mind. Your Mind
constructs and carries the burden of your immorality. Morality is a collection of Narrative trials and errors--like precedents in Anglo Common Law--made by billions of Minds, over the one mind, history. So any malaise you think is rooted in your spirit, is. But not as in opposed to Mind. It is Mind.

It is as opposed to what would belong to God, if there is God or the like, (e.g. Brahman or Buddha Nature also works). The malaise you reference is a construct of the Mind. But what belongs to God, that is, the True Spirit of I (humbly) submit, all religions, is our organic being, our Bodies.

You want to heal your Soul? Be ethical, minimize the focus upon the Subject in your Narrative. Be conventional. Belong.

You want to "heal" (I would say, "be") your Real Spirit, the True Consciousness of an organic being aware-ing always in presence, it's feelings and its drives, in pursuit of prosperity and bliss? Just be that organic being. For God's sake Breathe.

Yet I agree with some users who claim there have to be universal principles or code of conduct which we can rely on. Do you agree with me that lying to our parents is one of the dirtiest things to do? I — javi2541997

Yes. I agree! But I note (remember, with humility and an incessant self doubt) that those codes were written by History, and if God is Real, they have nothing to do with It beyond any arguments that It may have once had an inspirational role.

. I feel my spirit is rotten after doing so, — javi2541997

I feel that, if the foregoing serves any functions, this one is important. God does not judge you for your admittedly dirty lies. You are judging yourself. Good. Within the context of the rest of us, history. And because your Narrative is ethical, you're firing off Signifiers to release chemicals of anti-bliss (clearly I simplify). So see? The system works. It doesn't have to be religion. You feel bad. Fix it. Apologize and henceforth be honest.

But notwithstanding all scriptural and ecclesiastical claims to the contrary, lightning will not strike you.

Again. If morality is not the essence of spirituality, why do we act accordingly? — javi2541997

Well, now, given I haven't miscommunicated, you know why I think. Up to you.

Sorry, to expand briefly on my previous reply.

The corresponding "philosophical" branch for religion (as in thelogy) is metaphysics not ethics or morality. For spirituality, specifically, you might find a sister in existentialisms drive for authenticity.

Yes, morality is a bi-product; but not the essence of spirituality.

The corresponding

Do you feel the same? — javi2541997

I separate spiritually from morality.

The former's "purpose" is soteriological, or emancipatory. That is, to "lift" one up from/out of secular and mundane attachments, including morality. To use Eliade's term, It belongs to the sacred.

While the latter, morality, involves the secular. It may have as its "purpose" the most functional or "best" version of the secular, but it remains nevertheless secular. To use Eliade's term, It belongs to the profane.

I agree that "religions" have exploited spirituality to "scare" us into accepting that the main purpose of same is to "be good."

However, I believe there can be near perfectly moral atheists according to conventional standards of morality; and, (although more difficult to objectively assess) near perfectly accomplished in spirituality (i.e. enlightened/saved) who do not adhere to any moral laws or structures.

Now, I expect resistance on the second conclusion. It is common to view spiritaul persons as "saintly," and to equate "saintly" with being a good person.

But note, that a spiritual "saint" "mukti" "sage" etc. behaves morally, either
1. Because coincidentally, freedom from the attachment to the profane is also freedom from the same attachments which lead us to immoral choices, or
2. Because they are claiming to be spiritual, an presenting their morality as proof, and are therefore, not spiritual.

I mean, if there is a God, and or a spiritual reality, why would it be restricted by our relative morality? And if you think religious morality is not relative, read the old testament, koran, and Mahabharatas to see how much our religious morality has evolved (improved!), relative to our secular views.

I am fine being in the experience machine. — AmadeusD

There's no place like it

Heidegger is describing how the stone shows up for Dasein as — Arne

Thank you.

And this next question is not argumentative, just as my first question wasn't. So I appreciate you taking the time etc. And forgive me for my plain English, I try to stick to the latter when i lack confidence in the terminology.

Is Dasein a pre-human "thing" ("thing" in the most respectful ontological terms necessary) which is inherent in, pervades, constitute the True Being, substance etc. of the Universe, Reality, etc? Or is Dasein particular to the human experience? I have no planned follow up, so if you would explain that, I'll leave it, knowing I might be side tracking.

all a lot of fun! — AmadeusD

Right? And that too is a topic for further discussion somewhere. We know [it is Fiction] but [built into the Fiction is the reward of] we act as if [it is Real]

Consciousness doesn't, on it's face, consist in memories, so I see no reason to have them at-base. — AmadeusD

Might it be that the one which consists in memories, what I've referred to as the Narrative, is that Mind which does not persist. But, to differentiate, "real consciousness" does not consist in memories. And I think therefore ironically, real consciousness, the one which does not necessarily require the fleshy infrastructure to operate its memory store, if it persists in the afterlife, it is necessarily not the Narrative. Sad as it is, "I" is the Narrative, requires memory and its organic infrastructure. I goes never to return with the death of the Body. As for so called real consciousness, perhaps the incessantly present awareness Nature has in Be-ing. Perhaps what I really am, as/along with this body is that incessant presence where death doesn't matter where afterlife doesn't matter. All there is is Be-ing, and Be-ing is aware-ing be-ing. And, admittedly for drama, Tat Tvam Asi. Thou art that. But you are not the Narrative.

I read this as a great question, not any kind of dig or gotcha. — AmadeusD

Yes. Definitely not a dig. :up:

I see absolutely no issue with Consciousness being some more general concept, and 'a mind' being 'bodily bound consciousness' or some such. — AmadeusD

I do too. But for me that "afterlife" does not include my ego--the Subject,"I"--nor any of its Narrative. So, admittedly this is that ego taliking: thanks but no thanks.

Now, more seriously. Yah. Whatever that consciousness is that is not mind, intuition tells me it might even pervade the universe. But if we’re being honest, that's not what we're after when we (myself included) get sucked in by fantasy: milk and honey, streets paved with gold, and the stuff of NDEs.

Idk lol — AmadeusD

I feel you brother (sister, or what not)!

seems to me probably untrue that consciousness dies with the individual mind. — AmadeusD

I used to entertain that. I still wish profoundly that it were true.

But — AmadeusD

But that it survives the body is just as perplexing. — AmadeusD

And there's the rub. How then? And I am asking sincerely, not argumentative. Although, I genuinely believe, alas, that any afterlife for mind necessarily implies dualism, and that we cannot support dualism of Mind and body, beyond the life of the Body. If we can, then I reiterate, how?

, I think the peculiar shared context of NDEs allows us a bit more leeway in terms of moving away from parsimony. — AmadeusD

100% Agreed. Especially, the topic of afterlife, if nothing else, cannot but be approached liberally. Yet that's a field in which we find some of the most of both dogma, and its close relative (if not, progenitor), wishful thinking. Mass shared experience can easily arise from both.

Start from obvious things: yes, try to destroy Hamas, but don't create a famine. I've again and again said one simple example: fight like the Americans. — ssu

You're right. I was over zealous and reckless, even wilfully blind.

I agree with many of your comments on this.

Heidegger’s modes of being are not intended for organizing the universe. Instead, they are intended to capture the manner by which entities come at us. If I am on my morning walk and I look down and happen to see a stone, then the stone is coming at me as a present-to-hand entity. On the other hand, if a skunk is coming my way and I see that same stone, it might come at me as a ready-to-hand entity that I can throw toward the skunk in the hope he scurries off. — Arne

Assuming MH takes the position above, including the example about stone, lets make it his own, why is it we must view MH as describing the Reality (of) such entities; I.e. a stone coming at me as present to hand or ready to hand, as if these are the Real natures of the stone?

Why is it not obvious, wittingly or unwittingly, MH was describe the Signifier stone and how it functions in human Mind to trigger a response. Stone alone, the most fitting Signifier Structure/effect, one thing; stone simultaneously with that other Signifier, skunk, the most fitting Signifier Structure/effect, another thing.

All of his descriptions are not disclosing Truth, but like Aristotle, Hegel, Kant before him, organizing experience in ways convenient to discourse. Why? Because that is how History moves. Through the most functional dialectic and the most fitting settlements upon belief.

Until the next one comes along

Israel not allowing food to the civilians won't cower the Palestinians to give up an seek a settlement, but will harden their resolve. — ssu

Yah. We think war is always functional because, of course, there are measurable, manifest effects. But it does not rule out more functional approaches.

People are more complex than Pavlov’s dogs. Look at the Taliban, the IRA, and Viet cong. Did the wars waged end them?

Also, Hamas. Did their horrendous attack end the plight of their people? No, if anything, it threatens the end of their people, period.

Realpolitik, far from suggesting war, actually ought to be more pragmatic, face the facts, and sit down for some immediate, open minded, bite the bullet, willing to compromise, negotiations. Both sides.

It can be surprising. — Chet Hawkins

It can be. In Mind, that is the surfacing form triggering a feeling which Signifies, the Signifier "surprise." But I wont dare elaborate. What really merits saying is that it is actually all "surprising" to the Body which has since the dawn of history gradually ignored its drives and sensations entirely, displacing them with Minds desires and perceptions, constructions in the Narrative form, constructions which include the illusion of choice, at the instant before the Body reacts to the final trigger.

imbalances can exist temporarily. THAT IS CHOICE. — Chet Hawkins

I appreciate the beauty of this. It moves me. But, as much as I wish otherwise, it is because the words triggered feelings which they evolved over time, my locus, and human history, to trigger.

Fear is delusional. (So is desire). — Chet Hawkins

How can I not agree?

There is nothing empty in any pattern. There is beauty and that means mystery meets order. — Chet Hawkins

Do you mean not empty in the, say, sense of it has essence, substance and is ultimately Real? Not rhetorical question.

So the point is order is always struggling to answer the question and get the pattern right, but, it tends to crave certainty and comfort and DECLARE that it knows now. That is its sin, cowardice, eg, not facing up to the balanced truth — Chet Hawkins

Again, not rhetorical. When you--or Hegel, Heidegger especially, and so on--speak like that, I.e., "Order wants to get it right, etc." are you being metaphorical? Or are you meaning Order is a being which acts with an aim etc. Like when a plant wants to move to ghe light and we can accept that we are describinga real being? Or is it in between, like when we say positive wants to bind with negative?

sees the chaos as an opportunity, and the most powerful fallout groups of order are the ones that build a great consensus within the chaotic mass. This is effectively a kind of self correcting problem in evolution. — Chet Hawkins

You are unwittingly (sorry, I realize how that might be taken. But let me assure you, we all unwittingly) describing the dynamics by which the Fictional constructions of History proceed. Dialectically, a back and forth of Signifiers, driven by desire to be heard, binding with other Signifiers, surfacing in the Narrative form, as human experience. Yes, self correcting, autonomously moving to manifest in the fittest form. That is choice. Choice is the final Signifier, the one triggering the Reality, Body into feeling or action

One seeming vague example is the bizarre situation amid humanity that we have so far resisted the hive mind effect in large part — Chet Hawkins

My friend. We are the hive mentality. History moves as one. It always has and always will. Never-ending the minor variations. Mind Universal is History. But even if I'm wrong, 1. You admit not only the possibility, but probability of the hive; and, 2. Resisting endocrination is a choice, by its conventional use. But wat is choice? A settlement in mund, leading to feeling/action in Body, following a chain of necessarily structured signifiers leading to the choice; sometimes but not necessarily initiated by a natural drive in Body.

Desire is quite strong. This is why we have Indian leaders asking — Chet Hawkins

Chance to clarify. I'm not saying desire doesn't exist, but it is a mechanism in the Narrative process of Mind. Nature or Reality has no relationship with desire. Drives evolved and continue to evolve for survival. Desire evolved in Language to promote the latter's prosperity too. But both desire, and the latter, are an emergence of empty Signifiers, lacking both matter, and any essence. I daresay, the very Dasein itself, is a creative construction of human Mind using the resources of human Mind. In the end, fleeting fiction. Functional, yes! Beautiful, of course. Meaningful? That's exactly what it's business is, and it is accomplished. But it, Dasein, is not a discovery by MH of Reality. It is a construction by History of more History.

I note, without judgement, that your responses to these questions are entangled with matters like "wrong" and "right" and suffering. I can only presume--having, at best, modest familiarity, lacking expertise--that you are expressing an existential(ist) perspective, and given this post, rightly so. But as I trust that I might eventually communicate my thoughts sufficiently, I'll leap to, as you poetically say, carry "on-on!" with faith and a teleological suspension of Reality (which is that both positions are false).

I perceive the existential as the very product of the Fiction, which fiction is the interconnectedness of all things constructed and moving autonomously within human consciousness. I.e., hence there is ultimately no burden of choice. The burden can be negated by the realization that it is not, predetermined but, an autonomous system of triggers.

Does this REALLY imply that choice is meaningless? I think not. — Chet Hawkins

Choice is meaningful. That is my submission. But meaningful and choice are constructions. They too
follow an autonomous chain of triggers. It is only with Mind that choice and meaning have "meaning" (or not; I.e., whether anything has meaning or not). In Reality, for the unaffected Body, there is no meaning; not life is meaningless! Meaning is meaningless. Let the meaning in Mind flourish, but accept that you are constructing it. Or rather, It is. The you in It's case not being the Body, but rather, the construction "you."

Further argument in favor of choice vs determinism — Chet Hawkins

Each of your captivating words which followed, mean one thing (if they support your position that life or at least we have the burden of choice), and another (if they support my claim that when we try to apply them to Ultimate Reality, that's where words fall apart and their empty fleeting Nature is revealed, and so too for all that they purport to represent that is, that they are art and their artful persuasion is no coincidence).

I take the latter position. I say you are compellingly using fiction, describing the way existence is for that one species infected with Mind. Courage, right, wrong, freedom and choice. And burden.

I know I, as a human being post-pre-history engage in a process whereby I arrive at a resolution followed usually by a feeling or action which we conventionally refer to as choice. But I also am relieved of the burden because I know it is a process. This is not fear talking, just an insight reflected in the works of many orthodox philosophers, from Socrates to Heidegger and Sartre. Beyond, but since we speak of existential.

Also if you concentrate any any choice, even to get a glass of water, you can see the chain of triggers. But focus in. And don't skip any steps.

I tire for now but with no expectations, I'll read through the rest of your response, because they are edifying, and take the liberty if I have more to say.

What other criteria would help to strengthen testimonial evidence? — Sam26

Criteria: credibility of witnesses in that, are there inherent biases, or incentives to lie. I note you have addressed this in your reply to other posts, but the fear of death presents an opportunity for fantasy in the form of wishful thinking.

Criteria: are there alternative explanations. I have not yet scrutinized this post to see if this has been addressed. Sorry. But there are other explanations. Given our shared history and shared experiences, these NDE's could be akin to dreams and the appearance of shared symbols or archetypes. Sure, tge testimonials are cross cultural. But if one wished to research it, they might find striking similarities in the ways we dream of witches or falling. Yet we accept that our common dreams about witches do not translate into witches are real.