>>. . . but almost always ends with an obnoxious
>
> moralism which depends on a radical individualism
> for its validity.
>
> What is obnoxious about it? Or is all moralism
> obnoxious?
>
> Also, I am not advocating for radical individualism.
> What I am advocating for is a doctrine of radical
> no-self which requires the non-stop creation/destruction
> of a powerful provisional self each and every moment.
> Nagarjuna's "Mulamadhyamakakarika" is a wonderful
> text to use as an entry point into this thinking
> (though all of his work offers riches in my opinion).
>
> Neither from itself nor from another,
> Nor from both,
> Nor without a cause,
> Does anything whatever, anywhere arise.
But go back to your previous post where you asserted that "people should wake up and take responsibility". Carrol was a bit harsh, but note his point: the rhetoric of personal responsibility depends on the assumption that individuals are autonomous agents that can "take responsibility". N's whole point--and if I construe it correctly, the Buddhist view--is that there is no coherent, unified executor self. If you accept that position, then we can't exhort people to "take responsibility", because there is no coherent self that has this kind of executive control.
I like Wittgenstein here: the language we use is leading us down the rabbit hole. We say "people should take responsibility", and that language, placing the person as the subject, reflects and reinforces the fiction that people have coherent, unified selves that direct their behavior. --And note the ideological ramifications of this linguistic trick: the poor are responsible for their poverty, the rich deserve their wealth, victims of rape and battering must have done something to deserve it, etc.
In sum: the rhetoric of personal responsibility is of a piece with the hyperindividualism of our capitalist society, and it is ideological through and through.
Miles