My comments were as follows. I would love to hear yours.
Fascinating. I think, however, that he starts to late in the process and then comes back only at the end, and without direction or even foundation. I maintain that the starting place has to be truth. The five axes are certainly valid, but they are, to my mind, tools. I think that he is actually saying this to some extent. But unless the tools have good information to work with, they will not lead to correct conclusions. BTW, I think he betrays himself at the end by only noting Eastern religions, which I find morally ambiguous. I understand that the axes seem to be foundational, but are not. For example, what constitutes real harm must be informed by the real nature of the universe and life. Christianity posits that there is more to life than what appears to us - that our life in this universe is less than a preface to the real story. As such, real harm is measured in terms of how it affects that eternal part of our existence which lies primarily outside of this universe. Eastern religions, on the other hand, teach that we continually reenter this universe, and that this is the bane of our existence, and that, indeed, existence itself is the problem. Therefore our goal is to cease to exist. Which is true, or if another is, will determine what we do with these tools. I really enjoyed the talk, and I do believe that the questions which both lead to and arise out of these kinds of things are the most important things we will think about and act on in this life. I might add that, if this pitifully short existence is all there is, most of what he is talking about is of limited, and ultimately of no, real value.
