puritybinge said:

i will agree with one thing, i came to the conclusion a long time ago that yes , the universe does not care about you (me).

---

When you realize that it is about you and that you are the center of and creator of YOUR universe then you can realize where the care can and only will come from if you want to be cared for and about by it............YOURSELF!  

Psychoactive1984 said:

Sorry moog, but it's hard not to be a judgemental sentient being focused on themselves... yet suggest otherwise... the I is what sustains us, and what motivates us... without the comfort of the I, then the individual doesn't look to the function of the "we".

You're suggesting that we attempt not to be human.

---

First off, I find this thread amusing.

A simple, yet well shrouded truth of the nature of reality is that a subjective I does not exist. It is impossible to know an I. When one attempts, in one's thoughts, to identify the I that summates said entity, the thought that identifies that identity is held seperate from that summated, conceptual entity. The observer continues to fragment when it is reflected inwards on itself. There is no possible way for the mind to hold an accurate image of itself.

Any sense of self is illusory. The actual self exists objectively, and cannot entirely be known to the self, as it is itself. Any mentally held image is incomplete and inaccurate, by the very fact that it is an image of the self, not The Self.

An illusory sense of self does not sustain us, it does not motivate us. In fact, an illusory sense of self only futher seperates ourselves from ourselves and our direct perception of reality (it interferes with that which sustains us and motivates us ). This, of course, does not mean that the self doesn't exist, it certainly does, but not as we know it. The mind, which is an aspect of the self, is not required to hold an illusory sense of self. It is not necessary for the functioning of the self. If a chair could think, does it require a mental construction of the chair in order to be the chair?

This, of course, does not mean that one does not sense the self. It means that one does not hold a mental image of the self that defines that self. We can sense the actual self directly, just as we can sense apparent aspects of our environment. Our self has a presence that is felt. Our mind tends to hold a concept that defines that sense of self. "I am that". Is that thought necessary? Indeed it isn't. You are naturally that, and can directly experience and sense that aspect of being that.

Don't ya'll see? It is the difference between observing and directly perceiving an experience, an aspect of reality, and of defining what that experience and that aspect of reality is. One is simply observing and experiencing as one naturally does, and the other is a projection onto reality.

Everyone has their different definition of the term ego, and to me, it means the illusory sense of self. It does not mean the mind, it does not mean any functional aspect of the mind (memory, etc.). It means the illusory sense of self, and when I see people speak of transcending it, I perceive that it is the illusory sense of self that they are speaking of transcending, as that is the only definition of ego that can possibly be transcended.

I have more to express on this, but I want to see what ya'll think of what I have just expressed before I go on. Does anyone not understand this?


Peace.