| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |

This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
Registered: 04/17/05 Posts: 17,918 Loc: woodwork Last seen: 4 years, 23 days |
| ||||||
|
the ego is the downfall of all humanity. we are creatures. and that is that. creatures with free thought. the ego is just a f-ing front people put up. an image. a mask. a mask that they want society to see. f it. when you look at the core of life we are the same, that is that. deep down all is the same. 99% space that is all we are. we are molecules arranged in such a way. f the ego.
| |||||||
|
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111! Registered: 01/15/05 Posts: 15,427 Last seen: 6 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
![]() you aren't saying anything.
| |||||||
|
Registered: 04/17/05 Posts: 17,918 Loc: woodwork Last seen: 4 years, 23 days |
| ||||||
|
I just needed to vent that somewhere. I guess its been bugging me for a while and I did not even know it till last night. Its just I really hate the ego. It ties you down restricts you. Being egoless you can embrace anything and nothing can hold you down. Why do you think buddhist monks are just the self. No ego involved. Its the true way to live. Survive.
Edited by Tangerines (04/29/06 01:38 PM)
| |||||||
|
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111! Registered: 01/15/05 Posts: 15,427 Last seen: 6 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
what are you venting? what are you saying?
Hollow statements. Maybe it is your inability to properly put into words this cognition of yours, or maybe you are trying to find that perfect pseudo-intellectual point between vagueness and esoteric.
| |||||||
|
Registered: 04/17/05 Posts: 17,918 Loc: woodwork Last seen: 4 years, 23 days |
| ||||||
|
I am saying why does humanity need to create an ego???It just creates problems. I guess it is just my opinion. But if I have an opinion I have an ego. That goes against what i was saying before. i guess the only thing i should say is i am confused. I do not want an ego. But not wanting an ego is just another type of ego. so i guess i need an ego and am forever lost.
Edited by Tangerines (04/29/06 01:45 PM)
| |||||||
|
Teh Cat.... Registered: 09/07/04 Posts: 5,908 Loc: My Youniverse... Last seen: 14 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
Quote: My ego didn't make me fall down.... My lack of coordination did.... My ego was there to look around and make sure no one saw me fall.... ![]() Leggo my eggo.... ![]() >^;;^< -------------------- "The most important things in life that are often ignored, are the things that one cannot see...." >^;;^<
| |||||||
|
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111! Registered: 01/15/05 Posts: 15,427 Last seen: 6 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
I dont like the term ego, but I will bite here.
the ego doesn't create problems, just allows you to perceive things to be either a problem or not.
| |||||||
|
Teh Cat.... Registered: 09/07/04 Posts: 5,908 Loc: My Youniverse... Last seen: 14 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
Quote: ![]() >^;;^< -------------------- "The most important things in life that are often ignored, are the things that one cannot see...." >^;;^<
| |||||||
|
Sexy.Butt.McDanger Registered: 03/12/02 Posts: 24,855 Loc: Pandurn Last seen: 1 year, 13 days |
| ||||||
|
An ego is a sense of one's identity. The problem is not having a sense of who one is, but having a poorly managed sense of identity, one that remains ineffective in properly orchestrating your life.
There is the self, and then there is the mind's sense of self. Which one comes first? The self, naturally. One's sense of self is a tool that one can utilize to bring awareness into oneself and to begin to develop, change, and lead oneself. One considerable problem is that some people hold concrete, preconceptions as to who they are. They do not experience the self as it occurs in the moment, but derive their identity from the sense of self (as opposed to identifying with one's experience of the self). Don't preconceive, perceive. ![]() The self is the culmination of all experience and thought, and it unfolds in the moment. A mental sense of self is an abstraction. It is useful and necessary. Manage it wisely. ![]() Peace.
-------------------- If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
| |||||||
|
Registered: 04/17/05 Posts: 17,918 Loc: woodwork Last seen: 4 years, 23 days |
| ||||||
|
I have alot of thinking to do. I guess I am still in that stage even though I hate the phrase but I am trying to "find myself." It's just hard to live around all these people who obsess over their material objects when I don't care at all. I just cannot find anyone to connect to except my close friends which happen to be mostly guys. I just get filled with disgust when I am around other people and they just seem to want to live the OC life, a lie.
Probably why I can't get a girlfriend...I just don't want to here about the shoes they bought or the car they want or whatever. I mean talk to me about the string theory, or quantum mechanics or past the 4 dimensions and I can have a full blown conversation. Otherwise I am going to seem uninterested because I am. I am not going to pretend to care or be interested. People may think I am mean but whatever most people dont care they just pretend. I am not about to lower myself to pretend to be happy or pretend to have interest. I hate the term 'smile' when you get a picture because it is totally falsifying your emotions. You were not happy during that picture. If you really were smiling you would not need to make yourself smile you would smile automatically. I like when people take pictures without me knowing. Then if I am actually having a good time it is captured with no falsifying of the emotions. I was truly happy and did not have to bullshit. EDIT: Fireworks I like the way you worded that. Maybe I have been just stubborn abut myself changing. I do look on the past alot. IT seems more than the future. How I USED to be or what I USED to do. No more need for anyone to reply I guess this thread is done with. Edited by Tangerines (04/29/06 02:03 PM)
| |||||||
|
Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
|
the ego is the downfall of all humanity.
Merely the ego qua ego? Bullshit. Irrationality is the downfall of humanity, of which mysticism is emblematic of. Rational egoism has been the rise, the glory of all humanity. -------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
| |||||||
|
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111! Registered: 01/15/05 Posts: 15,427 Last seen: 6 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
![]() the term rational egoism is quite possibly the most subjective thing I have heard.
| |||||||
|
The Minstrel in the Gallery Registered: 03/15/05 Posts: 95,368 Loc: underbelly |
| ||||||
|
Right on dude. The ego is as necessary as breathing and a healthy, in balance ego is a joy to behold. (or so I have heard)
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
| |||||||
|
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111! Registered: 01/15/05 Posts: 15,427 Last seen: 6 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
for people who claim to be so "objectivly rational" you guys sure do spread around a lot of subjective opinion around.
| |||||||
|
Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
|
Indeed. And heh, I'd like to admit, I fell for that whole "anti-ego" thing back in the day as well. Of course, I wasn't really thinking things through. Now I know better: It isn't the fact that one has an Ego that is the problem; it's how one maintains and builds their integrated sense-of-self [i.e., ego] that is the problem. And of course, that comes back down to the issue of a proper, upright and rational philosophy [or lack thereof].
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
| |||||||
|
Servent ofWisdom Registered: 02/10/06 Posts: 7,059 Loc: Crown and Heart Last seen: 12 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
Quote: No kidding -------------------- "Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is. Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death."
| |||||||
|
Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
|
Is it not an objective fact that a person can think rationally, make rational choices, and have a rational basis for their subjective [defined as: particular to] Ego?
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
| |||||||
|
Servent ofWisdom Registered: 02/10/06 Posts: 7,059 Loc: Crown and Heart Last seen: 12 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Complete, utter BS. The ego births monsters like the German SS, delusional dictators like Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, and Kim Jong-Il. It is ego that results in fist fights outside bars when someone ends up killing their best friend over a girl. It is once again ego that births greed and selfish desire for status. Come to think about it, it is the personal egotism of self-centric individuals that is used to rationalize evil, selfish persuits. And you have the nerve to say that mysticism is the downfall of humanity? I doubt it. For humanity to fall it takes great numbers. And there are far more ego-driven individuals in this world than mystically driven individuals. So do the math, Skorp. -------------------- "Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is. Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death."
| |||||||
|
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111! Registered: 01/15/05 Posts: 15,427 Last seen: 6 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
Quote: um..... this is like saying "is it not an objective fact that Blue is the best looking color eyes, 3 is an unlucky number, and Styx sucks?".
| |||||||
|
Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
|
Complete, utter BS.
To the contrary. The ego births monsters like the German SS, delusional dictators like Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, and Kim Jong-Il. It is ego that results in fist fights outside bars when someone ends up killing their best friend over a girl. -Observe how Basiledes evades the fact that I specifically said: rational egoism, and proceeds to attack people who are antipodes of precisely that which I referred to. -Note then that Basiledes draws out examples of neurotic, ignorant and self-destructive madmen, while ignoring the fact that these individuals do not constitute the population of people with an ego, read: all living, interacting humans. The ego is simply the sense of self that naturally arises from living a human life in myriad forms of interaction. The Ego qua Ego is not to blame for such disasters in the field of humanities; rather it is unreasonable philosophies which support unreasonable actions that are the destructive forces at hand. To claim that because there are some [but not all] destructive egos, all egos are therefore detrimental to humanity is plain ridiculous, not to mention it is simply a form of evasion; all the mystic-criticizing of the Ego is just a cover for being hopeless in reason and their excuse for not getting off their lazy butts to improve the situation. Rather than take responsibility for their own Mind, they try to find a sense of purpose in attacking the Ego. It is once again ego that births greed and selfish desire for status. Wrong. It is a certain kind of philosophy that gives rise to such ethics. Note once more, that you neglect to mention the Egos equipped with philosophies which support behavior that is rationally selfish, rationally benevolent, and so forth. And you have the nerve to say that mysticism is the downfall of humanity? I doubt it. For humanity to fall it takes great numbers. Indeed, look at how corrupt the field of humanities is. Look how far behind it is in contrast to the sciences. Note the fundamental differences between the two. One is corrupted with mysticism, subjectivism and intrinsicism, while the other is not. Of course, you will protest your Divine Right to Stagnation. That's fine - I practice what I preach, and respect your rights as an individual. But as I am a free individual, I will excercise my rights to free speech as well. And there are far more ego-driven individuals in this world than mystically driven individuals. False dichotomy. You sophomorically dichotomize the mystics with the non-mystics by the standard of the Ego - which, whether you like to realize it or not, is something that any living and interacting human being has. Of course, what you really intend to say, is that there are more non-mystical people in the world then there are mystical folks. Not so fast. I can think of many a polls conducted in the past that showed a disturbing amount of people who still believe the human population was spawned entirely by two fully-grown human adults in the U.S. Most of which voted for Bush - another religious fanatic, who by virtue of being the President of USA, supports my point: There are far many more people who've abandoned reason and are lost in vague, arbitrary mysticism [redundant, I know]. On top of that, look at the mysticism that pervades most other cultures in parts of the world from the Middle East to Russia to Spain to Brazil. Aside from that, there is the glaring fact that Atheism, as a philosophical stance, is a minority [one of which I am part of]. The same goes for Objectivism, which is minority [one of which I am part of]. Even this forum [particularly in contrast with the Mystic forum] reflects this proportion of demographics. To reiterate the actual point, in case you've forgotten: The Ego qua Ego, does not deserve the bad rap that you mystics attempt to give it. Of course, in the creed of self-sacrifice and humility, the Ego qua Ego is the enemy... -------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
| |||||||
|
Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
|
um..... this is like saying "is it not an objective fact that Blue is the best looking color eyes, 3 is an unlucky number, and Styx sucks?".
Elaborate. Clarify. Expound your argument, please. Do you disagree that humans have certain, objective needs for our survival? -------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love. Edited by SkorpivoMusterion (04/29/06 08:29 PM)
| |||||||
|
Dharmakaya Registered: 09/21/04 Posts: 705 Loc: lazy river road Last seen: 14 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
-------------------- - J. Krishnamurti
| |||||||
|
The Minstrel in the Gallery Registered: 03/15/05 Posts: 95,368 Loc: underbelly |
| ||||||
Quote: Try and be alive without an ego structure. Name me one person without an ego structure. ![]() I never claimed to be objective as I don't think it's possible. Rational yes at times, objective, never. Everything for me is subjective. -------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
| |||||||
|
Servent ofWisdom Registered: 02/10/06 Posts: 7,059 Loc: Crown and Heart Last seen: 12 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
Quote: And who is it are you talking to? The symposium? Get over yourself. If that wasn't enough, you're now putting UBB codes at the end of your posts for unwitting posters who reply to you. Quote: Haha.. is that the only conclusion you've come to after ages of misfortunately historicities that there is "rational" egotism and "irrational" egotism? "Rational egotism" seems to be little more than your own little conjugated philosophy. Who coined the term? Who is influential in "rational egotism", whatever that is? Note the various examples I listed, ranging from well-thought out delusions (like the German SS) to brief loss of social ordination (someone killing someone in a bar fight) right down to non-violent self-centric persuits, like hording status and monetary value. Ego is the oil of self-centrist thinkers, whether cruel or simply calcified, psychopathic or simply sociopathic. Again, my point is not that YOU are the same as a German SS, or even Kenneth Lay of Enron. After all, you see ten thousand things, I don't. As for these well known atrocities of antiquity - no, mysticism is not to blame. Mysticism is esoteric spirituality, hidden from the benighted maltitudes of the world, religious alike, who wouldn't be able to bask in mystical experience if they even had the morbid curiousity to persue it. Your definition of "mysticism" is subjective, also. Proclaiming belief in a bearded guy in the sky and eternal post-mortem torment is not mysticism. It is the stupidity of the masses, their inability to understand Spiritual Mysteries and the metaphysics they imply. Perhaps you caught the crazy religious lady on Trading Spaces, who chastized her own children for not praying "hard enough" for her - no mysticism in that house. If there was, half the country wouldn't be hysterically laughing in the midst of Sweeps month. And what's with your signature? Don't gays suffer enough these days... -------------------- "Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is. Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death."
| |||||||
|
Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
|
And who is it are you talking to? The symposium?
Perhaps you've forgotten: This is a public site. Get over yourself. If that wasn't enough, you're now putting UBB codes at the end of your posts for unwitting posters who reply to you. You mean the red-color tag? That's something I've done for a long, long time - well before you as "Basilides" came along. At least I don't ask people to stop doing little characterisms which they've done for years before I've ever met them. Right, Fireworks God? And I'm told I should get over myself? Oh the irony. Haha.. is that the only conclusion you've come to after ages of misfortunately historicities that there is "rational" egotism and "irrational" egotism? If you think this is an invalid dichotomy, expound your argument. Rational egotism" seems to be little more than your own little conjugated philosophy. Who coined the term? Who is influential in "rational egotism", whatever that is? Honestly, I coined it right off the bat as I wrote it. I wanted to crystallize the concept of a rational ego, hence I coined the term "rational egoism." I'm sure it isn't an original phrase, of course. Note the various examples I listed, ranging from well-thought out delusions (like the German SS) to brief loss of social ordination (someone killing someone in a bar fight) right down to non-violent self-centric persuits, like hording status and monetary value. And so I did, to which I gave my rebuttal. Ego is the oil of self-centrist thinkers, whether cruel or simply calcified, psychopathic or simply sociopathic. Calcified? Well, milk sure does a body, er, should I say, Ego, good. The fact remains: You are still irrationally assualting the Ego only on the premises of the unhealthy egos, read: unhealthy minds, read: unhealthy philosophies; while completely ignoring healthy egos, read: healthy minds, read: healthy philosophies. Again, my point is not that YOU are the same as a German SS, or even Kenneth Lay of Enron. After all, you see ten thousand things, I don't. Amazing, yet unsurprising. The mystics call me mad. They say that I am insane, but in reality my monster will show that I am really kind and benevolent. I indeed do see ten thousand things, because I am not blind. Unlike some, I prefer to live with my eyes wide open. But go ahead, keep yours half-shut. As for these well known atrocities of antiquity - no, mysticism is not to blame. Mysticism is esoteric spirituality, hidden from the benighted maltitudes of the world, religious alike, who wouldn't be able to bask in mystical experience if they even had the morbid curiousity to persue it. In other words: "Mysticism requires the [fallacious] notion of the unknowable, which is revealed to some and withheld from others; this divides humans into those who feel guilt and those who cash in on it." Proclaiming belief in a bearded guy in the sky and eternal post-mortem torment is not mysticism. It is the stupidity of the masses, their inability to understand Spiritual Mysteries and the metaphysics they imply. Yet in reality, both of your premises [however content-specifically different] stem from the same contradictory grounds, i.e., primacy of consciousness. Superstitions and prayers qua ethics, are a result of such irrational metaphysics. Simply because you don't agree with other mystical premises and ethics, doesn't mean that your brand of mysticism is any less subjective than theirs, or that yours warrants any more respect than theirs. And what's with your signature? Don't gays suffer enough these days... Click on the link, and maybe you'll learn that I am a man of my word. Oh, right, you don't see ten thousand things [that you'd rather not see]. -------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love. Edited by SkorpivoMusterion (04/29/06 09:46 PM)
| |||||||
|
Stranger ![]() Registered: 04/21/05 Posts: 4,587 |
| ||||||
|
I don't mean to speak for Skorpie, but I think it is important to notice he said "rational egoism", not "egotism". (Maybe it was just a spelling mistake...? but anyway...)
Egotism is synonymous with narcissism and seems to be characterized by an overinflated sense of importance. This irrational, often temporary, sense of supreme importance and power can cause people to commit crimes of passion and create other problems, for themselves and others. I think "egoism" is an entirely different concept. I see it as the opposite of asceticism. Basically, asceticism is self-denial while egoism is self-acceptance.
| |||||||
|
Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
|
Thanks for pointing that out. I was going to elucidate that in my response as soon as I noticed he said the "tism" part, but decided to hint at it instead.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
| |||||||
|
Servent ofWisdom Registered: 02/10/06 Posts: 7,059 Loc: Crown and Heart Last seen: 12 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Please define "rational egoism", as you see it, and how it's superior to any existing models of conduct. Quote: Again, this is probably highly subjective. It seems you're trying to hijack psychology with your own spin. What decides what is an unhealthy philosophy - and what makes a "healthy" philosophy? Quote: I think it's ironic that you have to emphasize that you are personally benevolent and kind to others. No one said you weren't. Quote: The "Knowable" is not revealed inasmuch that it is tuned into via the spiritual method. Quote: Perhaps you regard mysticism as nothing more than religious intellectualism, but clearly you can admit to some arbitrary differences between the esoterically and exoterically spiritually inclined, as the conduct of both are greatly different. Perhaps instead of focusing on what people believe, focus on how they conduct themselves. -------------------- "Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is. Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death."
| |||||||
|
Beyond Registered: 05/07/04 Posts: 6,697 Loc: Between Last seen: 3 years, 16 days |
| ||||||
|
I think, all these inflated ego monsters, like the nazis and the other examples Basilides brought in, thought/think of themselves to be quite rational.
Funny how the mind transforms subjective irrationalism into inflated ego rationalism, if something limitedly works in a narrow context and oneself is affected. --------------------
| |||||||
|
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111! Registered: 01/15/05 Posts: 15,427 Last seen: 6 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
Quote: I have an affinity for pure objectivism (not Randism). I was just saying that claiming, in the Napoleonic type manner, that Rational Egoism is some sort of factual tidbit and a complete counter to the opening gambit of this thread, then you are merely stating opinion upon that matter, and in no way stating anything factual, objective, or interesting. (sidenote: I don't mind the red) I think an attempt at objectivity is pro-survival, yet Pure objective perspective (nice name for a band) is near to impossible. Also, the term rational itself is subjective. The great hordes of NASA scientists who revel in their self-proclaimed rationality spent millions of dollars developing a pen to write in zero G while the russians used a pencil. There are multiple venues of rational perspective upon one event, and to think/claim that your own "perfect" rationale is the pinnacle of logical decision making, then you are not only fooling yourself but showing your ignorance towards the potential of "logical people" to come after you (read: the future).
| |||||||
|
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111! Registered: 01/15/05 Posts: 15,427 Last seen: 6 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Anyone who is acting purely on the struggle to survive. Today I was musing about how beautiful I find those very rare instances when a reaction occurs so quickly it surpasses the ego; Those times when you act, and are finished, before you realize what you have done. I don't think it would be copascetic for all of humanity nor helpful to the cohesion of society if everyone constantly acted like that, but there are times in every humans life when we are without ego, or atleast a point where our instincts or mnemonic reactions bypass the latency of the ego process.
| |||||||
|
The Minstrel in the Gallery Registered: 03/15/05 Posts: 95,368 Loc: underbelly |
| ||||||
|
Sorry, there may be times when you are not actively using your ego structure as your primary way of interacting with the world (oh so rare) but it is surely there, waiting, until it is needed or unnecessarily activated.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
| |||||||
|
Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
|
Please define "rational egoism", as you see it, and how it's superior to any existing models of conduct.
Plain and simple, "rational egoism" is simply a term I coined to express: "a rational ego". It is, at the very least, superior to irrational egotism. You can figure that out yourself. Again, this is probably highly subjective. It seems you're trying to hijack psychology with your own spin. What decides what is an unhealthy philosophy - and what makes a "healthy" philosophy? Frankly, I don't care to define what my definitions of a healthy philosophy is. The point is that you are assaulting only YOUR own views of unhealthy philosophies, minds and egos, while obviously neglecting to mention the positive spectrum. If you were to simply say: "Some egos are unhealthy and some egos are healthy." Then we simply wouldn't be having this argument. I think it's ironic that you have to emphasize that you are personally benevolent and kind to others. No one said you weren't. Claiming that I am the equivalent to the likes of the German S.S., Kenneth Lay of Enron, or any of these "egotist monsters" you listed really translates into: "Gee, Skorpivo is just such a swell guy!"? The "Knowable" is not revealed inasmuch that it is tuned into via [a] spiritual method. Which requires accepting the arbitrary and subordinating faith to reason? Perhaps you regard mysticism as nothing more than religious intellectualism, but clearly you can admit to some arbitrary differences between the esoterically and exoterically spiritually inclined, as the conduct of both are greatly different. Perhaps instead of focusing on what people believe, focus on how they conduct themselves. And how one conducts themselves [ethics], is contingent upon their thoughts [philosophy]. At any rate, in reality I do focus not only on what people think, but what they do. And if what they do is conduct themselves in a intellectually dishonest way, promoting arbitrariness, faith, anti-egoism, humility, self-sacrifice and blind hypocrisy, then that only goes to show the egregious nature of their philosophies. -------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love. Edited by SkorpivoMusterion (04/30/06 10:46 AM)
| |||||||
|
Sexy.Butt.McDanger Registered: 03/12/02 Posts: 24,855 Loc: Pandurn Last seen: 1 year, 13 days |
| ||||||
|
Basilides has not yet defined the term "ego" as he is referring to it, and I don't understand how any productive discussion will result without him doing so.
Surely it is not being implied that it is beneficial to be without a sense of identity. Not holding a sense of one's identity is equivalent to not perceiving aspects of reality. As one derives a sense of sight through the sensory devices known as the eyes, one develops a sense of oneself, quite naturally, through the experience of being oneself. How is it that one could contend that perceiving oneself and taking mental note of it is a negative thing? I also acknowledge that some people refer to the ego as "the self". The self. Firstly, I personally feel that "the self" is defined as "the self", and that ego represents the sense of self that one's mind creates. However, if that is the implied definition of ego, then the notion that it is beneficial to be without it is many times more ludicrous. ![]() No one can deny on any reasonable grounds that it is not through them that their experience is being produced, or that they simply do not exist. Clarification as to basilides definition of the term "ego" is required. On a side note, Skorpivo uses UBB code in order to change the signature line to red. It is an amusing fringe benefit that people tend to not realize it is there when they quote his words. Sort of a test of who is aware of their surroundings, eh? ![]() Oh, and: ![]() ![]() Peace.
-------------------- If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
| |||||||
|
Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
|
Basilides has not yet defined the term "ego" as he is referring to it, and I don't understand how any productive discussion will result without him doing so.
Agreed, and in retrospect, I'm surprised I haven't asked him to define his terms as I've done on my part. But on the other hand, I take his silence on that matter as a sign of agreement with how you and I define the Ego. But of course, acknowledging this definition of the Ego would be inimical to his argument which is that "The Eqo is the downfall of humanity". Surely it is not being implied that it is beneficial to be without a sense of identity. Not holding a sense of one's identity is equivalent to not perceiving aspects of reality. As one derives a sense of sight through the sensory devices known as the eyes, one develops a sense of oneself, quite naturally, through the experience of being oneself. How is it that one could contend that perceiving oneself and taking mental note of it is a negative thing? I also acknowledge that some people refer to the ego as "the self". The self. Firstly, I personally feel that "the self" is defined as "the self", and that ego represents the sense of self that one's mind creates. However, if that is the implied definition of ego, then the notion that it is beneficial to be without it is many times more ludicrous. No one can deny on any reasonable grounds that it is not through them that their experience is being produced, or that they simply do not exist. Precisely. And I'd like to add that this criticizing of the Ego as so oftenly perpetrated by the mystics reminds me of those who criticize money itself as the "root of all evil". The dynamics in both are the same, methinks. When people cannot manage their money wisely, not well-educated in financial security, not budget-wise, or too lazy to actually produce wealth, they are prone to irrationally proclaiming that "money is the darn root of all damned evil". They treat these deficiencies in their knowledge and/or character as concretes; read: they refuse to think. Why? Because it's 100 x harder than simply criticizing money, which is simply a cover for being hopeless in financial matters and their excuse for not getting off their lazy butts to improve the situation. Rather than take responsibility for their own Mind, they try to find a sense of purpose in attacking money. Sound familiar, someone? Similarly, as Fireworks mentioned earlier: The self is the culmination of all experience and thought, and it unfolds in the moment. A mental sense of self is an abstraction. It is useful and necessary. Manage it wisely. What a concept. "Manage it wisely". It's so simple - instead of playing victim, one should focus their energy on creating solutions, not excuses - oh, but yes, that's right, managing Oneself wisely, productively and in harmony with objective reality is 100 times more difficult. Raising the whine over productivity is a hallmark of intellectual slobbery. -------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
| |||||||
|
Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
|
I have an affinity for pure objectivism (not Randism).
I suspect by "pure objectivism", you mean further outside of one's own consciousness, or any consciousness for that matter, correct? I was just saying that claiming, in the Napoleonic type manner, that Rational Egoism is some sort of factual tidbit and a complete counter to the opening gambit of this thread, then you are merely stating opinion upon that matter, and in no way stating anything factual, objective, or interesting. What if I had just said something along the lines of "a rational ego"? Surely, you cannot deny the fact that there exists individuals w/ egos, whom act rationally? I think an attempt at objectivity is pro-survival Objectivity is defined as acting in accordance and/or reasoning with facts to the extent that one's scope of knowledge, awareness and physical abilities support. Objectivity is essential to survival. Also, the term rational itself is subjective. The great hordes of NASA scientists who revel in their self-proclaimed rationality spent millions of dollars developing a pen to write in zero G while the russians used a pencil. False. Myth. http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp There are multiple venues of rational perspective upon one event, and to think/claim that your own "perfect" rationale is the pinnacle of logical decision making, then you are not only fooling yourself but showing your ignorance towards the potential of "logical people" to come after you (read: the future). The fact that the habit of acting rationally [i.e., in accordance with facts, rather than mere whims] gives an immense plurality to rational outcomes, does not change the fact that rationality is an objective need for One's own survival. -------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
| |||||||
|
jiggy Registered: 07/20/04 Posts: 7,469 Loc: Heart of Laughte |
| ||||||
|
I'm glad I didn't take the time to put you on user ignore yet because of the avatar. I;m glad veritas mentioned the link in your sig to it being put there due to a lost bet. I have my sig viewing turned off. I thought you snapped and were having male dominance/submissive issues you were expressing through a new avatar.
It doesn't suit you. How long do you have to sport it for ?Anyway, This argument wouldn;t be taking place here or in all the other threads it comes up if we can all come to a new mutual understanding of what really going on here. Mystics are freaking fed up with being lumped into religious dogmatics. None of us here are. I agree with your last post here Skorp. If your posts left out the mystic bashing, people wouldn't think you were coming from the dark side of the irrational ego which is where any intent to lump mystics in with religious dogmatics is coming from. When you stop blaming mystics for everything and start pointing the finger at dogmatic thinking which even science and some philosophies engage in, you'll find a lot less mis-criticisms na d mis understandings of your posts and more support for all that is strong in them. I don't know of one mystic type person and I know and know hundreds, who supports dogmatic thinking and ignorance. To the contrary I know them to be the types who bust through it which is why I gravitate towards them. From another perspective Skorp, when you use this idea that speaking more self assured, strong and certain with conviction and passion is the way to be, you may be confusing that with being more in THE truth. That makes it easier to contrive objectives to support your beliefs that are really just subjective opinions. Beyond that, the further you power up that stuff with the passion and conviction you praise and pride, the harder it will be for you to have any flex bend or give putting you in a place of stagnation and dogmatic thinking soon to come. THAT is what I think the mystics here see and argue with......you;r leading yourself and any follower into dogmatic thinking of there being an objective RIGHT that holds. That's no different then a religious dogmatic who falls into self righteousness and damning judgment of others like how you damningly judge mystics as the evil of the world. They are only working to call that to your attention so you don't become that which you despise. I don't think you see it happening within yourself. Others do. From what I can tell, everyone thinks well and highly of you Skorp and they don't want to see you take that road. ![]() 99% of this forum has a common bond and that is, I think most all of us want to see dogmatic thinking become a thing of the past. Putting labels on WHOLE groups as being dogmatic thinkers is what is not true or an objective fact you can prove. The forum members alone prove that thinking wrong. At least I do, I lean towards the mystical and yet, embody most of what you support too in MY living actions. The mystics I know are explorer's of consciousness, life and spirit and appreciate science and keep on top of the latest research and discoveries. Only trouble is, science isn't keeping up and mystics tend to get ahead of them without having the objective evidence to support their discoveries. Though they catch up with figuring out the hows, mystical foresight stays ahead of the scientifically yet unknown and thats just how it is. What mystics called the aether's now science calls the quantum field. What mystics called psychic viewing science now calls remote viewing and a method has been developed by scientists for the government to use and now with satellites that work better, police men are being trained to use it to help with solving cases. Mystics talk about being in resonant harmony with others or "in tune" with them and science explians how frequency resonance works and has discovered we are electromagnetic beings that vibrate, like all other matter does. I could go on forever. Will science find an old man with a neurotic problem, beard and judgment gavel in the sky........I doubt it to the point of saying "I don't think so" and so does every mystic I know. I think anytime anyone here starts talking in absolutes, the dogmatic thinking red flag goes up. Mystics don't like dogmatic ignorance either.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
| |||||||
|
Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
|
I'm glad I didn't take the time to put you on user ignore yet because of the avatar. I;m glad veritas mentioned the link in your sig to it being put there due to a lost bet. I have my sig viewing turned off. I thought you snapped and were having male dominance/submissive issues you were expressing through a new avatar. It doesn't suit you. How long do you have to sport it for ?
Cheezus crust, Jiggy. You wouldn't believe how many PMs I've recieved as of late. Fortunately, it's only until the 8th of May that the terms of my bet will persist.When you stop blaming mystics for everything and start pointing the finger at dogmatic thinking which even science and some philosophies engage in, A dogma is a set of beliefs accepted on faith; that is, without rational justification or against rational evidence. A dogma is a matter of blind faith, of accepting any idea or conviction when one cannot demonstrate its truth by means of reason. I do point the finger at dogmatic thinkining, i.e., philosophy. I can drop the "M-word" and instead, state something along the lines of: "The Downfall of Humanity is Irrational Philosophies". Upon further elaboration, I personally guarantee you that just about every mystic would feel threatened and retaliate with rhetoric. Why? Because I still addressed them - or rather, their own beliefs. I could go on forever. Will science find an old man with a neurotic problem, beard and judgment gavel in the sky........I doubt it to the point of saying "I don't think so" and so does every mystic I know. Trends change as the currents of time changes. Such an ideology is certainly outdated today, as is the idea of treating women as inferior than men; but that doesn't mean that neither were at once, viewed truths to be held as such by most. I think anytime anyone here starts talking in absolutes, the dogmatic thinking red flag goes up. Mystics don't like dogmatic ignorance either. Don't confuse absolutism with dogmatism. Philosophically speaking, absolutes do exist. But thanks to a long history of irrational absolutes, there is a tendency to view ALL absolutes as "dogmatic". ![]() -------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
| |||||||
|
jiggy Registered: 07/20/04 Posts: 7,469 Loc: Heart of Laughte |
| ||||||
|
Cheesus Crust.
Now dominoes can advertise their new pizza and the second coming at the same time. ![]() I bet you're PM has been getting hammered in the ass about that avatar. Only 9 more days then promise us you'll put something else on the line when you make bets like having to put I Am a Mystic in your sig for a month without a disclaimer. ![]() Funning around aside. You can drop the M word and you may still get the reaction you mentioned because of the broad term of the word Faith. Remember how we discussed the difference between blind faith and the faith that comes from knowing something personally and experiencing it in a way you have grown to trust in it. Again most all mystics I know have developed the other sort and I don't know any going on BLIND faith in their beliefs alone. The difference isn't easily discerned in your writings when you smash the word faith all together. I read through your debates and get involved in debates with you myself and it always turns out that there was just a misunderstanding of word implication and meaning. Something went to broad making rash misjudgments or to narrow when it gets absolute in stance. When that gets cleared up, we pretty much end up on the same page of general understanding in my mind. Like what I see here with the ego talk. Everyone knows we need some sense of self (ego) to commune with others meaningfully or there would be nothing to even have such a discussion with. I think when mystics see a red flag raised is when they here about self centered ego, they are concerned about the separatists ego being implied that can EASILY cause harm to another. I think they are just promoting a broadening of the sense of self to incorporate the self with the whole of all involved so good for all involved results from all words and actions and not just the self at another's expense. If I am hearing you correctly, it sounds like you have a concern for the over all good well being of the human family or you wouldn't be sharing what you think will serve it better. Mystics also practice centering the self during meditation. That just means to them, getting grounded back into ones personal truth that they are a part of a larger whole to keep from going into separatists ego. Take what I said about absolutism and what you just said. Here's what I am referring too. Remember that post you put up about consistent philosophy being the best? Remember how many pages we spent dickering just to all end up on the same page agreeing with Sinbad about the interdependency of consistency and inconsistency. It was that the authors article said consistency is always the key to success (absolute) when I stated it is not in such cases like competitive strategy or adaptability to changing environments. It then becomes the key to your ruin. It took us to get to page 5 before you understood thats all I was adding in consideration to the article I otherwise fully support, regarding other goals. There is a lot of good stuff and truth to the posts you put up. I think when they are posed in an absolute fashion, people see closed mindnesses lurking and mistrust it for good reason when they aren't even always sure why. I know why I don't buy into absolute philosophies as one size fits all applications. Some are brilliant in limited applications and that to me makes them all limited in their uses, not absolutely right to use in all cases. If it's not that raising red flags its the use of bashing on something arbitrary to make what you are presenting seem superior to something else. If it truly is so superior, does it require the put down of something beside it? That strategy raises red flags of mistrust for many. Maybe you didn't even realize that is what you were doing. The stuff is good enough to stand tall on it's own Skorp. People are more likely to approach an area that doesn't have danger warning signs posted in front of it. I shared two with you that you stake in the ground in front of the material you share. We all do not have blind faith Skorp and are more critically skeptical of what may be fools gold then you give out credit for. Why post flags that suggesting readers to (Be Ware)? The absolutism flag or making something inferior to make something else look superior isn't necessary if the gold itself is real. I don't mean for this to come across like a correction of ones posting style. I mean for this to come across as a means for clearing up misunderstandings over quick misjudgments that are not even true of either side. I think the "mystics" here, mean just as well for themselves and others as you do and somehow that is getting missed. I was just thinking about some complaints I heard others make about dry counties or no alcohol sold before 12 on Sunday. Mystics have nothing to do with such nonsense BTW. Not one here I think would vote for such laws themselves. The funny thing is that it becomes the perfect breeding ground for bashing on religious morals all the while a funny problem goes dismissed. Who HAS to be able to purchase alcohol before 12 on Sunday or conveniently in their own town or else what? It's a brain anesthetic and slowly shuts it down starting with gross motor skills, to fine and then to involuntary muscle control. I read this stuff and laugh thinking, people who claim to be intelligent, scientific and rational, who bash mystics/religion for entertaining escapists realities are pissed at them for making it harder to anesthetize their own brains so they can escape into another reality. I realize that was off topic to this thread. This whole rational science head vs irrational mystic head stuff is what I think is utter Bullshit around here. BS only because none of its the objective truth of what's really going on in action and we all have more in common with each other then we ever put much focus on as a building foundation. Until we find that common ground, ever thing we build here as a group will crumble in on us or will be at war over simple misunderstandings. Doesn't sound very rational or intelligent to me to keep doing that.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
| |||||||
|
Sexy.Butt.McDanger Registered: 03/12/02 Posts: 24,855 Loc: Pandurn Last seen: 1 year, 13 days |
| ||||||
Quote: Personal reasoning and experience is acceptable basis for personal beliefs, certainly. Then again, it is not substantiation for any observation of reality itself. The fact that I had a dream of being visited by an alien and that it felt very real and vibrant does not offer any valid basis to believe that one was actually visited by an extra-terrestrial creature, physically or through some mental/spiritual dimension. As it pertains to one's experience and interpretation of life, great, this feeling means that. No problem. If it only pertains to your experience, then it certainly is grounds for any further thought or belief pertaining to it. ![]() Peace.
-------------------- If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
| |||||||
|
jiggy Registered: 07/20/04 Posts: 7,469 Loc: Heart of Laughte |
| ||||||
|
And you used a KEY word, relative too, yet missing from so many posts- "personal" belief. It's when either side takes an objective absolute approach backed with cutting the other down to look larger that things begin degrading.
How often is someone discussing a personal thought around here and never uses key words to convey they realize the subjectivity of the experience/belief/opinion, and so another mis interprets them to be speaking in objective absolutes for all and a senseless debate breaks out. The first person starts defending themselves as if they were speaking in absolutes and it takes until the 5th page for it to dawn on them, they are defending something that was never even valid to even them in that manor OR get exhausted and leave the thread or start flaming and get banned from it. I think thats how many "mystics" and religious people get misunderstood and I already explained how those who bash on mystics/religious types get easily misunderstood. If someone comes here and says their God is real and is going to damn us ALL to hell for not believing in it then, have at em of course for being an absolutists one size fits all thinker. I think that stuff is the danger as something vital is always left out of an absolutists idea or philosphy if it is implied to fit everything and everyone. If someone comes here and says they personally believe in a god who will do that to them, then that's different. Yet, it often gets treated like the former statement and a senseless debate ensues. There is always common ground to relate to and build understandings and useful information upon and from. What's really the difference between that and someone who believes in the authority of rational philosophy and if they break its rules, they will create a hellish reality for themselves right here and now? Why don't people look for the common ground to relate to and build mutual understandings to grow with and upon first? The separatists ego is the problem the way I see it, not an irrational one. Or maybe its the separatists ego that is the irrational aspect of the sense/idea of self that causes problems for us. I have to go by more flowers to plant now. I can't seem to ever have enough flowers to look at in my yard. THAT is an irrational belief. Yet, they bring me, my family and neighbors so much Joy.Maybe having beliefs in the separatist aspect of the ego brings a warped form of joy too. ![]()
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
| |||||||
|
Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
|
Again most all mystics I know have developed the other sort and I don't know any going on BLIND faith in their beliefs alone.
There is no rational basis or sensory evidence to suggest any belief which falls into the philosophical genus of the primacy of consciousness, that consciousness is antecedent to reality. It's a shame that many do not realize the long-term debilitating effects such a blind belief has. Yet because of the brain's [which is very, very old] ability to harnest information towards a specific aim or goal, be it explicit or implicit, people who hold such faulty and contradictory premises will seem to find much empirical evidence that supports their notions. In reality, this is really a case of mysinterpretation of the evidence of our senses, in accordance their warped epistemology, which gives rise to a warped view of metaphysics. So while they are in actuality, operating on blind faith, it is easy for them to think they are operating on knowledge that is congruent with metaphysical reality. Personally, I can think of many, many cases whereby I did something that was spectactular or astonishing, that at first glance, seemed rather unnatural or inhuman. But upon analyzing the situation from objectivism [as opposed to skepticism or intrinsicism], I realized it would be prudent to acknowledge the immense capability that my brain in combination with my [very, very, old] system of sense perception, and orientation really has. I think when mystics see a red flag raised is when they here about self centered ego, they are concerned about the separatists ego being implied that can EASILY cause harm to another. If they are against the irrational, malevolent egotist, then I certainly don't disagree with them at all. So long as they acknowledge that the rational Egoist is fine as long as he/she remains grounded in reality [which has the capacity to be immensely benevolent], there is no argument between them and I. However, when someone comes along and starts raving things along the lines of: "Egos are the downfall of humanity!", oh, then it's ON. As Proud, Card-carrying Egoist, I certainly respect their individual right to free speech. But I won't pretend to like the presence of irrational absolutism, and I will speak out in any way I possibly can against it, especially since so few dare say any of these things aloud. Here's what I am referring too. Remember that post you put up about consistent philosophy being the best? Remember how many pages we spent dickering just to all end up on the same page agreeing with Sinbad about the interdependency of consistency and inconsistency. It was that the authors article said consistency is always the key to success (absolute) when I stated it is not in such cases like competitive strategy or adaptability to changing environments. It then becomes the key to your ruin. It took us to get to page 5 before you understood thats all I was adding in consideration to the article I otherwise fully support, regarding other goals. Yes, that was an argument of context; of definition. In the pertinent context/definition [which was implicit, but not explicit], the absolute point remains. Until we find that common ground, ever thing we build here as a group will crumble in on us or will be at war over simple misunderstandings. I've mentioned once or twice before, that Reason [as the faculty which identifies and integrates our percepts into concepts] is the only grounds upon which all men can meet. -------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love. Edited by SkorpivoMusterion (04/30/06 04:15 PM)
| |||||||
|
Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
|
I have to go by more flowers to plant now. I can't seem to ever have enough flowers to look at in my yard. THAT is an irrational belief. Yet, they bring me, my family and neighbors so much Joy.
You mean, you take endless amounts of selfish, personal joy in viewing beauties of nature? Nothing irrational about that. -------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
| |||||||
|
Stranger ![]() Registered: 02/15/05 Posts: 1,296 |
| ||||||
|
this thread is a good example.
| |||||||
|
jiggy Registered: 07/20/04 Posts: 7,469 Loc: Heart of Laughte |
| ||||||
Quote: he He He, I came home with more then I went for. Like I said Skorp, myself with the mystic bent actually agrees with all you say when the lines are just readjusted a tad. The part I deemed irrational was my belief that there could never be enough of them. I don't see myself ever being able to say, "There. I have enough flowers in my yard." That is a tad irrational to me but I don't care. This is a form of selfishness that encompasses more people deriving pleasure from it then just myself and at no expense or harm to others. Now, if I wanted them so badly that I stole them from others people yards at night then, I would be in the selfish aspect of separatist ego that wouldn't care about taking from others to get more for myself. I think thats what some fear selfish thinking can lead too. I realize that your use of the term rational is the breaks that keep ego from going that far just from getting to know you better. That deeper element of you doesn't get expressed much and so it's easy for others to think you may be using rationality to justify self serving at the expense of others instead of using it as a tool to keep from going there. A post on that use of rationality from out of you would be really cool.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
| |||||||
|
jiggy Registered: 07/20/04 Posts: 7,469 Loc: Heart of Laughte |
| ||||||
Quote: This may be an assumption on your part. I would have to hear an actual example of what you are referring to and see if it matches anything I am aware of myself or other "mystics" engaging in. Quote: Speaking for myself and many I know, we see it the same regarding the end result that human potential is being further realized by me. That's the bottom line for both you and I and most mystics I know. Quote: I agree that person absolutized the ego and probably didn't mean too. He can clarify if he wants and I would simply ask him, if the ego leads to the downfall of humanity, how could a human exist as a part of the whole without a sense of self? Wouldn;t an uprising of humanity be the result of the sense of self that contributed to it just the same. Some believe the ego self needs to get out of the way for a higher intelligence to cause an uplifting of humanity and yet, it means nothing without the ego-self to give it meaning. Whatever it is may be a higher self they say is beyond ego and yet, for it to be realized here with any impact of meaning, it comes through the physical body and the ego is involved for a turn around of mankind to be desired let alone mean anything. I may have assumed he meant that even though, its not what he said. I notice here and I do it too, how when one extreme gets thrown up or misperceived, another opposite extreme gets thrown up or misperceived ad a power struggle ensues between the two when really, I think we all understand where the balance is and just want for everyone to be in it. It takes mutual giving to get there and when one gets stubborn the other stays stubborn to keep a balance in the form of extremes at least though we all know that doesn't serve us. It just keeps us all destructively divided instead of constructively united towards common goals of achieving good will for the self and all. Quote: It would seem our further defining our personal use of words when we all post would help and yet, that makes for loooooooooong posts. Personally, I want to start a habit of asking more questions before I make assumptions or quick judgments in any direction. Quote: I don't recall that coming up. It would make for an interesting topic. Maybe I'll copy it and start a new post. I'm curious why see reason as being the necessary common ground versus personal goals all being achieved through group efforts the common ground. If the reason always comes down to good will for the self and others then, I have nothing more to ask or say on that. I don;t see where reasons have to be in common to make great things for all happen. Like if neighborhood wants to put a park in an empty lot. Does it matter if one reason it a great place for bird watching, one reasons it to be a great place for Frisbee play with his dog and another for his kid to have swings to play on, if they all at least agree, a park would be nice to have and worth installing? What do you mean by common reasoning being a must?
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
| |||||||
|
Dog Lover Registered: 04/24/04 Posts: 6,762 |
| ||||||
|
The only problem I can see with the human ego, is the other humans upset by the egos of other humans. IF people would learn to stay with in the reasonable bounds of self. Then the human ego " problem " would be insignificant to the greater whole.
Ego is what drives us all........even the great thinkers here who always insist in the powerful opinions they perceive as the realness of the great explanation of what or what not is ego or how to deal with ego. They themselves suffer the greatest lack of understanding....... from this " Ego " Do not be upset with your ego or the egos around you. Learn to live and to experience the egos around you as you would enjoy the many flowers one might see on a beautiful spring day. So says my Ego
-------------------- What it is, is what it is my Brother. It is as it is, so suffer thru it.
| |||||||
|
Registered: 04/15/05 Posts: 11,089 |
| ||||||
|
I believe Skorpivo is referring to Reason in the sense of "the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways : proper exercise of the mind," not in the sense of "the reason I ate the rest of the chocolate pudding is that I was very, very hungry."
We do not need to have common reasons in order to meet on common ground. It is, however, quite difficult to find common ground when individuals lack reason, rationality, and a basic ability to use their minds properly.
| |||||||
|
Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
|
This may be an assumption on your part. I would have to hear an actual example of what you are referring to and see if it matches anything I am aware of myself or other "mystics" engaging in.
For instance, any belief that one can change reality [existence, nature] without acting in accordance with it. Prayers, are an example. This doesn't mean that I disregard any other fringe-benefits such an irrational belief may have [i.e., meditativeness during prayer] - but I certainly don't condone the childish belief which tries to corrupt the reality that Nature is absolute, and I fully recognize that there are better, more mature ways to achieve serenity which need not conflict with nature nor poison the minds of others with faulty premises. Speaking for myself and many I know, we see it the same regarding the end result that human potential is being further realized by me. That's the bottom line for both you and I and most mystics I know. Similarly, the purpose of philosophy has always been happiness. That is one common ground between all living, interacting human beings. Analogously, everyone at a health club wishes to seek better nutrition so that their bodies may be healthier. No one would deny that there are not objective standards, rules and bases for proper nutrition - although there may be a variety. No one would argue, that because our body has to process the food we eat, that any and all nutritional standards set for man qua man are subjective [i.e., dependent on one's consciousness], or must be defined by some ineffable, supreme being. No one would argue that man eats bread rather then pebbles merely as a social convention. Yet, in the field of man's mind, in the field of humanities, all is tore asunder in corruption by irrationalism, skepticism or intrinsicism. Why do we not give our mind the same cognitive respect [i.e., the same objectivity] that we do with our bodies? Because of the false mind/body dichotomy, read: because of irrational epistemology, read: because of irrational philosophy. I'm curious why see reason as being the necessary common ground versus personal goals all being achieved through group efforts the common ground. If the reason always comes down to good will for the self and others then, I have nothing more to ask or say on that. I don;t see where reasons have to be in common to make great things for all happen. Note how I specifically defined Reason: The faculty which identifies and integrates the percepts provided by our five senses into concepts. Don't confuse this with reasons, which denotes conceptual units rather than the faculty itself. Reason has objective existence, all living, interacting human beings have it. Dogmatic faith, on the other hand, is entirely [epistemologically speaking] subjective, and esoteric. -------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
| |||||||
|
Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
Quote: -------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
| |||||||
|
jiggy Registered: 07/20/04 Posts: 7,469 Loc: Heart of Laughte |
| ||||||
|
I understand that and thats exactly why I gave the example I did.
All was well until what came into play "wrong here"? The mom doesn't want dogs allowed in the park. One may bite or scare the children. The older man doesn't want children's play equipment for they will invite children and scare away the birds. Another wants to impose a leash rule for dogs so others don;t attack her little toy poodle while the guy with the German Shepard who wants to play Frisbee in the park with his dog says No to the leash law. Ten minutes ago I had a lovely park proposal for all to enjoy set up and now look at the bickering mess its turned into. What went wrong I ask? I also ask, "who is being unreasonable and who is not? How do you get all four of the loudest voices (separatist egos) to common ground in rational reasoning to agree on a park proposal plan for all to use and enjoy? That scenario I proposed is the all to common one we see everywhere groups come together all cozy and warm about something at first. What is the mental flaw that blows it and leads to -il will towards others, -selfishness willing at the expense of others joys and will, -discord, -division and war even if its one of words? It's the separatist ego from my view. At first it was the neighborhoods park. Soon it became "MY park", "No its MY park," "No its MY park too" yada yada. No one in the above is being irrational or unreasonable based on their perspective wants and needs of and for the park. They all are and that common ground is there. They are are in a very separatists state from the whole and are making selfish demands at the expense of others joy. How does that dynamic get unified Skorp? That's what I see and I think others see as the cause of what's holding beneficial for all progress back on this planet. If I see unreasonableness or irrationality anywhere in that cluster fuck of egos, it's in their inability to understand others wants and needs and find ways to respect, appreciate, accommodate and compromise room for all to find their own joy and personal use in the park. To much take and not enough give in this world if you ask me. That is the sort of selfishness I think most people want to see human kind over come. Welcome back Veritas. P.S. Fucknuckle, sure its easy to enjoy others egos from a distance. What is your solution for dealing with them when they have to come together to accomplish something as a unified group and they don't all agree?
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
| |||||||
|
Servent ofWisdom Registered: 02/10/06 Posts: 7,059 Loc: Crown and Heart Last seen: 12 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Ok - What are the fundamental differences between "rational egoism" and "irrational egotism"? And what kind of philosophical models inherently lack 'rational egoism' (surely there are some?) Quote: It takes two to tango, bud. I replied to you because you assaulted mystic philosophies. So again I ask, what constitutes a healthy philosophy and what constitutes an unhealthy one? Quote: Perhaps you read me too quickly, because I never compared you to the German S.S. or Kenneth Lay, or even suggested you were the moral equivalent to them (the two themselves have little in common). I brought the German S.S. and Kenneth Lay up as examples ego-centric thinking models on the raw end of persuit. Quote: I don't see any "subordination from reason" in the spiritual method. Quote: Arbitrariness, faith, anti-egoism, humility, self-sacrifice and "blind hypocrisy" - regardless how you define these, they are still merely the beliefs and philosophies of someone. You seem unable to recognize the actions that flow from a particular philosophy in your unwavering opposition to the philosophy itself. And you dare utter 'blind hypocrisy'? -------------------- "Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is. Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death."
| |||||||
|
Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
|
Jiggy, I would consider myself to be a "seperatist" Egoist [i.e., I'm anti-collectivist, and pro-individualist], yet I'm quite aware of what I've produced and what I'm rightfully entitled to. I respect the rights of other individuals, and do not advocate the use of force against anyone's consent.
What would I do, if I were [for instance] the Mayor and had to create rules for this public park? First of all, the "older man who doesn't want kid's toys on the park because it'll scare away the birds" is dismissed. The birds are not HIS; he did not pay for them or collect them from anyone else as pets. Under the standard that safety for all should be a priority, I would employ the rule that all dogs should be leashed. Dogs are ultimately unpredictable and pose a potential threat to any nearby vehicle, child or pet. If the man with a massive German Shephard wants to play frisbee, he can take the dog to an unincorporated field. If this is in a city-setting, whereby no fields are nearby, then that's the fault of the owners, who should've been more mindful of such variables when selecting a suitable dog. That doesn't mean that their won't be other parks designed specifically for free-roaming dogs, or that they can't let their dogs enjoy nature by a brisk walk or run with a leash. Concern for the safety for all and distinction of private property and public property is all that was at issue here. IF these two key issues are indeed the priority, then that is the best solution - as of yet. -------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
| |||||||
|
jiggy Registered: 07/20/04 Posts: 7,469 Loc: Heart of Laughte |
| ||||||
|
That one is easy to tackle as mayor and you have the final say and law enforcement behind you.
I was putting you into an even place with your fellow neighbors collaborating amongst themselves what to do with an empty lot donated to the neighborhood. They all get to plan it and make it happen amongst themselves. How to you get co-operation going amongst all of the different needs and wants if you support separatists egos? How would you help to get all of them on to common reasonable, rational ground? Say you proposed getting everyone to agree that safety makes the most reasonable rational sense to build the planning upon. Well, the old man who wants a peaceful retreat to enjoy nature in has an argument against the playground equipment which kids sometimes get hurt on. What you would've overruled as mayor on your basis you just contradicted. Now, you are just his neighbor in on the planning. If everyone remains in separatists ego, the planning will be in dispute and gridlock for forever or, someone more forceful will get their way leaving others possibly feeling, rejected/bypassed which may lead to resentment which may lead to retaliation. Now you have the micro version of global problems. I'm pro individualism, yet if ones individualism comes at the expense of another's, that is no longer true individualism being supported by dictatorship being supported. Now I can see why people brought up people like Hitler and Hussein and why they have concerns with such philosophies being supported. You may not ever think yourself to harm another at your own hand, yet supporting individuals rights to assert their will and personal power over others if they can, sets off chain reactions that can indirectly lead to the harm of others being caused. It wouldn't be my first choice for basing the creation of shared realities upon-separation ego philosophies that is, especially if my base was everyones safe well being. I'm curious about this. Do you associate collectivism going hand in hand with the loss of individualism? I'm thinking you might. I don't see it that way. I think both can be accommodated when people are being reasonable and rational and self motivated. Lets swing this back around to your concern with mystics causing a repression of global advancement. Where is it the globe as a whole is being repressed from advancing too I want understand your view on first. If religious fundies think they are right and have no care for others opinions, they are in separatists ego. If science/government thinks they are in the right with ideas of making atomic bombs and dropping them when it suits their goals, they have no care for others and are in separatists egos. If corporate America thinks its right to use projecting earnings same as cash today, like Enron legally did, which lead to robbing from Peter to pay Paul when projected earnings, that never came in, were spent. They have no concern for others and are in separatists egos. I would like to understand how you do not equate global corruption, war and scientific or humanitarian set backs with separatists egos? You have me honestly and utterly confused Skorp. ![]()
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
| |||||||
|
Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
|
I'm pro individualism, yet if ones individualism comes at the expense of another's, that is no longer true individualism being supported, [but] dictatorship being supported.
Agreed! Collectivism is at the heart of dictatorship; it is the notion that everyone should be this or that way. Thus, it is anti-individualism. This is why I've stated explicitly that I respect other's individual rights to express their own beliefs - from skepticism to mysticism to objectivism. I, in turn, am able to freely express my views however opposing or contrary they are to someone else's. Rational individualism supports the freedom of individual rights, and irrational selfishness is a contradiction in terms. People who are brutes and run over other lives with no regard for other's rights, are NOT acting in their selfish interest; they are destructive. They may think they are pursuing their values and interests, and they are; they are fundamentally acting from their motive of survival; but it's what they choose to value; what they consider to be in their selfish interest that is inconsistent with reality. -------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
| |||||||
|
jiggy Registered: 07/20/04 Posts: 7,469 Loc: Heart of Laughte |
| ||||||
I have to share with you how difficult it is to take your posts seriously with those two guys humping in the corner. I am anyway. Quote: Now I see where you see the il with collectivism and mystics supporting it. I'm glad I asked. I'll speak for myself and what I mean when and or if I ever use the term. When I use it, it means nothing more or less then just this- Looking out for the care and individual rights of others within the scope of my vision, regarding how my actions may effect others. When I use the word, it just means I realize people as being a part of a bigger picture and that our individual actions much more then words, have an impact on others besides ourselves. Some choices made in separatists ego, when they negatively effect or take from others can come back to bite us in the ass. The fact of reality is that we share our neighborhoods, workplaces, schools and the planet with other people. To me collectivism just realizes that and gives rise to being considerate of how our actions effect and impact other individuals when we act in self interest. A win win can always be accommodated by parties who care for themselves and others equally. I don't think its too high an ideal to ask for and work towards. We are interdependent on each other in so many ways for our peace, safety and survival. We have to trust in the good will of others to some extent lest we live in hidden underground bunkers. I'd like to see more people raised in cognition of that awareness. That is all. That leaves the gate wide open for individualism to remain. I would never want to see that vanish. People being forced to be the same in belief and view by a dictator is very different then people sharing the same values coming together and co-operating of their free will to realize higher ideals. I think when mystics talk about Utopian societies, they see that, nothing forced, not me anyway. That is a dictatorship and something I think most all mystics I know want to see vanish. The ones I know have moved into self authoritarian , self guidance and self rule and want for all to come into their own so no one will ever feel the need for or support dictators, that use force/ fear intimidation including that biblical Godman people are afraid of ever again. Mystics use compassion (fellow feeling) as a base ideal to live upon and if everyone did all of the time, there would be nothing to fear of in this world or beyond it. That doesn't mean we are not all individually pursuing and achieving personal interests and goals at the same time, be them worldly or other or both. Thanks for the discussion Skorp! ![]()
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
| |||||||
|
Servent ofWisdom Registered: 02/10/06 Posts: 7,059 Loc: Crown and Heart Last seen: 12 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
Are you going to answer me at all?
-------------------- "Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is. Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death."
| |||||||
|
jiggy Registered: 07/20/04 Posts: 7,469 Loc: Heart of Laughte |
| ||||||
|
I just took the time to google the word collectivists.
![]() Though some bits I came across said that some collectivists argue for individual rights, the majority of what I read on it was not resonant with me. I understand your objection with the word now. I won't be using that word again now that I know other meanings floating around out there for it. I wish I knew of a word to express an understanding I have for group co-operative dynamics that support the individuals self interests and rights at the same time. With a little thought, people can pursue self interests not at the expense of others. I sit here thinking on this and see so much senselessness. Everyone could be living so large and thats not the case. Some who live large also have to live in fear of those who don't of stripping them of that life. Why do some believe that others have to not have for others to have. There is plenty of pie for everyone if everyone would learn how to freaking make Pie. We are such highly creative, powerful and resourceful beings and yet so much potential goes untapped, unrealized and wasted. I think the word I would personally use to express an ideal I would like to see manifest globally is co-operative living based on an understanding of interdependency and the benefits of co-operation. If ten people settle in an area, is it easiest for each to build their own home ALL BY THEMSELVES with no help, OR easier for all ten to build them one by one together until each has his own? It's a bigger bonus when the ten realizes that one guy is great at carpentry, another has a knack for architectural design related to strength and function, one is great at masonry work, another has resources for the best materials easy to get, another two are strong like an OX's and maybe a handful of the others are just really enjoyable and easy going to have around while working. When many come together in a co-operative effort, greater things can happen for all involved then if each were on his own. Like with neighborhood park. How difficult is it really to assess how the neighbors would like to personally use it and then, outline a plan to accommodate that. Free dog play on Tuesdays and Sundays 2:00 P.M -8:00 P.M. Seniors Only Hours Monday and Friday 9:00 A.M.- 12:00 All other times open to general use. Leashes required. Yet, like with the home building co-op, I can hear the whining already. "He works slower then me and takes more breaks, Not fair" "I think he should have a back door and he doesn't want one, what a moron! I think my design is best and if he doesn't agree to it, I'm not going to help with it" .Guy with his home already finished says, "I've already helped build 8 houses and I am tired. I quit." ![]() What is "all that" set back, other then selfish, inconsiderate, separatists egos at play? Anyway, to clear things up, I don't resonate with collectivism now that I know the common meaning. I do resonate with individuals coming together to work at co-operatives and collaborations as equals. Why does potential go so wasted in individuals and groups? I agree Skorp that advancement is being blocked. Where we could be as a race of beings and where we are is quite a stretch. I think we just disagree on the causes of the road blocks. I think on how mystics are the ones notorious for creating secret societies. It was always secret for ONE reason. To keep out those who would hold them back from making progress in their area of collective interest and those who would want to kill them for what they were up to. In that sense, considering the times, I do support their separating themselves from the larger population into a smaller collective of like minded people. They kept to themselves, nothing was forced and they were of no harm to others. Read a book called The Way of the Essences for an example. It's awesome. Nostradamus had to hide his mystic life away up in his attic or Yes the Catholic Church would've killed him for what he was up to. Dogma, Fear of the unknown and Ignorance hold us back. Literalistic Bible thumpers may be in much of that. You have self authorized mystics freely exploring the yet to know without dogma pegged all wrong. I'll wrap this up on one final positive note of global advancement. Mystics and scientists (in most of the world at least) are no longer burned at the stake, stoned and beheaded for being heretics of the church. Mystics were the enemy of and a threat to the dogmatic church institution that has helped to hold progress back. Think about that.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
Anihilating mighty ego | 1,526 | 12 | 02/21/04 04:08 AM by fireworks_god | ||
![]() |
I love my ego. ( |
4,180 | 24 | 12/27/02 03:56 AM by highwayman | ||
![]() |
What is Ego? ( |
4,267 | 39 | 02/01/07 01:51 PM by ck10n3 | ||
![]() |
Ego Trancendance All Alone? | 1,930 | 17 | 01/26/05 03:17 PM by sleepy | ||
![]() |
Whats wrong with ego? ( |
5,498 | 62 | 09/20/04 01:56 PM by gettinjiggywithit | ||
![]() |
Ego-Death ? | 1,078 | 5 | 06/18/03 05:46 PM by MrTwisted | ||
![]() |
JUST Experienced Psychadelically Induced Ego Loss ( |
2,531 | 25 | 04/28/04 10:08 AM by ScubySnak420 | ||
![]() |
Programming/filters/ego | 909 | 12 | 04/26/08 05:56 PM by coulterIV |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum 3,744 topic views. 0 members, 14 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||











It doesn't suit you. How long do you have to sport it for ?
Fortunately, it's only until the 8th of May that the terms of my bet will persist.



Like I said Skorp, myself with the mystic bent actually agrees with all you say when the lines are just readjusted a tad. 

