| 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.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order |
| |||||||
 SkorpivoMusterion 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)
| |||||||
 hot48yearolds Dharmakaya  Registered: 09/21/04 Posts: 705 Loc: lazy river road Last seen: 17 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
-------------------- - J. Krishnamurti 
| |||||||
|
Icelander The Minstrel in the Gallery  Registered: 03/15/05 Posts: 95,368 Loc: underbelly |
| ||||||
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
| |||||||
|
Basilides Servent ofWisdom  Registered: 02/10/06 Posts: 7,059 Loc: Crown and Heart Last seen: 15 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
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.
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."
| |||||||
|
SkorpivoMusterion 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)
| |||||||
|
MushmanTheManic 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.
| |||||||
|
SkorpivoMusterion 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.
| |||||||
|
Basilides Servent ofWisdom Registered: 02/10/06 Posts: 7,059 Loc: Crown and Heart Last seen: 15 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
Please define "rational egoism", as you see it, and how it's superior to any existing models of conduct.
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?
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.
The "Knowable" is not revealed inasmuch that it is tuned into via the spiritual method.
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."
| |||||||
|
BlueCoyote Beyond  Registered: 05/07/04 Posts: 6,697 Loc: Between Last seen: 5 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
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. --------------------  And death shall have no dominion
| |||||||
|
SneezingPenis ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111! Registered: 01/15/05 Posts: 15,427 Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
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).
| |||||||
|
SneezingPenis ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111! Registered: 01/15/05 Posts: 15,427 Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
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.
| |||||||
|
Icelander 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
| |||||||
|
SkorpivoMusterion 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)
| |||||||
fireworks_god Sexy.Butt.McDanger   Registered: 03/12/02 Posts: 24,855 Loc: Pandurn Last seen: 11 months, 23 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   
 
| |||||||
|
SkorpivoMusterion 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.
| |||||||
|
SkorpivoMusterion 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.
| |||||||
|
gettinjiggywithit 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.
| |||||||
|
SkorpivoMusterion 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.
| |||||||
|
gettinjiggywithit 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.
| |||||||
|
fireworks_god Sexy.Butt.McDanger Registered: 03/12/02 Posts: 24,855 Loc: Pandurn Last seen: 11 months, 23 days |
| ||||||
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
| |||||||
| |||||||
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
| Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
Anihilating mighty ego |  cleaner |
1,643 | 12 | 02/21/04 04:08 AM by fireworks_god |
|
 |
I love my ego. (  1 2 all ) |
 Phluck |
4,339 | 24 | 12/27/02 03:56 AM by highwayman |
|
 |
What is Ego? ( 1 2 all ) |
 Sinbad |
4,328 | 38 | 02/01/07 01:51 PM by ck10n3 |
|
 |
Ego Trancendance All Alone? |  cmath |
1,969 | 17 | 01/26/05 03:17 PM by sleepy |
|
|
Whats wrong with ego? ( 1 2 3 4 all ) |
Scarfmeister |
5,858 | 62 | 09/20/04 01:56 PM by gettinjiggywithit |
|
 |
Ego-Death ? | MrTwisted |
1,121 | 5 | 06/18/03 05:46 PM by MrTwisted |
|
|
JUST Experienced Psychadelically Induced Ego Loss ( 1 2 all ) |
 Source |
2,639 | 25 | 04/28/04 10:08 AM by ScubySnak420 |
|
 |
Programming/filters/ego |  Ego Death |
946 | 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 3,798 topic views. 2 members, 109 guests and 19 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||