Ego vs Personality

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 07:15 PM
link   
It's all relative and how you place your priorities.
If person A is better than person B at something, likewise person B can be much better than A at something else. If person A is better at screwing people over, is that really a good thing?
Ego is to arrogance as Personality is to confidence, arrogance is how you think about yourself and confidence is how others think about you.




posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 07:20 PM
link   
So now you resort to calling my refuting of your claim, ego?

What tone? I'm being 100% serious. I've had dreams of that bunny.

My tone was serious and not sarcastic at all. If you're going to claim a dream to be absolute proof of memory from your past life, I'm going to show you just exactly how absurd that is.

A dream is nothing more than a chemical trip released naturally in your brain while you sleep.

If you're going to take one dream and state it as absolute proof for a past life, then you must certainly look at all dreams the same way.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Also, I guess blind people had no past lives, or they were always blind, because they dream predominately in sound and touch. That goes for all of those with sense defects, etc.



what can blind people see in dreams?


This article provides a critique of a recent inaccurate claim that the congenitally blind literally "see" in their dreams, which flies in the face of findings that were established in 3 careful previous studies. It first shows how this claim arose through a blurring of the distinction between actual seeing through the visual system and imagery that preserves spatial and metric properties without specific reliance on the visual system. It then discusses the 3 mistaken reasons for this blurring. This correction is important beyond the specific issue of seeing in dreams because the original findings lend important support for a cognitive theory of dreaming by showing that the imagery necessary for dreaming develops between ages 4 and 7.

[snip]

the authors reported that blind dreamers can draw the scenes and figures in the dream as well as can sighted people who have their eyes closed while they are drawing. On the basis of this evidence, they concluded that blind people must experience visual imagery in the dream.

psych.ucsc.edu...


*bolding mine



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 



Three careful sleep laboratory studies and at least one rigorous study of home dream reports have shown that congenitally blind dreamers and those who became blind in infancy do not have visual imagery in their dreams, whereas those blinded in adolescence or young adulthood often retain visual mental imagery in their waking life and in their dreams. These controlled experiments confirm what has been reported in a number of earlier self-report studies reviewed by Kirtley (1975), who concluded on the basis of his extensive appraisal that individuals blinded before the age of about 5 report no visual imagery in dreams as adults, whereas those blinded after about the age of 7 are likely to retain visual imagery in dreaming.

It is rather surprising that the findings on the lack of visual mental imagery in the dreams of congenitally blind individuals have been challenged in a recent home-report, polysomnographical study in which the authors concluded that "the congenitally blind have visual content in their dreams" (Bértolo et al., 2003, p. 277). However, Bértolo et al. have used the terms visual image and visual content in a way that is not consistent with previous studies, and they have drawn inappropriate conclusions from the fact that the congenitally blind can draw images of their dream content. They also have misapplied a system of content analysis. Because their new claim has implications for a cognitive theory of dreaming, it is the purpose of this brief article to show that their results are in fact consistent with the earlier studies and do not support conclusions that congenitally blind people can "see" in dreaming or waking imagery.


I'm referring to those who have been blind their entire lives, obviously. Read the whole article.

My emphasis.

[edit on 15-9-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
If you're going to take one dream and state it as absolute proof for a past life, then you must certainly look at all dreams the same way.


Exactly... and, in part, I do. A quick scan of some of my older threads (viewable in my profile), will attest to that.

I say 'in part', because there are dreams which are produced by our life experience and there are those dreams which spring from the collective unconscious.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Everything is the collective consciousness.

All your external source did was refute your argument and praise mine.

So you'd be so gullible to agree that the killer bunny exists and is not only a figment of my subjective imagination mixing the traits of a killer Human with a bunny?



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 07:35 PM
link   
This is a very interesting thread.
I've been following it closely.

It is certainly heavy in both Egos and Personalities.
Not so sure about the "vs".




posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
I'm referring to those who have been blind their entire lives, obviously. Read the whole article.

My emphasis.



Oh, I did;


The potential confusion is not present in dream reports of individuals who are visually impaired from birth but who retain some ability to see visual characteristics such as brightness and color and are able to match waking visual experience to dreaming visual experience. These individuals universally report that visual images in their dreams appear to them as they would in waking life. They can see things in dreams with no more clarity or detail than they could see in wakefulness, yet they know the details of the dream environment through the integration of information from other sensory systems. Uniquely visual imagery is dependent on uniquely visual experience. We therefore strongly believe that the term visual imagery should be reserved for imagery that is phenomenologically similar to objects seen with one's eyes, the only sensory receptors capable of receiving and encoding the information conveyed exclusively in light waves.

psych.ucsc.edu...


Did you?




posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Okay, your semantics are boring me. Yes I read the whole article. I'm talking about the congenitally blind. Those that are blind from birth. Why then are they not blessed to dream about their past lives? Because it's B.s. We receive through 5 senses and we dream only with the knowledge that we receive through those 5 senses. If a sense is impaired from birth obviously no knowledge of that sense will be retained, thus dreams will also be as such. I read VERY fast.

If you can't -cede to the fact that you're wrong and that your dream only occurred because you have sight and your imagination while sleeping put together a scenario where there were naked bodies on you, because you had seen naked bodies and because you had layed down before. Then I will just have to ignore you as well.

Again, your external source has proven nothing except for my point. The congenitally (obviously implied from the start) blind do not dream in images. I guess they are just less fortunate than us, right? But hey, there's always the next life! Reincarnation! Hoo-ray! No one dies and we all live forever! Yaaaay!



Subjective delusion going as far as to deny the facts. I'm sorry that you have believed this your entire life, or from the age that it happened and forth, or from the time you began believing that it was a past life. It was only a dream and that was a result of your senses.

[edit on 15-9-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

Hoo-ray! Yaaaay!





(attitude?)

In the corner where you stand;


Those born totally blind or who lost all of their sight very early in childhood usually have little or no visual imagery, but show the same detailed attention to sound, smell, touch, and taste that they do in waking life.

psych.ucsc.edu...


Note the 'visual imagery'.

Sight is only ONE of the senses.

The others are all there... and, with this they DO dream. One can sense a candlestick by its form, weight and texture, know the flame by its heat and hear the popping of the wick.

So these people, blind from birth can also know people and can dream of their relationship to them.

Not knowing visual imagery does not preclude dreams of past lives. I wonder if there was ever a study done on a large scale, looking for instances of visual imagery in the congenitally blind?

 


edit to add:


We therefore strongly believe that the term visual imagery should be reserved for imagery that is phenomenologically similar to objects seen with one's eyes, the only sensory receptors capable of receiving and encoding the information conveyed exclusively in light waves.

psych.ucsc.edu...



Can we get back to the ego now?

[edit on 15/9/08 by masqua]



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
(attitude?)


Very good.


In the corner where you stand;


I'm sitting in a chair, in a room. In this conversation you're the only one "cornered" and you will continually deny it because you are subjectively delusional and your convictions reside in illogical subjective fantasy, not objective reality. Deny, deny, deny the facts to keep sacred your oh so special past life that was revealed to you in a dream at age 4.



Those born totally blind or who lost all of their sight very early in childhood usually have little or no visual imagery, but show the same detailed attention to sound, smell, touch, and taste that they do in waking life.

psych.ucsc.edu...


That's what I've been saying from the start. Why are you repeating all of this as if you're proving a point now?


Sight is only ONE of the senses.


Very good. *claps* Yep, that's what we were talking about, remember? Blind people and others with defects and how their dreams mimic their awake state and differ from those that don't have defects or those that have differing defects because of their senses that have in this physical reality.


The others are all there... and, with this they DO dream.


Very good, this is redundant. We already concluded that they dream, remember? This whole argument is about how they dream, not whether or not they do. I'm glad you're catching up though and publicly reaffirming that for yourself.


So these people, blind from birth can also know people and can dream of their relationship to them.


Exactly. Only what they have experienced can they dream about.


Not knowing visual imagery does not preclude dreams of past lives. I wonder if there was ever a study done on a large scale, looking for instances of visual imagery in the congenitally blind?


That's a non-issue. If they were congenitally blind they wouldn't know sight. You're attempting to do exactly what the corrupt and deceptive "scientists" in this article tried to do. Fortunately and thankfully, they failed, too. Even going as far as trying to change the definitions of the words.

There are now procedures that allow the congenitally deaf to hear again. It takes them years to finally develop hearing and recognize individual sounds.

 


We therefore strongly believe that the term visual imagery should be reserved for imagery that is phenomenologically similar to objects seen with one's eyes, the only sensory receptors capable of receiving and encoding the information conveyed exclusively in light waves.
psych.ucsc.edu...


Well that's nice. I'm glad that you are again needlessly posting the definition of something, this time visual imagery that no one was having a problem with but yourself.


Can we get back to the ego now?


You can't even follow along. This isn't hard. Do you have any idea of what you are doing? Do you like being wrong or is it just a past time?

So to make a long conversation short. The congenitally blind do not dream in visual images. Therefore their past lives must be limited to blind people since it is absolute that through dreams we are revealed knowledge of past lives.

But, pick and choose when and where convenient. If your dream doesn't seem to make sense, just say it wasn't a part of the collective consciousness and wa-la! You can have as many past lives as you'd like!

There's a fine line between objectivity and subjective insanity. You've crossed it and become delusional about it, and illogically so.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
You can't even follow along.


If it's hopeless, please... give up on me.


This isn't hard.


OK... I'll try to understand.


Do you have any idea of what you are doing?


In some things, I think I do.


Do you like being wrong or is it just a past time?


I've been wrong plenty of times before. Have you ever been wrong before? Was it a hobby for ou too?


So to make a long conversation short.


Oh, good... I like short and simple


The congenitally blind do not dream in visual images.


They don't dream in visual images like those who are not blind. Yes.


Therefore their past lives must be limited to blind people since it is absolute that through dreams we are revealed knowledge of past lives.


A congenitally blind person would not be able to relate to colour nor 'visual images' because they have never had that stimulus during their lifetime. true. This does not, however, preclude dreams which may be connected to the collective unconscious (including past lives).

As I stated before, there are two types of dreams, one type based on life experience and another type based on the collective unconscious. Can you say with certainty that a blind person could not 'see' a circle? Since dreams from the collective unconscious come in the form of archetypes (symbols), the mandala (a circle) can thus be easily revealed to them.


*Bolded to stand out from the BS in this post


But, pick and choose when and where convenient.


I prefer logical to convenient, but thank you anyway.


If your dream doesn't seem to make sense, just say it wasn't a part of the collective consciousness


It did and I won't


and wa-la!


wa-la?



You can have as many past lives as you'd like!


Of course! After all, that IS what the collective unconscious is all about, is it not?


There's a fine line between objectivity and subjective insanity.


Insanity?


You've crossed it and become delusional about it, and illogically so.


Oh, my... now I'm insane according to you. Are you qualified to make that diagnosis?

I've made no allusions about your mental health AT ALL, yet you attack me mercilessly. Is this how you debate logically?

Let's get back to the topic, shall we? Ego... remember?



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 09:07 PM
link   
It's really too bad that we can't ignore moderators.

If I could I would. I'll just have to manually ignore the illogical non-sense from now on.

And yes, you're a lost cause.

Edit to add:



Oh, my... now I'm insane according to you. Are you qualified to make that diagnosis?


Does it matter, masqua? You're qualified to fit it either way, of course you won't realize it because that's what the diagnosis entails.

[edit on 15-9-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
It's really too bad that we can't ignore moderators.


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


But, you can... just don't reply to them (unless, of course, it's to do with the T&C's, at which time it might be good to take heed.



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



If I could I would. I'll just have to manually ignore the illogical non-sense from now on.

And yes, you're a lost cause.


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Yes, please do. And thank you for the pertinent personal attacks (not).

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


It'd be nice to discuss the topic now.

The ego... what it is and isn't. I say it has nothing to do with the unconscious after initial life experience commences and 'will' begins to play its part.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 


OmniVersal has an opinion and hes not telling you to believe him. Hes not claiming proof of anything. He has a life, in which he has experiences which lead him to his beliefs. you have your life with your experiences which created your beliefs. There is no argument here.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by stove167
 


Yes there is. And immediately you are ignored because you don't pay attention. I have NO beliefs. Do you understand that, any of you? I say it every thread that I post in because you all attempt to label everything as belief and opinion. I don't do belief and opinion. I am logic, knowledge and fact.

OmniVersal's so called "experience" is illogical, deceptive and wrong. It is schizophrenic and detached from reality. Furthermore he never even provided any knowledge from his past life. Neither did masqua (whose delusional insanity and subjective illogicality will no longer be receiving anymore responses).



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
reply to post by stove167
 


I have NO beliefs. .


yeah...
no beliefs



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by OmniVersal
Since the ego works so well in society (by design I suspect) it becomes intertwined with our personality to the point where we can't see the difference. We then identify with this way of thinking. We think it is who we are.


I agree with this statement.

Our ego evolves through interaction with the society around us. A feral child, for instance, living their formative years among wild animals, will not know speech nor social mores.

But, is the ego at birth truly without ANY personality AT ALL?



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Speaking of dreams.
For your consideration:


Ego is the movement of the mind toward objects of perception in the form of grasping, and away from objects in the form of aversion. This fundamentally is all the ego is. This movement of grasping and aversion gives rise to a sense of a separate "me," and in turn the sense of "me" strengthens itself this way. It is this continuous loop of causation that tricks consciousness into a trance of identification. Identification with what? Identification with the continuous loop of suffering. After all, who is suffering? The "me" is suffering. And who is this me? It is nothing more than a sense of self caused by identification with grasping and aversion. You see, it's all a creation of the mind, an endless movie, a terrible dream. Don't try to change the dream, because trying to change it is just another movement in the dream. Look at the dream. Be aware of the dream. That awareness is It. Become more interested in the awareness of the dream than in the dream itself. What is that awareness? Who is that awareness? Don't go spouting out an answer, just be the answer. Be It.


adya



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by masqua

Originally posted by OmniVersal
Since the ego works so well in society (by design I suspect) it becomes intertwined with our personality to the point where we can't see the difference. We then identify with this way of thinking. We think it is who we are.


I agree with this statement.

Our ego evolves through interaction with the society around us. A feral child, for instance, living their formative years among wild animals, will not know speech nor social mores.

But, is the ego at birth truly without ANY personality AT ALL?



I agree with the OP's statement as well. I also agree with the OP's opinion of ego's negative connotations. I don't see ego and personality being synonymous either. I view ego as a type of manipulated personality that masks or blinds a person's true self. With regards to selfishness and over-consumerism, I think we have Edward Bernays (Sigmund Freud's nephew no less) to thank.

I enjoyed and relate to the quotes Enuma Elish posted early on particularly;


Ego is a love-denying obsession with separation, narcissism, and self-concern." --Andrew Cohen

That is to say, you get your sense of who you are from things that ultimately have nothing to do with who you are: your social role, possessions, externl appearance, successes and failures, belief systems, and so on. This false, mind-made self, the ego, feels vulnerable, insecure, and is always seeking new things to identify with to give it a feeling that it exists. But nothing is ever enough to give it lasting fulfillment. Its fear remains; its sense of lack and needineess remains." ---Eckhart Tolle

It is the ego, the sum total of all our defects, that separates us from our spiritual self and causes all our suffering. The ego ensnares our consciousness - the Divine Spark within each of us - in a web of illusion that prevents us from comprehending our true nature and identity." - Samael Aun Weor


edit: sp

[edit on 15-9-2008 by StrangeBrew]




 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join