It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Leggo My Ego

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 01:29 PM
reply to post by schrodingers dog

Thank you for a brilliant post. More and more of these seem to pop up and then we see the folks who are holding with dear life to their egos' how they attack these threads and try to find ways to abolish them.

I have a similar post here:
the official how to get out of the matrix thread


posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 02:12 PM

This is exhausting.

I considered this and concluded it was funny - please do not attempt to devalue my investment.

Hmm... perhaps in relation: the other day I wondered, in reference to personally defining politics: Is affirmation actually received through hostile detraction? Legitamacy gained through belligerent opposition? In an arena where a persons perception of self is seemingly so vulnerable to becoming comprehensively intertwined with an ideology that there seems no definition as to where one ends and the other begins then, through receiving attention, particularly in a hostile manner, are those with investments in the game somewhat perversely graced, by the opponent, with the gift of substance and therefore aided in cementing the (misguided) belief that they are (defined by) their thoughts?

Does even engaging in hostile political debate feed a subtle sense of maytredom which, in turn, falsely nurtures the self, the soul (as you will) by reinforcing the perception of a difference which can be interpreted as offering increased definition of the target (for want of a better word) if the argument is taken personally (those thoughts are what I am, here I am, I am being attacked) and, as mentioned above, help cement the concept that they are their thoughts? The result being that a political opponent is perversely graced by the adversary with the gift of substance?

I don't mean to drag the topic onto politics, (please I beg should anyone note this reply let's not start down that path), rather I thought this a reflection of, or that it related to, what I took to be the concept behind the opening post: The potential to fall foul of the notion that our thoughts become vital in the perception (the understanding of whatever definition we wish to apply to the notion) of self. Either through simply and carelessly allowing our ideas to possess, to take ownership of us or through an interpretation of the relationship we have with them coming to regard them as posessions and extending that concept to the idea of ownership mistakenly accepting that they are an important, vital defining part of us rather than the view that they are ephemeral constructs which, hopefully, aid us in the search to live a more agreeable existance and which, again hopefully, we can, without loss and when the opportunity arises, painlessly discard for better ones.

Disclamer: Of course I could be mistaken, in which case take the above and do what you will with it, it's just a thought. Plus, the above is written specifically in reference to ideas - you can reword to apply the sentiment to the other things mentioned in the opening post, particularly the last few sentences when considering partners and children.

[edit on 2/9/10 by JAK]

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 03:08 PM
reply to post by JAK

or through an interpretation of the relationship we have with them coming to regard them as posessions and extending that concept to the idea of ownership mistakenly accepting that they are an important, vital defining part of us rather than the view that they are ephemeral constructs which, hopefully, aid us in the search to live a more agreeable existence and which, again hopefully, we can, without loss and when the opportunity arises, painlessly discard for better ones.

thats exactly it though, its all a vast charade based on imagination, none of which has any solidity to it (we're daydreaming). So yes any and all positions uphold this illusion of ego and feed it its due measures. Those that are wise do as you said, drop the unnecessary constructs in exchange for more appropriate measures, and yet those who are the wisest drop them all together and in that dropping of it all, the absolute truth is revealed.

Note also that the one dropping all notions is also a thought, hence even that is dropped along with all else. What is left is an openness, a freshness seeing all angles equally and neither agreeing nor disagreeing .....a sort of outer spectator.

Still dont take this ego's word for it. Check and see yourself if its true

[edit on 2-9-2010 by dominicus]

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 03:39 PM
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 03:44 PM
reply to post by JohnySeagull

Star 4u!

Some ATS members are webbots that seek out and star certain other members' posts.

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 04:03 PM

i'm speechless.

guess thats what happens when you try and ditch the ego.

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 04:07 PM
My id says hi and does not care what is posted here.

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 07:18 PM

Originally posted by earthdude
My id says hi and does not care what is posted here.

My assessment is that the most ego-ey thing about this thread is everyone trying to flaunt their own ego-awaness-cred. Hey! Looks how much I know! Yeah, man, ego, this, ego that! I'm so philosophical 'n' stuff. Like, wow, I've read everything from Aristotle to Zoroaster and I just have to show it all off in front of everyone!

--Egostotle Syzygy of Triptych

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 07:22 PM
I made a trhead about the exact same issue, I'm so glad ATS is beginning to understand, not superficially but really.

thank you for this thread and bringing awarenes to the IS'ness of reality.

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 07:27 PM
reply to post by colloredbrothers

Who me?

Meh, I'm just glad no one's made a Ram Dass joke yet ...

That's a win!

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 07:40 PM
In cognitive linguistics, the concept of I/me and myself as two different entities (at least for purposes of language) has been demonstrated (Lakoff et al.):

If I were you, I'd hate me. (I as you)

If I were you, I'd hate myself. (You as you, but myself inside)

Why do these two sentences differ in meaning?

How can you hate yourself?

These are either interesting language concepts that have an impact on your thoughts and reasoning or they are interesting cognitive processes that are manifested in your language. I'd put my money on a give and take of both sides.

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 07:53 PM
reply to post by schrodingers dog

I have a few "lightswitch" moments in my life. I wrote about one recently that some may have read.

One such "lightswitch" moment was also discussed with a professional peer today when I talked about "7 Habits".

But a major one for me was Dan Millman's "The Way Of The Peaceful Warrior". All the stresses of life are a stone in your "backpack". As you climb the mountain of life, the more stones you carry in your backpack creates more difficulty. Paths that would otherwise be accessible to you are made to be out of reach because you cannot climb as strongly, or jump as far. So climbing this mountain is made more difficult.

Some people attempt to throw out various amounts of the stones, while others remain ignorant and carry all that excess baggage with them despite the obvious difficulties caused by it (such as your "Three Wise Men" parable).

And while some are very successful at emptying that backpack, there are a few who become a little wiser than the rest. They understand that emptying the backpack is an improvement, but taking it off completely is liberating. They are then able to ascend this mountain using all their powers to assist them along the way, unhindered by needless baggage that will weigh them down.

Sure, they may go without a tent, or supplies. They are "travelling light", so to speak. But to them, the benefits of this far exceed the cost in comforts, for they are usually able to ascend higher than any others.

Me? I carry the baggage of comforts quite well, but do not carry much of the other baggage. This is a selfish decision, however, in that I prefer to not have to deal with issues related to any excess baggage.

To each his own.


posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 07:54 PM
reply to post by Sphota

Isn't "myself" just the reflexive form of the pronoun "me", when the subject acts upon the object, which is itself, and "I hate me" is merely horrendous grammar?

But of course, that is just me complaining for the hell of it. One might prefer to say, "If I were you, you'd hate me."

[edit on 9/2/2010 by EnlightenUp]

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 07:56 PM
reply to post by schrodingers dog

If he is Indian, then his name would be pronounced "ROM", not "RAM".

At least, in my own experience.

Trying to make such a joke would be epic fail.

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 08:04 PM

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
Alright you silly zenophobes, let's see if we can simplify this further ...

First off schrodingers dog, if ever you see me mispell one of our wurds please feel free to correct my spelling error. i would honestly feel better being corrected than continuing to make the same mistake repeatedly. i'm certainly not the spelling or grammar police, nor would i be insulted for being corrected.

secondly, if the word is mispelled by a typo and one letter is replaced with another letter that is right next to it on the keyboard, it more than likely is due to a typo, and i can realize this.

thirdly, i spent a few minutes looking for what "zenophobe" meant, cuz i didn't know.

fourthly, "x" is next to "z" on the keyboard. but, i learned a new word today. thanks!

Eek, I barely mentioned that word and the minds are on overdrive trying to defend and legitimize their existence and protect their identity.

So let me repeat this one more time ... no one is suggesting that you should kill or discard the ego, so there's no need to keep saying 'i'm speaking from my ego, I'm keeping my ego, or in fact sdog leggo my ego you jackass, I need that to live!"
I'm not trying to steal it from you or to put it down.

i did not take offense to your opening post, what so ever. i just wanted to share some thoughts concerning "ego"

i think the points you make are profoundly intelligent, and beautifully simplified.

what i love about this thread is the stress you place upon ownership and "my" and "mine". once we share words with eachother, they are no longer private or "my" words. they transform into "our" words. and from the perspective of ego "our" can also be flattering for the ego. sharing experiences and thoughts with eachother is paramount to getting to the truth of a subject, but often the "ego" sometimes tries to hinder sharing thoughts out of fear of ridicule, etc...

some people get put off by the word "teacher" in my user name. five years ago i picked that name for two reasons. because a teacher shares information, and that is what i do, i share what i learn, experience, think about. secondly, i picked that name because it can be abbreviated to E.T., and the ufo and alien phenomenon is one subject that motivated me to join ATS.

yet, some people do not like my user name, and even post as much in some of my threads.

some members think my user name is proof of ego. it wasn't meant as such when i picked it, and sometimes i think they may be projecting their interpretation of it, rather than considering there were other reasons i picked it. a little off topic, but related to it i think.

I mean honestly, if after reading the OP and what I wrote since, you think this is about attacking the ego, and you feel compelled to defend it because it's yours, then I humbly suggest paying attention to why you are reacting that way because in effect, you are exemplifying all that the OP addresses.

i hope you did not take any of my posts as being against what you said. since you've authored that, i have read it 4 times, because i like it very much. i know you are not attacking the ego, but the ego often thinks it is being attacked, when it is not. such is one of the downfalls of ego, in my egoic opinion.

But joking aside, and manifestations of unwarranted self importance aside, I have obviously done a piss poor job communicating the simplicity of this dynamic.

what i shared on page four of this thread was an account of how lack of ego, and lack of thinking about self altogether offered an option i would not have necessarily considered if ego was a variable. i hope it wasn't taken otherwise. it is difficult for me to think about and put into words totally, and i was tired when i wrote it.

i'm hoping my contributions in this thread have not been misunderstood. i was sharing what i have learned about ego, what it means to me, and how letting go of it in a time of crisis actually probably saved us that night in iraq.

for me this thread is about the often automatic assumption of "this is mine" and/or "this is my". also for me this thread is about how options may not be percieved as possible and plausible if the ego alone is in the driver's seat making all the decisions for us.

the ego thinks linearly, in my opinion. right or wrong, left or right, liberal or conservative, heaven or hell, fight or flight, etc...

what this thread brings to the fore front is it may not always be black and white, but the ego is not conditioned to see otherwise all the time.

So let us start with the whole ego deconstruction bit ... deconstruction doesn't mean throwing something away, it simply means looking at it from a distance, taking it apart, observing it seeing how it works, and when it comes to one's deconstruction of their self, understanding and being aware of how and why we and our minds operate in relation to each other. It is simply looking at the existential mirror, and it has nothing to do with denying our ego or anything else. Ok? Ok!

i like you Sdog. i like you a lot. stuff like what is written above is the reason i added you to my friends list.

Imagine if you will all the physical possessions you accumulate throughout your life ... all the clothes, electronics, books, all the stuff. And imagine you don't ever throw anything away ... you keep storing it in the attic every time you move. It's called hoarding. Well the mind often does the same thing, but because it isn't physical stuff that you can see or touch, unless one stops and notes it, the mind will hoard everything unconsciously. Resulting in a 'heavy' mind full of stuff it doesn't need.

i can't agree with that more than what i do. we need to defrag our minds once in awhile. even if we are only collecting light weight pillows, eventually enough pillows will weigh us down. an analogy to say the same thing, i think.

All that this is about is stopping, go up in the attic of your mind, look around and see what you want to keep and what you don't.

i believe the conflicts within us that cannot be resolved or are not resolved inside, get unconsciously projected onto our shared reality, and manifested into our material world.

As far as the fleeting point of the OP, all I was saying is if you depersonalize all the stuff in the attic that is your mind, one might find that even less is required, needed, defended, and maintained.

i agree.

That's all, it's just a suggestion.

This is exhausting.

again, i agree.

schrodingers dog,
i like this thread, and thank you for sharing your thoughts and your observations concerning this subject. i hope you didn't find my earlier posts were contrary to what it is you shared.

if so, it makes me


this thread is not about:

this thread is about:
"show and tell" about what the ego is to us. and the pieces of it we think we know and understand. & reverse engineering the ego. and how much we need to store in our mental attic. and cleaning the attic now and again.

a tool i found useful was this:

i started writing in a journal/diary. and as i wrote in it i knew no one else would ever read it. when i wrote in my journal i wrote the words with the expectations that there was no one else to impress, no reasons to lie.

we don't always treat everyone the same in our lives. we don't talk to our boss like we do our subordinates. we don't talk to our wife/husband like we do our children. we don't talk to our neighbor like we do our dog. we respect their individuality, and their personal likes and dislikes as best as we can accomidate them. so as i wrote in my journal there was no one to impress, and no boundries to be respected, and no reason to lie to myself.

eventually i found a place in that book where i was writing logical questions i wanted the answers to, and i would consider the possible options, to include my speculations.

i'd pick the most logical answer, or the answer that made sense to me.

i would ask the next logical question, and pursue the answer in the same fashion.

eventually it helped me clean the attic, and defrag my mind. it has been one tool to help clean out all the repetitive files that had identical information, and make "cliff notes" so to speak where a lot of information could be condensed and applied to life.

i hope this might help Sdog, (and no, you don't have to proof read this whole post, but if you see me constantly mispelling a word, you won't insult my ego to tell me i'm doing so)

this thread rocks,

[edit on 2-9-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 08:33 PM

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher

i like you Sdog. i like you a lot. stuff like what is written above is the reason i added you to my friends list.

I'm just playing ET, I like you too.

Everything is perfect and no one has derailed anything ... I just haven't had time to respond to every post, but I will ... eventually, I will.

It's all good.

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 08:41 PM

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

I saw a caption for that photo once. It said:

don't know what it means
but I am pretty sure this is what it looks like

[edit on 2-9-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]

[edit on 2-9-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 08:44 PM

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

How cute! Huskies FTW! They pwn all and keep any big egos in check.

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 08:46 PM
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

I concur.

I've never seen a dog make a face before.

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 08:53 PM
reply to post by colloredbrothers

Originally posted by colloredbrothers
I made a thread about the exact same issue

almost everyone does make a thread about this issue in some form or another, i think. we all have egos. (except for the one's the egos cannot process, aka sense, i think) hence: "i made a thread about the same exact issue". we just word them different ways, from different observation points, different perspectives. all of them are analogies of eachother, it seems to me (sometimes).

[edit on 2-9-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in