It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Empty Words and Euphemism

page: 4
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Angle
reply to post by akushla99
 


that, if you don't count dinosaurs.

2nd line


I let them count themselves!

A99




posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 04:06 AM
link   
reply to post by akushla99
 

This ATS thing is worldwide and people have things to do, like work and sleep. If he thinks that something I posted needs rebutting then I'm sure he will get around to it when he can, even if I didn't address it to him personally.



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by akushla99
 

This ATS thing is worldwide and people have things to do, like work and sleep. If he thinks that something I posted needs rebutting then I'm sure he will get around to it when he can, even if I didn't address it to him personally.


...oh sweet jesus...and there I was thinking you were all bots
Boy, am I mixed up here...

A99



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
. Rather than consider that nothing is there, which is offensive to their tastes, they invent a cover story, a euphemism, to convince themselves and others that something is there.



Why would the possibility of nothing being there (which is, in literal, material terms, correct) be offensive to their tastes ?

I find that a humorous assertion, but don't want to make jokes, because it seems you are very serious.

I can admit that many concepts are mental objects, with no material form. They are 'nothing'. Happiness is nothing, sadness is nothing, joy is nothing, excitement is nothing.... I still need a word for them. Not because I find it offensive- but without a word, how else can I express my state of being inside?

It is an attempt to project it outwards in expression, not "disguise" it.

edit on 29-4-2013 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bluesma

Why would the possibility of nothing being there (which is, in literal, material terms, correct) be offensive to their tastes ?


What I took his/her words to mean is that the possibility of nothing being there would appear to invalidate the belief system of the spiritual seeker/new-ager/whoever, hence they would find that too objectionable to contemplate. If you embrace a particular worldview, you would wish to avoid admitting that you are completely deluded.



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 07:01 AM
link   
LesMisanthrope:

Having a discussion with someone can be difficult...


Indeed it can be. I've given you a 'star', a rare occurrence by me so be honoured. I enjoyed your post, and thought it quite succinct, and very successful at putting your point across. Well done!



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 





"If I penetrate to the depths of my own existence and my own present reality, the indefinable am that is myself in its deepest roots, then through this deep center I pass into the infinite I am which is the very Name of the Almighty."


Are we any closer to understanding anything he is talking about? That quote is pure pathos, forged and designed to appeal to the readers desire to feel good. There is no logical or ethical reasoning here, even though it smells of divine understanding and infinite truth. It leads us further from understanding. But worse, it leaves us empty of meaning and imagery, resulting in a necessarily imaginative, and therefor fabricated meaning. Every single abstraction in Merton’s rhetoric is without the meaning that aids in conjuring certain imagery. What imagery pops in the head when we hear about things such as “the depths of my own existence” or the “indefinable am”? What experience do we picture when he says “through this deep center I pass into the infinite I am”? This whole statement is guilty of begging the question. Under the feather-like weight of these words, this is all he can convey:


Desire for the reader to feel good? I am not sure after reading that, that I "feel good". I don't actually. I understand what he is saying though. It's pretty clear from my pov, however you do not see and or feel from my pov so I can understand why you do not understand the meaning. There may be zero philosophical ideas in your very being, I don't know. I can rationalize many ways to help myself understand why you do not understand and see nothing from his "random" quote.

You also say it leaves "us" empty of meaning and imagery. Speak for yourself as the quote was pretty meaningful to me.

He went to a place you do not understand.... doesn't mean everyone doesn't understand the meaning.

He, from my pov, is saying the self being indefinable is definable in its deepest roots (going deep is maybe something you do not possess). As he journeys through self at the roots he finds himself aware and defining "I am" as a part of the Almighty.. which he is also.



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by mysticnoon

What I took his/her words to mean is that the possibility of nothing being there would appear to invalidate the belief system of the spiritual seeker/new-ager/whoever, hence they would find that too objectionable to contemplate. If you embrace a particular worldview, you would wish to avoid admitting that you are completely deluded.



But, even in talking of beliefs in a God, the belief is in a non-material entity, and the possibility of a non-physical reality... so the fact that there is no physical entity or thing which is that God just re-affirms the belief, doesn't it?

(-I don't have a belief in a deity-entity, so I am only going on what I understand of others' beliefs...)



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by mysticnoon
I do not consider the ego as "evil', but only as an adversary when it hinders the natural impulses of my real self.


So, who or what is your real self? Seriously. That riff almost sounds like it makes sense, but if the ego is "what a causes a person to impulsively want for him/herself" then what is left as a natural impulse for the "real" self, and how could you possibly discern it to be different than the other impulse source that you've convinced yourself that you've defeated? All it would be is yet another impulse.

Unless you've allowed someone else to define YOU to you, which seems to be just another hijacking of yet another human mind by yet another religion/ideology cobbled together by yet another group of people. This "ego death" cult is really virulent on this forum. Maybe it's virulent all over the Internet, and seeks to become the 21st century's Evangelical Christianity, but I haven't really chased it down to see just how infested the web is with this crap.

If you let anyone define reality for you - either by posts on a forum, videos on Youtube, or through more traditional means, like Sunday School or family pressures - then you'll have no one to blame for what befalls you when you transition from this life to discover that you're still awake and aware, and that your programming has set you up for any one of a myriad of afterlife narratives. Maybe you'll like what greets you, maybe you won't. But you'll have created the opening for its entrance yourself by allowing others to convince you of its plausible existence. It'll be on you.

This ego death cult you've embraced has all the markings of an effort to assure that a complete and unconditional surrender looms in your future. Here's to hoping you will be happy with whatever assumes command of your forever.



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Bluesma
 



Why would the possibility of nothing being there (which is, in literal, material terms, correct) be offensive to their tastes ?


Exactly. It is quite funny. Nonetheless, that's what happening. Why is indeed the question.



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 



He, from my pov, is saying the self being indefinable is definable in its deepest roots (going deep is maybe something you do not possess). As he journeys through self at the roots he finds himself aware and defining "I am" as a part of the Almighty.. which he is also.


Indefinable yet definable. He finds himself aware and defining I am is a part of the Almighty.

This is what begging the question means:


The fallacy of petitio principii, or "begging the question", is committed "when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof"; in order to charitably entertain the argument, it must be taken as given "in some form of the very proposition to be proved, as a premise from which to deduce it".[8] One must take it upon oneself that the goal, taken as given, is essentially the means to that end.


In order to make sense of your definition, I must assume that the indefinable can be definable. I must assume that one can define himself. I must assume what an Almighty is. It's a vicious circle.

Earlier in the thread someone defined the ego as "who you are". But that begs the question. Who are you? This is what's left over after someone speaks with so much abstract and meaningless terms, more and more questions.


There may be zero philosophical ideas in your very being, I don't know.

Look at my thread history.
edit on 29-4-2013 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Yes I don't understand this whole ego-death doctrine. For some reason I picture a bunch of mindless automatons frolicking in a field of flowers. It's a horrible sight.



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 




"If I penetrate to the depths of my own existence and my own present reality, the indefinable am that is myself in its deepest roots, then through this deep center I pass into the infinite I am which is the very Name of the Almighty."


Are we any closer to understanding anything he is talking about?


He, from my pov, is saying the self being indefinable is definable in its deepest roots (going deep is maybe something you do not possess). As he journeys through self at the roots he finds himself aware and defining "I am" as a part of the Almighty.. which he is also.


Okay, now what on Earth are you talking about?




the self being indefinable is definable in its deepest roots


If the self is indefinable, the it can't be defined. Indefinable means not definable.


As he journeys through self at the roots


How can self journey through self? The root of anything that has dynamic expression is the primary expression - the fundamental Identity of whatever it is that is engaged in dynamic expression. How can the root be anything that can be journeyed through? It's not a location, and it has no physical parameters. It is a confluence of influences, experiences, determinations, and reactions, that is in ongoing flux while the brain is still functional. When the brain dies, this root becomes static, even as the self that it serves as primary expression remains dynamic and determinative.


he finds himself aware and defining "I am" as a part of the Almighty.. which he is also.


I'd like 5 minutes alone in a room behind a locked door with the guy who dreamed up the phrase "I AM". When I was done with that idiot, he'd be wishing "he wasn't." Again, if the quote is claiming that the self is indefinable, then that's that. It's indefinable. Also, if the "Almighty" is actually almighty, the it is a singularity - an absolute - which means that the quoter can't even exist as similar to it, since nothing else can exist. A singularity can't be a singularity if anything else - at all - exists. The absolute being state doesn't allow for anything at all to exist relative to anything at all. If so, the it's the relative being state. This being the way things are, there isn't anything that physically exists that exists as a singularity (ie; within an abs9olute being state) and this is because you and I exist relative to each other, and we do - in fact - exist.

What I'm trying to do is entice you to try your explanation again. Only this time, try it without the jargon, and see if you can actually make sense of what that quote means.



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 
As I responded to you earlier, there is no ego death in terms of some entity dying, because there is no such entity. That is a very very common fallacy - that the ego is an entity and that it must be somehow overcome.

The sense of identity that many call ego-I is based most fundamentally on the process of subjectively abstracting from whatever is arising, in a gesture to know (and ultimately control) any object or other that one is attending to, in each and every moment.

Because this gesture of subjectivity is typically moment to moment, it tends to define the being as separative attention. It is just a fear-based obsessive focusing or contraction of the function of attention (and of feeling and of body altogether), and this results in one's identification with this self-generated process of contraction, and the calling of it "I" - but there is no actual entity there.

In terms of how this obsessive fear-based process of separation is understood and transcended, is another matter. In fact, I just wrote something about this a little bit ago on another thread - so for anyone interested:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The sense of identity with an entity we call ego-I is therefore based on an illusion.

Hey, do we actually agree on something here, LesMis?



edit on 29-4-2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



I'd like 5 minutes alone in a room behind a locked door with the guy who dreamed up the phrase "I AM". When I was done with that idiot, he'd be wishing "he wasn't."


"I am" is a very incomplete statement. It also leads to further question begging. I am what? It can only ever serve as an incomplete statement. Yet apparently this half-concept is used as a principle somehow. That is quite telling in itself.



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Yes I don't understand this whole ego-death doctrine. For some reason I picture a bunch of mindless automatons frolicking in a field of flowers. It's a horrible sight.



My vision of it is a lot darker.



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by bb23108
 



Because this gesture of subjectivity is typically moment to moment, it tends to define the being as separative attention. It is just a fear-based obsessive focusing or contraction of the function of attention (and of feeling and of body altogether), and this results in one's identification with this, and the calling of it "I" - but there is no actual entity there.


Aah we are getting closer to 'something' here. This is a better, more concrete explanation of your consciousness. Good job, it is tough to do with such abstract non-subjects.

But remember, there is always an entity there! Something needs to perform these actions! The human organism.



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
Aah we are getting closer to 'something' here. This is a better, more concrete explanation of your consciousness. Good job, it is tough to do with such abstract non-subjects.
The function of attention, and the process of abstraction from objects and others occurs within consciousness - we can simply witness these processes without actually identifying with them. However, once again, consciousness cannot be objectified because it is who we are. This simply must be discovered for oneself.


Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
But remember, there is always an entity there! Something needs to perform these actions! The human organism.
Exactly, these processes occur within the context of the human organism, and create this false notion of the ego-I as some separate entity. Consciousness inherently simply witnesses all such processes - this can be discovered as self-evident, though I understand you do not accept such a notion because you cannot objectify it.

This is why I keep saying you should discover for yourself if this is true or not. You cannot mentalize your way into this because that very process of objectification will hide its inherent self-evident nature.

edit on 29-4-2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


For instance, if we are blaming something called "the ego" for our evil natures, we are blaming a euphemism instead of the guilty party, which we are often too fearful to admit. Not once have we experienced something called an ego; we have only ever experienced ourselves.


Ego might be a euphemism - but only if you don't understand what the word ego means . Otherwise - it's a fairly useful word - and just a word. Even then - anyone blaming something on their ego does it knowing full well that it's their ego - so, not like they're giving themselves a free pass

All words do is represent ideas and things. That's pretty much the whole job of words :-)

Some words are used to represent whole bunches of words - so you don't have to use a whole bunch of words to get your meaning across

Euphemisms are something else - do you think they are automatically deceptive?

How should we talk then? What words should we use when we're trying to explain things that are unexplainable? Forget about God for a minute - and focus on emotion

Is there no room for art - or poetry?

(Is Misanthrope a euphemism?)

:-)
edit on 4/29/2013 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope


Exactly. It is quite funny. Nonetheless, that's what happening. Why is indeed the question.



You claim to know the answer to why it is happening- you claimed that they are offended by the idea that there is no material object behind the word. (or that it offends their senses, to be precise).

Can you explain how you came to that conclusion?

I find it a curious conclusion to come to, considering belief in Gods are, most commonly, beliefs in a omnipresent (present everywhere, simultaneously, having no fixed definable form), and incorporeal.
Most modern theist religions include a non-physical reality.

So there is no contradiction in the idea that God refers to no physical object or form.

I just don't get your logic on that, if you could try to elaborate?

_____________________

On the ego stuff, I guess people just mean destroying parts of their personality. They aren't using it in the way it is used in psychology, or psychoanalysis. It has gained a New Age definition, which seems to refer to the most superificial aspects of personality.

And psychologically speaking, everything about our personality is influenced by our experiences with the exterior and others, from what we can find now.

The whole idea of being a "self made" personality is only possible if a self concept was first formed (as a child, conditioned by others) that can then do the choosing of the elements and influences outside.

But it is still the first self that does the choosing.... and risks doing so according to it's conditioned preferences! (which ends up being not so much different then).

I do suspect that Jung had something interesting in the concept of passing through a phase of chaos, or letting go of earlier formed perceptions... which allows you to sort of break down the walls and really make bigger changes in your self construct.

He said you have to go insane, to get sane, I think it was. When you let go of all your notions of the limits of reality, THEN you can really start from the ground up. That was my experience anyway.

But I didn't stop having a self awareness, it was more that I lost my points of reference of where the limits were between me and other, and what is real and what isn't. It could not have been possible if I had to deal with everyday stuff- like talking with people, working a job, etc. That might be why so many disciplines recommend a period of isolation for years, and not talking to anyone.
edit on 29-4-2013 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-4-2013 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join