To Vilify the Ego

reply to post by HarryTZ

I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


I would think there'd be more benefit to doubting him.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

I would think there'd be more benefit to doubting him.

Although I accept his experience, I do not accept his account of it, which resorts to empty words, abstraction and nondescript language common to all religion and mysticism.

Only he knows what he has experienced. If he is lying, for whatever strange reason, he will know his own dishonesty as well.

By accepting his experience, I can simply move on unconvinced but with a good conscience and no enemies.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


You mean by accepting his testimony but not allowing it to overtly influence your objective analysis, you maintain good conscience.

Close to 10 pages of debate and no one has been convinced of anything. I am starting to see the futility...

It truly depends upon how ego is being used, for it can be used in different ways. How egotistical of you!!!! is a way of responding to what appears arrogance and self adulation.

Then there is the I.

The I is seen by some as error and fault, some who believe in law of one, for example, or similar types of ideas, though some are even more extreme than law of one, such as when those who often speak of humans as cancers and even sometimes call humans monkey's, and have this lording it over in some reptilian draco type superior attitude, those kinds usually make my backbone snap up and my teeth clatter together and the resistance and freedom fighting stance of Not On My Watch comes to the forefront, and then need to work at overcoming this reaction and blaming and say this is about peace and having mercy on those lost in the dark side of the universe.... But they often despise any sense of empowerment in humans, and its not that they think humans are a part of One, but rather treat them as subsouls and not even intellect or consciousness at all and that they're egotistical to even have opinions or stand up for issues!!!

Then going beyond this, there is the Ego as I myself, and I am becoming a person, in oneness, but not ONE with everyone, as we progress, in the universal understanding and I love every expression or ray in existence, every person, and am so glad they are themselves and I am me. So this is healthy.

Lastly, there is the ego as in, the spirit/soul when entering/falling into the human state, for lessons, under the veil of forgetfulness, is still connected via the subconscious and their bungee cord, the pineal/pituitary/thalamus, third eye, to Home, Higher Self and God/Source/Spirit of Oneness uniting us all, our life force. So in this sense, the ego is cut off from memory, and a fraction of self really, the conscious self, and in modern times, for thousands of years, this has been a very left brained experience, so akin to being in a prison.

This ego self deals with the material world around us and is prone to desires, wishes, wants and the ai body suit codings and temptings of the flesh, ie be it that which leads to greed, avarice, selfishness, pride, anger, judgments and reactions, smiting able to harm and punish others, and all the horrible things that are associated with the Inequality and World of Warfare that earth is, and the selfish elitism.

That ego interacts with the subconscious and we need to overcome the left hemisphere and withdraw from the primitive beast or Ai, and all the greed and wishes, and start to see through the world, stand still and make choices in how to react, and strive to see positive and thus balance and become one with or at peace with our subconscious.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


That's what i've been saying to a degree.

reply to post by HarryTZ

Close to 10 pages of debate and no one has been convinced of anything. I am starting to see the futility...

Not surprising, since your testimony is comparable to the Biblical circle of validation. You have offered nothing other than your own subjective experience, and demand that this be enough for our analysis. It does not work that way.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


And you have done the exact same. Therefore, I have not been swayed, and neither have you.

reply to post by HarryTZ

And you have done the exact same. Therefore, I have not been swayed, and neither have you.

My argument is that the ego is necessary for survival. Without recognizing the self, the self cannot be maintained, and the self includes both physical and nonphysical aspects. This can be readily substantiated in that were I to cease recognizing my own requirements on both physical and emotional levels, my health would swiftly deteriorate.

Hence, my ego is necessary - although I would agree that the ego is best utilized/catered to in moderation.

reply to post by HarryTZ

Originally posted by HarryTZ
Close to 10 pages of debate and no one has been convinced of anything. I am starting to see the futility...

Right. There is no convincing another of anything that is only self-evident to you. Anything that is simply self-evident can be spoken about for the sake of discussion, but until someone else also discovers the truth of it, at best it can only be an inspiration. At worst, it is argued to death, frequently resulting in what might be considered a big waste of time or even worse.

Generally-speaking, on this Philosophy Forum, there seems to be rationalists that require basically scientific proof of everything, even to admit that there is anything deeper than the conceptual/perceptual brain-mind complex. So I have found, after many attempts, that there is little use in discussing anything esoteric with such rationalists. They simply are not interested in anything that does not fit in with the fundamental myth that one is the body-mind.

This fundamental myth that we are the body-mind cannot be dis-proven or proven scientifically. But it is almost universally assumed as a self-evident truth. So even the rationalists are relying on their position being self-evident. I have often pointed this out, and that one needs to understand this myth for oneself, because all other myths, including the notion of the creator god idea animated by creationists, rests on this core myth that one is the body-mind.

Rationalists (and creationists) do not allow for any esotericism because one has to go beyond this core myth. It is only ever argued, but to no avail.

So you are pointing to the same argument and its inevitable resultant futility, which has gone on for eons.

reply to post by bb23108


Whereas the non-rationalists seem quite keen on believing anything they can imagine to be real, regardless of whether or not it actually exists outside of their imaginations. This, to me, is pointless in that it undermines the search for truth.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Nothing that I have said is the result of anyone's imagination. The words are based on experience, the only true proof of anything.

reply to post by HarryTZ

Nothing that I have said is the result of anyone's imagination. The words are based on experience, the only true proof of anything.

Experience that almost no one here has. Like...two people. Maybe three. Kinda one-sided. Like those hollow earth fiends.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Whereas the non-rationalists seem quite keen on believing anything they can imagine to be real, regardless of whether or not it actually exists outside of their imaginations.

And this is a very good example of some rationalists' close-minded presumptions and accusations about belief and imagination being the basis for another's self-evident understanding - and also why such discussions are generally useless and do come to an end.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Well if you can acknowledge that the experience exists... what's the problem?

reply to post by bb23108


I'm particularly amused at how you use the phrase "closed-minded" whenever we prefer to base our conclusions on empirical evidence rather than subjective experience. Does "open-minded" mean accepting everything I'm told no matter how ridiculous, unfounded or irrational it may sound?

reply to post by HarryTZ

Well if you can acknowledge that the experience exists... what's the problem?

How you choose to interpret it. I burned my hand on the stove. Huh, the stove must be angry at me. If I just meditate a little and connect with the stove, I can appease it.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Yes, but that's insanity and I would recommend you seek psychological help.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
I'm particularly amused at how you use the phrase "closed-minded" whenever we prefer to base our conclusions on empirical evidence rather than subjective experience. Does "open-minded" mean accepting everything I'm told no matter how ridiculous, unfounded or irrational it may sound?

I was specifically referring to your statement "Whereas the non-rationalists seem quite keen on believing anything they can imagine to be real, regardless of whether or not it actually exists outside of their imaginations."

This is a close-minded presumption - and makes me even less interested in carrying on any conversation with you.