To Vilify the Ego

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


What is the value of my physicality?




posted on May, 20 2013 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


You exist. You don't possess any memories from before you were born, so you didn't really exist in the sense that you do right now. Physicality gives you that existence. Whatever value you give your existence, that is the value of your physicality.
edit on 20-5-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   
I think our ego is a remnant of non-social genetics.

Cats are less social than species that're defined by their social-ability.

Ants and bees and termites and dogs and dolphins are examples of social species.

It makes sense that the more social we're, the more apt we'll be to sacrifice ourselves for our society. When a creature is very social, it's the strength of society, not the individual. A social creature will naturally connect to its society like a tool or piece of something much larger.

Society is a gestalt. It's the sum total of all the people who're members.

However, I just read that ants in highly social colonies tend to be less complex than ants in more primitive social colonies. The highly social ants had a higher metabolic rate.

I don't know 100% whether social creatures are better than non-social creatures. I suspect that social creatures are more logical for survival, but I'm not certain. Need more knowledge.

It makes sense that a species will survive better if its members work together? If they work together then they need a form of communication, right? This means they're somewhat social.

But what happens when most of the individual makeup is removed? It makes me think of the Borg in Star Trek. Each member resembled a sensory/mechanical arm of the central computer. One thing that Star Trek never really answered was how was that bad survival-wise? Sure, the Borg were indifferent to emotions and expanded (reproduced) by forcefully assimilating others, but it never really showed how this would lead to their extinction. It does give the impression that they fail to adapt and instead force themselves on the universe, but it mostly just appealed to emotions and not logic.

One thing I can think of is that separation in time/space forces individuals to have some self-autonomy. So even the Borg will need some individual discretion because they cannot communicate with the central computer instantaneously. So Borg ships that're too far apart to fully control all of their drones with one central computer will have to have two separate central computers. And what happens when a Borg drone is seperated from the central computer???

Perhaps there's a balance between individual and society, for purposes of survival. This balance is influenced by various physics like conservation of energy and different physical laws.
edit on 20-5-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by HarryTZ
 




It would help if you shared with me your beliefs on the mechanisms of consciousness, and its significance in the universe. Just so I can have a base for this conversation.

I wish to see how you arrived at the conclusion that you are something other than your entirety. What made you decide this?

I've already mentioned that "consciousness" and other terms are abstractions of the functioning human organism.

The term "conscious" is an adjective. Adding the suffix "ness" is merely turning an adjective into an abstract noun, meaning it doesn't exist outside of thought, but nonetheless implies there is an actual person, place or thing, called consciousness. This can be quite confusing, leading people to think this intangibility (and others) is somehow fundamental to the universe. But "conscious" is an adjective, implying that something appears to be conscious. Consciousness, therefor, is a state of appearance, meaning something appears to be conscious. What is the thing that appears to be conscious? The human organism.

So in a sense, there is nothing that leads me to believe there is anything we can call "consciousness". Everything that people describe as "consciousness" can be reduced to the sensual interaction of the human organism and its surroundings.

Hopefully this helps.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


If you are consciously processing information, that state is known as "consciousness" or "awareness".



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by jonnywhite
 





Perhaps there's a balance between individual and society, for purposes of survival. This balance is influenced by various physics like conservation of energy and different physical laws.


Good point. I have to agree with this—something to think about.

I would think ego, or the building of ones ego, is a pure artistic form of human expression, making life bearable by expressing one's own significance to oneself. It's like music. Of course, the good music is hard to find.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 





If you are consciously processing information, that state is known as "consciousness" or "awareness".


Agreed. That's basically the dictionary definition and how I would use the term. Of course, something has to first be in this state for there to be any "consciousness".



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


I would compare it to a blimp, actually. The ego is the pressure used to keep the blimp afloat. Too much ego, and you go above the clouds and risk blowing up or seriously damaging your craft. Too little, and you end up crashing to earth. You have to carefully control the amount of ego, and continuously feed more into your mind or whatever as the "old" ego grows stale and dissipates from lack of clarity or whatever, in order to keep your blimp at optimal height. And sometimes...you have to deflate yourself a little.
edit on 20-5-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 

I clarified it after re-editing.

Can read it here or there:

..............
But what happens when most of the individual makeup is removed? It makes me think of the Borg in Star Trek. Each member resembled a sensory/mechanical arm of the central computer. One thing that Star Trek never really answered was how was that bad survival-wise? Sure, the Borg were indifferent to emotions and expanded (reproduced) by forcefully assimilating others, but it never really showed how this would lead to their extinction. It does give the impression that they fail to adapt and instead force themselves on the universe, but it mostly just appealed to emotions and not logic.

One thing I can think of is that separation in time/space forces individuals to have some self-autonomy. So even the Borg will need some individual discretion because they cannot communicate with the central computer instantaneously. So Borg ships that're too far apart to fully control all of their drones with one central computer will have to have two separate central computers. And what happens when a Borg drone is seperated from the central computer???

Perhaps there's a balance between individual and society, for purposes of survival. This balance is influenced by various physics like conservation of energy and different physical laws.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

I've already mentioned that "consciousness" and other terms are abstractions of the functioning human organism.

The term "conscious" is an adjective. Adding the suffix "ness" is merely turning an adjective into an abstract noun, meaning it doesn't exist outside of thought, but nonetheless implies there is an actual person, place or thing, called consciousness. This can be quite confusing, leading people to think this intangibility (and others) is somehow fundamental to the universe. But "conscious" is an adjective, implying that something appears to be conscious. Consciousness, therefor, is a state of appearance, meaning something appears to be conscious. What is the thing that appears to be conscious? The human organism.

So in a sense, there is nothing that leads me to believe there is anything we can call "consciousness". Everything that people describe as "consciousness" can be reduced to the sensual interaction of the human organism and its surroundings.

Hopefully this helps.


This is going to be very hard for me to put into words, but I will give it a try.

There is no such thing as consciousness. That is because consciousness is not a thing. Like you said, it is an abstract noun which speaks of the adjective of 'conscious'. It is a property. But it is not a property that 'belongs' to anything, because 'things' do not exist. Like I said in an earlier post, relativity is an illusion. Nothing can exist without its opposite. Hot cannot exist without cold, up cannot exist without down, left cannot exist without right, etc.. This means that nothing in physicality has concrete existence. A thing only has existence in relation to another thing. From this it is easy to understand that nothing exists. And this nothing is conscious. I know this because I am conscious.
Nothing, consciousness, does not have an opposite. It exists absolutely. Without condition.
Now, you could say that the opposite of nothing is something. However, something can't exist without something else to relate to. You can't have 'pure somethingness'.

This is the simplest way I can describe it. Hopefully it's simple enough.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by mysticnoon

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

So I feel it is a little dishonest to demonize a virtual abstraction of oneself and chalk-up all our arrogance, greed, vanity and other egotisms, to a few bodily urges, when the entire drive, urge or instinct of the organism as one whole phenomena is the only thing operating in this fashion.



Paradoxically, the more someone detaches from ego, the more they take responsibility for all egoistic tendencies, thoughts, and actions. This is because the need to protect the ego diminishes proportionally to the degree of detachment.



Well said. I agree that blaming the ego does nothing and achieves nothing and indeed does seem to absolve one of all personal responsibility.

However, some, like myself, consider a modicum of action to be key. You just have to work at RECOGNIZING ego, which is actually quite hard at first but becomes easier as time goes on.

Because, as was put so succinctly above, the need to protect the ego diminishes proportionally to the degree of detachment.

Just processing thoughts is not awareness. Animals process thoughts, but that they are not considered to be aware is one of the main and probaby the main distinction between a dog and ourselves.

I think, therefore I am is the root of the ego.

The consciousness that thinks is not the same as the consciousness that says "I am".



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


It is said we are here to bring consciousness into the world, and that in fact is the main purpose of our lives.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


There is never a 'why' in creation; only a 'how'.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


There is never a 'why' in creation; only a 'how'.


Why?



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by mysticnoon
 


That is an invalid question.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


I wish to feel alive once again. My ego is so out of whack, it's both confused and depressed. I'm sad.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by DaBlackChief
 


Observe this confusion and sadness. Do not try to fix it. Just observe it and put compassion into it. Do not desire to feel better, or you will simply fall into a deeper depression when nothing works to fix it.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by mysticnoon
 


That is an invalid question.


I could also say that yours is an invalid response, but that would not contribute to any further understanding.

So am I to assume that in your view of creation, there is no reason for it to exist?



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by mysticnoon
 


Everything is invalid. That is what makes it valid.

And that is what I am saying, yes.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by mysticnoon

Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by mysticnoon
 


That is an invalid question.


I could also say that yours is an invalid response, but that would not contribute to any further understanding.

So am I to assume that in your view of creation, there is no reason for it to exist?

Does it need a reason?






top topics



 
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join