A Critique of "Kill The Ego"

reply to post by Itisnowagain

The 'I' who thinks it does, is ego.
No one is doing anything - it is all done and until this is realized the 'I' (ego - the illusionary separate one) will claim everything. The 'I' will fight and defend.

All ego threads are full of claims of 'I did this and I did that'.

An "I", being a word and nothing more, cannot defend anything. It is always the one who says "I" and does "I" that defends it. The "I" cannot claim anything because it is a word and nothing more. It is always the one who says "I" and does "I" that claims it. The letter "I" cannot claim that "I did this and I did that," because it is simply a word and a letter.

The "I" who thinks "I did this and I did that" is the human being, not an ego.

'Human being' is just two words. - just a concept.
Concepts arise within the non conceptual.

What is there prior to words?

reply to post by Itisnowagain

'Human being' is just two words. - just a concept.
Concepts arise within the non conceptual.

What is there prior to words?

"Non-conceptual" is two words, and just a concept. The fact that "the non-conceptual" is just a concept, proves that no concepts arise within it. To say that concepts arise within the non-conceptual, is to say that humans do not conceive. The opposite is the case.

NiNjABackflip
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

'Human being' is just two words. - just a concept.
Concepts arise within the non conceptual.

What is there prior to words?

"Non-conceptual" is two words, and just a concept.

What is there prior to words being placed over reality? What is there prior to abstraction?

To say that concepts arise within the non-conceptual, is to say that humans do not conceive.

'Human' is a concept (word/idea) also.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

What is there prior to words being placed over reality? What is there prior to abstraction?

How can a part of realty be placed over reality? There is no before and after and over reality. There is no prior to abstraction. One either speaks or one doesn't. One either abstracts or one doesn't.

What is it that speaks and abstracts?

reply to post by NiNjABackflip


This moment arises without words and labels (for babies and small children) but when programmed with words it is hard to see without words. Words are an abstraction away from reality - words are reality but they conflict.
Words are slippery no one really understands anyone really - it is so easy to miscomprehend what is being said/heard.

This thread is all about no one actually knowing what 'ego' is - each may know but not be able to put into words and even if one does then it is not 'got' by the reader. It is easy to conflict and fighting and defending happen.

When one focuses on an internal object or concept, they feed it energy to grow. attention intensifies it's existence.

Therefore, speaking about, analyzing, observing the Ego, causes it to grow, become more present and persuasive- the opposite of what most wish to happen by objectifying and "keeping an eye on it".

This is the reason for the paradoxical way the studies and discussions on ego become increasingly more and more egotistical!

NiNjABackflip
One either abstracts or one doesn't.

What is it that speaks and abstracts?

One.

reply to post by coquine


So true.

They say the ego protects the ego. This principle must be true! By stating the "ego" doesn't even exist, I nonetheless see egos run and protect it as if it did.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

This moment arises without words and labels (for babies and small children) but when programmed with words it is hard to see without words. Words are an abstraction away from reality - words are reality but they conflict.
Words are slippery no one really understands anyone really - it is so easy to miscomprehend what is being said/heard.

This thread is all about no one actually knowing what 'ego' is - each may know but not be able to put into words and even if one does then it is not 'got' by the reader. It is easy to conflict and fighting and defending happen.

It has been shown that babies and small children are constantly acquiring language—more so than an adult ever could. Any child that has been unfortunate enough to have been raised without learning language (for instance the girl that was imprisoned her whole childhood by her father), is left to articulate their thoughts with their own language, whether it be through gestures such as clapping, or through more grunt-like articulations. Even without language they find means to express themselves.

The words are arbitrary and not the problem.

NiNjABackflip
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

It has been shown that babies and small children are constantly acquiring language—more so than an adult ever could.

Language is 'acquired' - born without words and then the words are secondary (abstractions).
Words will always conflict because they seem to divide that which is whole.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Certain languages are acquired. The faculty for language and thought are not. This is why even the most remote tribes have language. Language and thought are inborn and a necessary fact of human existence. Words only divide if you let them.

NiNjABackflip
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

Certain languages are acquired.

So it is agreed - words are secondary.
No child is born with words. If you were born in a forest and wolves brought you up then you would have no words.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


One, Duality, Multiplicity.

Truth is Truth, But the Truth of one man may not by another.

This is the Gross Physical Plane, Cause and Effect.

Does a flower need to speak words to each?

The answer is already here, we are in I think, "the age of "communication".

We people regardless of words, pursue another path, with or with out word's, We are making a machine, This Machine we seek to create is 10, what is the answer is, is the question is this one or two, right or left,
10, 01 01 -

Did you's watch that move about that "challenger accident back in 1998", (Question of Date is ? ), this move was great.

Anyhow as T.M had stated it appears we are head towards the Omega Point, Not yet Realized.

So it would, Appear we have by course come to make a Machine, that runs on Truth,

The Age of the the Robot is upon us, it's but a short time, that the A-I will completed.

But anyhow what you, ? is just 0 1, 10, 01, 10, 10, 01

0110111001101111011101110010000001110111011010000110000101110100

Just wanted to say Thank's to any and all who , helped and prayed with me, the other time.

It seems Prayer work's.

OOOOOO
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

We people regardless of words, pursue another path, with or with out word's, We are making a machine, This Machine we seek to create is 10, what is the answer is, is the question is this one or two, right or left,
10, 01 01 -

If there were no words would there be another path besides the one you are standing on?
Are you left or right?
You are where you are always but words speak of 'another way'.

The mind has words - the eyes see.
The eyes can see without words but the eyes can only see one. It is the mind (thought/words) that give the impression that there is more than there is. When there is an idea that there is more than there is - therein lies the confusion. One can be confused when one is not sure if it is 'this' or 'that' - one can only be amused when it is seen to be just 'this'.

NiNjABackflip
The ego is also synonymous with personal identity, which really amounts to no more than how we look, how we talk, how we dress and, sometimes, how we think. When we are speaking about identity, we are once again only really talking about ourselves, our clothes, our names and whatever other baubles and fancies we’ve gathered along the course of our lives. Is the ego our clothing? Is the ego our name?

Are you confused, or were you providing rhetorical questions?

If you want to clarify your use of the word "ego", maybe you should consider that "ego" is not how we look (or what our name is), but the ego is instead the traits and/or behaviors occurring in an individual who is aware of himself or herself within the boundaries of their own understanding of
(a) society, and
(b) his/her self in relation to society, in relation to other individuals of a particular group, or in relation to those close to that person.

On a different note-
Your definition of the "ego", as that which is an identity to a self, seems to be not demonstrated by the behavior of a person based on the relationship to specific individuals, but rather it seems to be demonstrable as the choice of a person's appearance, how they choose to be named(?), and what they choose to have as their occupation...maybe even how they feel about those 3 things.

Even so, what I wish to point out is that the ego may not be the clothing or name, but is instead the "identity" conceived (and conceived by whom, exactly? Who perpetuates it?) when taking into account things beyond the appearance.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


010101000110100001101001011100110010000001101100011000010111001101110100001000000111000001101111011100110111010000100000011000100111100100100000001100 010110110001100101011000010111001001101110011001010110010000100000011000010110111001110011011101110110010101110010011001010110010000100000011101000110 100001100101001000000111000101110101011001010111001101110100011010010110111101101110001000000100100100100000011101000110100001101001011011100110101100 101110001000000110111101101110011001010010000001110100011010000110100101110011001000000110010101100111011011110010000001110100011010000110100101101110 0110011100111111001111110011111100111111

reply to post by Itisnowagain

So it is agreed - words are secondary.
No child is born with words. If you were born in a forest and wolves brought you up then you would have no words.

It is disagreed. The child would still have language, and would create his own words in order to communicate. Even sign language, grunts, signals, symbols—all are basically words, insofar as they convey meaning.