No ego = bullshit

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
skipair
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:19 am

Re: No ego = bullshit

Post by skipair »

Nick Treklis wrote:Yes he would know that, but that doesn't mean his purpose ceases to be.
Of course there's no real point to whatever this "purpose" is, except selfish pleasures.

I think value is a word with a lot of egotistical ties which is why I don't like using it, but when it is one's purpose in life to perpetuate truth then it is only natural to "value" (if you want to use that word) his continued survival if it means the survival of truth.
Again, the nature of truth tells us there is really no point in valuing it. So the only reason left to value it, or to make it ones purpose, is selfishness, egotism.

He doesn't even have to "value" his life in the sense that you're talking about. He takes the path of least resistance in order to perpetuate truth, and if he lives he lives, if he dies he dies.
The valuing I'm talking about doesn't necessarily have to be continuing life. The person could be a martyr and the principle of life=egotism is the same.

The universe is meaningless, but anything short of that is not the Universe, so it is impossible to behave in a meaningless and purposeless manner. Even the choice to behave in a purposeless manner would actually be one's purpose. It can't be escaped.
Yeah!
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: No ego = bullshit

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

skipair wrote:Ego keeps you alive.
Your whole discussion is shadow boxing. The ego in a Freudian sense, a nexus of dealing with whatever is thrown at us, as you seem to interpret it as has not much to do with Eastern concepts of self and no-self: egotism or the vanity involved. Self is here nothing but illusion and ignorance about one's true, empty nature: bullshit = ego.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: No ego = bullshit

Post by jupiviv »

skipair wrote:
jupiviv wrote:Logic is universal. And it can be proven that morality is primarily based on logic.
Have YOU proved this? How?
Which do you mean - that logic is universal, or that morality is logical?

Anyhow, I'll take it that you meant the second one. Morality, or at least perfect morality, would necessarily have to be logical. This is because it is impossible for an illogical conception to be true for all possible circumstances. Whereas, a logical conception is necessarily true at least for one circumstance, and at most for all possible circumstances. And you'd probably agree that morality must value, first and foremost, truth. Therefore, if morality is not logical, or at least, if its goal is not to be logical, then it is not morality.
Last edited by jupiviv on Sun May 31, 2009 3:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: No ego = bullshit

Post by Nick »

skipair wrote:Of course there's no real point to whatever this "purpose" is, except selfish pleasures.
Before one is fully enlightened this would be the case. But once the individual becomes fully enlightened, his actions are no more based in ego than a trees actions are when it grows toward an area where it can receive the most sun light.
skipair wrote:Again, the nature of truth tells us there is really no point in valuing it. So the only reason left to value it, or to make it ones purpose, is selfishness, egotism.
He doesn't "value" truth, he becomes it. The fully enlightened buddha is the perfect embodiment of truth in the flesh, and much like anything else in nature, he will stick around as long as his environment allows for it.
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: No ego = bullshit

Post by brokenhead »

skipair wrote:I think the nature of tree values are different from human values. Problem is that talking like this turns ultimately into meaningless gibberish - there is really nothing to say about a logically meaningless universe. All I can do is relay my own experience, that I am driven to be selfish with no alternative other than death.
Alternative to what? Being selfish? So you are saying the choice is stark, there are no exceptions, and the only two options are mutually exclusive with no third thing: be selfish or die.

But this is clearly not true. If you want to watch something on TV and the other person in the room prefers to watch something else, you could give in to the other person's wish and not die. Or you could demand you get your way, and not die.

The alternative of physical death is not a day to day reality for most people, even starving stick-people with bloated stomachs in Somalia. Most people survive for another day no matter what choices they make. Everyone lives for a number of days no matter what, and then one one day, and only one day, finally dies. During all those days, all sorts of decisions were made, some selfish, some not. Many times, it is the selfish decision that leads to a quicker demise.

And we are speaking of death of the physical body only. That is because your concept of soul or spirit is in its infancy, or you would not write the posts that you do.

The truth of the matter is that doing something that seems unselfish can also benefit the self, but often the benefit comes as a surprise. It is possible to act in a selfless manner, that is, to have a set of options and choose one that apparently offers you less of a net gain than the others. In such cases, you may find you benefit after all, as it often happens that what goes around, comes around, albeit not always in an immediately recognizable form.

Skip, from your posts, one might be tempted to conclude that you have never experienced the joys that only selflessness can bring. However, I think this is likely incorrect, isn't it? You seem to keep hitting the theme that you are resolutely selfish because Nature demands it of you. However, I will bet you are nothing of the kind. Am I right? Truly selfish people would not see themselves that way, much like the insane person believes himself to be the sanest person he knows.

You never answered my question, I don't believe. Are you still living on the raw broccoli and peanut butter? I suggest you get an old coffee pot and some Sterno and steam the broccoli for a minute or so. That begins the digestive process and enables your body to make far better use of the vitamins and co-enzymes in the spears. Also, do not just get Skippy peanut butter for obvious egotistical reasons, as it is widely known that Jiff tastes more like fresh peanuts.
User avatar
baulz owt
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 1:42 am
Location: Melbourne Beach

Re: No ego = bullshit

Post by baulz owt »

brokenhead wrote:do not just get Skippy peanut butter
May I suggest almond butter as it has a better omega3:6 ratio and far less inflammatory, actually antiinflammatory whereas peanuts are legumes (imflammatory) and almonds are fruits
User avatar
baulz owt
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 1:42 am
Location: Melbourne Beach

Re: No ego = bullshit

Post by baulz owt »

Also, Broken you say you commit selfless acts while in the back of your mind being cognizant of a "what goes around comes around" concept. I have yet to see any organisms do selfless acts.
User avatar
Anders Schlander
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 12:11 am
Location: Denmark

Re: No ego = bullshit

Post by Anders Schlander »

But no matter if you do nothing, or you do something - you're still making a choice to do 'something'. So a conscious being can never be without choices, if you state he has no personal investment in his life, he will do nothing. If he has personal investment and value in his life he will do something. If he is without ego, would he not just stare the man in the face, cold? like a man looking at a dog, judging the dogs character and willingness to make action of it's barks. I don't think i can proof that anybody would do that, but it seems possible?
As a man without ego, would he not be truthful, and thus, indifferent to emotion?

However, he would still be a man. He would have to eat, drink, sleep, etc. When it comes to survival instincts, It could simply be that we must not forget that since a truthful man must sleep and eat, so must he survive. It's the human limitation, to some degree.
And i think you have to consider that if you forego all attachment to your self, and regard being blown to bits as irrelevant, you're also asking to seize existing as a human, which seems to contradict a habit of eating and sleeping. It's true you do things to stay alive, but why not? does staying alive as long as possible not constitute a true being? it's not neccesarily untrue, it's just the way an organism works, it tries to stay alive.
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: No ego = bullshit

Post by brokenhead »

baulz owt wrote:Also, Broken you say you commit selfless acts while in the back of your mind being cognizant of a "what goes around comes around" concept. I have yet to see any organisms do selfless acts.
Why not try one yourself? Then you might.
User avatar
skipair
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:19 am

Re: No ego = bullshit

Post by skipair »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:The ego in a Freudian sense, a nexus of dealing with whatever is thrown at us, as you seem to interpret it as has not much to do with Eastern concepts of self and no-self: egotism or the vanity involved.
Maybe. I'm afraid to say I wouldn't know. This is just my attempt to explain what *I* mean by the term. :)

Self is here nothing but illusion and ignorance about one's true, empty nature: bullshit = ego.
Agree! And everything = bullshit!!!
User avatar
skipair
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:19 am

Re: No ego = bullshit

Post by skipair »

jupiviv wrote:Morality, or at least perfect morality, would necessarily have to be logical. This is because it is impossible for an illogical conception to be true for all possible circumstances.
This is your personal choice to put moral value on logic because of it's universality - one that I share with you. So this is perfect and true for YOU and ME. But in my experience most people, for the most part, place it elsewhere. Romantic love, family love, etc. It is universally true and perfect for them in the sense that where they find those things is where they are happy and where they would prefer to gravitate toward. Too bad that kind of thing fucks shit up without a good dose of wisdom.
User avatar
skipair
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:19 am

Re: No ego = bullshit

Post by skipair »

Nick Treklis wrote:Before one is fully enlightened this would be the case. But once the individual becomes fully enlightened, his actions are no more based in ego than a trees actions are when it grows toward an area where it can receive the most sun light.
I personally think it's valuable to enjoy but be unattached and adaptable with things - that's what I'm getting from you analogy. It just doesn't feel right for me to do otherwise, and I'm ok with calling this emotional, self-serving and...egotistical. It could be, probable really, that were defining terms differently.

He doesn't "value" truth, he becomes it.
I don't distinguish these two.

and much like anything else in nature, he will stick around as long as his environment allows for it.
So it goes. :)
User avatar
skipair
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:19 am

Re: No ego = bullshit

Post by skipair »

brokenhead wrote:So you are saying the choice is stark, there are no exceptions, and the only two options are mutually exclusive with no third thing: be selfish or die.
Based on my observations that experience operates according to personal desire, yes.

Skip, from your posts, one might be tempted to conclude that you have never experienced the joys that only selflessness can bring. However, I think this is likely incorrect, isn't it? You seem to keep hitting the theme that you are resolutely selfish because Nature demands it of you. However, I will bet you are nothing of the kind. Am I right?
I think you're right, the way you're defining it. I'm pretty easy going when it comes to hanging out with friends. I have no problem when someone changes the channel to a program I'm watching because they really would like to watch something else. This is because things I do hanging out are light and not serious in nature, so anything goes really. It's more important to me that my friends are comfortable than to catch the last 5 minutes of a show that really isn't that great anyway. You may call this selfless-like behavior (I think that's how most people think of it) and I think that's great, and it definitely has a place in my life. The reason I do it is because *I* get pleasure from it. When there are desires in conflict the strong one wins, in this case for me group unity. It's still selfish, but happens to benefits others too in this case.

Are you still living on the raw broccoli and peanut butter?
Nah, that got pretty sickening after a while, but it saved me the $ I needed at the time. I eat pretty well right now. :)

Also, do not just get Skippy peanut butter for obvious egotistical reasons, as it is widely known that Jiff tastes more like fresh peanuts.
HAHAHAHA! Agreed, but it's still too sweet for me. I like just straight up peanuts in the ingredients. Organic shiz.

And yeah, Bawlz, I like eating raw almonds and the butter too. I take seal oil for a full omega3 chain when I have the cha-ching.

And a few more thoughts since they're flowing:
-I used to think the meaning of life was Don't Stress, but a better command hypnotically is Relax!

-A double edged sword all this philosophy talk. Without the talk, how to stimulate? But in the end the more specific we are, the further away we get. So, zen is a good evil.

-So, whatever I do doesn't have ultimate value but personal, and the same is true for everyone else. So if I like music and logic and a woman likes dogs and food, one is not better than the other but is personal preference. The only 'bad' is if her dealings conflict with mine. It's business, not personal. Like in Gladiator when a guy says, "People should know when they're conquered," and Maximus responds, "Would I, would you?"

No one is more special than anyone else. We are all inherently equal. It's truth that because I like logic and see that most people aren't very good at it that I can make the determination that they're stupid. And in terms of logic, they are. But because it's only in terms of logic and not anything else this is my personal moralizing.

My attitude is that we're all in this together, and at the same time I watch my business. I am fair but ruthless. I DO NOT compromise with what I deem is Good, and if something is not in my best interest in this regard I am GONE. Doesn't matter how upset someone gets or if they're hanging from a cliff...if we don't match. I will look heartless and brutal in these situations but that is part of who I am and my selfishness.

Not that this is different from anyone else at the fundamental level. I think it's how all people operate automatically, though some are more efficient and skillful than other through more focused and defined values. Direction. This is consciousness.
User avatar
Carl G
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: No ego = bullshit

Post by Carl G »

skipair wrote:I used to think the meaning of life was Don't Stress, but a better command hypnotically is Relax!
Agreed about the reinforcing the positive. Pretty important stuff which a lot of people don't get. Like the common sales line "please don't hesitate to call" which subliminally gives the opposite message "please hesitate" and "don't call." And the ubiquitous modern replacement for "you're welcome" as a reply to thank you, the casual "no problem" with its subliminal insults "no" and "there's a problem." In fact, when correcting a child or a pet a far better alternative to "no!" is "stop it!" This is just as much for the sender as for the receiver, I mean, who wants to have the negative "no" reverberating through their body like that, to the detriment of one's energetic wellbeing?
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: No ego = bullshit

Post by Nick »

skipair wrote:I personally think it's valuable to enjoy but be unattached and adaptable with things - that's what I'm getting from you analogy. It just doesn't feel right for me to do otherwise, and I'm ok with calling this emotional, self-serving and...egotistical. It could be, probable really, that were defining terms differently.
I have no problem with defining it as emotional, self-serving, and egotistical if that is in fact what one's behavior is, I'll even be the first to admit that these things dominate most aspects of my life. In the case of an enlightened individual, he has no ego by definition because his understanding of truth is so pure and refined that not a hint of delusion remains in his mind, including the delusion of self. Still, your idea that the enlightened individual would shrivel up into a corner and die (at least that's what I'm getting from you) sounds rather silly.

To make another point, I think that based on our physiology and environment it is highly unlikely that a human being will ever attain perfect enlightenment, at least not until we master the environment and our bodies to the point that we no longer resemble anything remotely human, in which case the enlightened being would be free from all environmental stresses and bodily responsibilities making it very difficult for ego to creep into the picture.
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: No ego = bullshit

Post by Nick »

Carl G wrote:In fact, when correcting a child or a pet a far better alternative to "no!" is "stop it!" This is just as much for the sender as for the receiver, I mean, who wants to have the negative "no" reverberating through their body like that, to the detriment of one's energetic wellbeing?
I actually had a person who's second language was english and native language was romanian tell me that the english word "no" is his favorite word out of both languages.

"No" - simple and to the point.
User avatar
Carl G
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: No ego = bullshit

Post by Carl G »

Nick Treklis wrote:
Carl G wrote:In fact, when correcting a child or a pet a far better alternative to "no!" is "stop it!" This is just as much for the sender as for the receiver, I mean, who wants to have the negative "no" reverberating through their body like that, to the detriment of one's energetic wellbeing?
I actually had a person who's second language was english and native language was romanian tell me that the english word "no" is his favorite word out of both languages.
So the fuck what?
"No" - simple and to the point.
So is killing someone one disagrees with. In other words, again, so the fuck what?
User avatar
skipair
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:19 am

Re: No ego = bullshit

Post by skipair »

Nick Treklis wrote:I have no problem with defining it as emotional, self-serving, and egotistical if that is in fact what one's behavior is,
Sure, of course what a thing is "in fact" IS however it ends up being defined. The end!!!

I'll even be the first to admit that these things dominate most aspects of my life.
I would argue that they dominate ALL aspects, and that the conception of a perfectly enlightened Buddha without ego has no reality outside of the imagination.

Still, your idea that the enlightened individual would shrivel up into a corner and die (at least that's what I'm getting from you) sounds rather silly.
YES!!!

To make another point, I think that based on our physiology and environment it is highly unlikely that a human being will ever attain perfect enlightenment, at least not until we master the environment and our bodies to the point that we no longer resemble anything remotely human, in which case the enlightened being would be free from all environmental stresses and bodily responsibilities making it very difficult for ego to creep into the picture.
Hmmm, yeah, I mean, if we weren't human, and our experiences didn't function as they do, then perhaps no ego would be possible... ;)
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: No ego = bullshit

Post by Nick »

Carl G wrote:So is killing someone one disagrees with. In other words, again, so the fuck what?
Relax Carl, it's just some food for thought.
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: No ego = bullshit

Post by Nick »

skipair wrote:
Nick Treklis wrote:I'll even be the first to admit that these things dominate most aspects of my life.
I would argue that they dominate ALL aspects, and that the conception of a perfectly enlightened Buddha without ego has no reality outside of the imagination.
Really? Dominate ALL aspects? I don't think that's necessarily true. I mean, if I compare myself with the average human, they believe much more in the self than I do. So when one is a hard core believer in self, then yes ego would dominate all aspects of their life, but for a truth seeker who has an understanding about the delusional nature of self, it logically follows that the ego would be less dominating of his life.

I think the ego is involved in every aspect of my life, but I wouldn't be so quick to say it dominates all those aspects. I know the ego's true nature, so it doesn't fool me as much as it used to, making it much less dominating. What do you think?
User avatar
Talking Ass
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: No ego = bullshit

Post by Talking Ass »

An Ass Comments:

As to Ski-pair (that is how I interpret his name: a pair going off on a skiing trip, or two skiers on a ski-lift) 's comment "that the conception of a perfectly enlightened Buddha without ego has no reality outside of the imagination", is interesting, for obvious reasons, but one could also take it further and say that the idea of a perfectly enlightened Buddha is precisely an idea that we hold in the imagination, a construct of the imagination, the versatile and wonderful human imagination. We establish an ideal and then we serve the ideal, and this can lead to many positive and desirable results. It is pretty easy to notice this in most religions: Hindu, Christian, Buddhist, etc.

The difficult part, for linear thinkers and for hard-heads like myself, is to understand that forces beyond the limited personality and ego-hood of a given individual---you could say 'Buddhas' or spirits or Angels or Animal Helpers of Archetypes or Little People or Muses or Inspirations---seem to interact with us exactly and precisely through the medium of our imaginations. We seem to associate the notion of the imagination with a random concoction, a spurious invention, and as insubstantial and somehow false, but it is this imagination that may be the unique feature of higher forms of life, such as the human and, in some special cases, other animals who, through force of will and tremendous dedication and unique gifts of Nature that have been exploited carefully arrive at a similar platform of consciousness. (Hi Prince. Where's your Princess by the way?)
fiat mihi
User avatar
skipair
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:19 am

Re: No ego = bullshit

Post by skipair »

Nick Treklis wrote:I mean, if I compare myself with the average human, they believe much more in the self than I do. So when one is a hard core believer in self, then yes ego would dominate all aspects of their life, but for a truth seeker who has an understanding about the delusional nature of self, it logically follows that the ego would be less dominating of his life.
I see it as being equally dominating, there being nothing other than it, but refined and understood through the valuing of logic.

I think the ego is involved in every aspect of my life, but I wouldn't be so quick to say it dominates all those aspects. I know the ego's true nature, so it doesn't fool me as much as it used to, making it much less dominating. What do you think?
For me, it was recognizing that it is of no ultimate value to know its true nature that brought me to where I am right now.
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: No ego = bullshit

Post by Nick »

skipair wrote:I see it as being equally dominating, there being nothing other than it, but refined and understood through the valuing of logic.
So you don't see it as Truth dominating the individual rather than the ego?
skipair wrote:For me, it was recognizing that it is of no ultimate value to know its true nature that brought me to where I am right now.
And where are you at?
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: No ego = bullshit

Post by jupiviv »

skipair wrote:
jupiviv wrote:Morality, or at least perfect morality, would necessarily have to be logical. This is because it is impossible for an illogical conception to be true for all possible circumstances.
This is your personal choice to put moral value on logic because of it's universality - one that I share with you. So this is perfect and true for YOU and ME. But in my experience most people, for the most part, place it elsewhere. Romantic love, family love, etc. It is universally true and perfect for them in the sense that where they find those things is where they are happy and where they would prefer to gravitate toward. Too bad that kind of thing fucks shit up without a good dose of wisdom.
How can something be which is not universally true be universally true "for" someone? We don't determine what is universally true and what's not.
User avatar
skipair
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:19 am

Re: No ego = bullshit

Post by skipair »

Nick Treklis wrote:So you don't see it as Truth dominating the individual rather than the ego?
No, I see it as an ego geared toward truth. I see what I call ego as constant just as preferences are constant in experience, but through truth-preference it's seen that no preferences in anything have inherent value.

And where are you at?
I feel like I've been released from a bondage of sorts, and now find myself in a world of business, where I'm free to exert MY values upon the world without a bad conscience.

A bit like: First there were other's values, then there were no values, then there were MY values.
Locked