In the classical sense to me it means not being objective about things, refering data to the subject (self) instead of sorting it with your best logical judgment with an end in mind. But I don't think objectivity means anything without something to be objective about, and I think those things arise outside of the logical sphere, or else there would be no point in performing them. I think we can only learn to more easily let those guiding desires go, when they happen to change into something else like they often do, by putting objectivity in the forefront of our mind to help become more flexible and adaptable with the flow of things. Desire trumps logic in the end.Nick Treklis wrote:So what else does operating egotistically mean to you?
I'm not convinced by your arguments that it's any more possible to be like a tree, in the sense that it's just in it's nature to do things and not because they experience selfish desires, than it is to believe in a great bald eagle in the sky directing the birds and the bees below him. Frankly it sounds religious. So, show me the evidence and not the theory. Because I haven't seen any ever. Becoming less emotional over things is not evidence that it's possible to operate without egotistical desires the way I've defined it. It's just evidence that one is capable of objective thinking and values it because it allows them to better get what they already want.