Having followed, read, re-read, and reflected on this thread, and "consumed" much of the material referenced in it, I'd suggest that the point at which it was "diverted" was in the fourth post on the second page,
a post by Diebert, in which he suggested that the thread's subject matter didn't belong in the main forum, and outlined why he believed this to be the case, in the process outlining that which (by extension) he would prefer to discuss.
I write of this as a "diversion" because this is a term that Alex has used, but it might equally be seen as "the core conflict". In any case, it marked, aside from Alex's response, the last time in which anyone referred significantly to the subject matter of the thread. "Oddly" (in that he is neither a puppy nor a woman), I side with Alex here: it is impossible for me
not to view the machinations revealed in The Century of the Self as an attack on human dignity, and indeed on human spirituality. Diebert's view seems in contrast to me to be divorced from reality.
Diebert writes of "ego" in the sense he intends it, and as it is (he seems to suggest) used on the forum, as "error, as something to eradicate, a fog to blow through, a window to be washed", and as a "clinging" to ego in the prior concrete sense he defines, of "movement in space and time". I agree with Alex that this is a very vague definition, but, more to the point, I don't understand how it could in any way be formed into a meaningful response to the sort of machinations that are the subject matter of this thread. I'm trying to imagine how a conversation would run:
Vietnamese countryman: "Soldiers in the American army who had no understanding of the ideological basis of the war they were fighting bombed my family and my home into oblivion".
Diebert: "Never-mind, what's most important is that you wash the window of your ego and eradicate the error of your self".
Vietnamese countryman: "Thank you, kind sir. My home and family have been destroyed, brainwashed foreign invaders are attempting to hold my country in bondage, and it is probable that many more people will be killed, and that unless people like me resist, my country *will* be held in bondage, but on your advice I now understand that I should not care at all about my future living conditions when I could instead 'stop clinging'. I may starve, be turned into a serf, be killed, and my countrymen suffer the same fate, but why should I care? Better starving, enslaved or dead than have a foggy ego".
Or how about:
American citizen: "Politics has been corporatised, it is now run like a business serving the superficial whims of its swinging consumer-voters, the authenticity of the political process has been corrupted, and it's hard to see how that authenticity can be regained".
Diebert: "It's interesting to talk about this, but what's more important is that your ego is an error".
American citizen: "Oh, yes, of course. Never-mind the encroach of fascism, I will gladly submit to the unending boot so long as the window of my ego is washed clean every morning".
Diebert, I know that these are cartoon-ish and exaggerated mini-dialogues, but perhaps you could suggest how they would run from your perspective? I simply fail to see how some abstract notion of an ego as "error" is in any way more relevant than the material conditions of the world in which a self finds itself, particularly where those material conditions are profoundly contemptuous of the (spiritual) dignity of the selves in that world.
Oh, and Tomas, you're very welcome to visit here, only I'm sure you'd be disappointed to meet me in person, as I'm a particularly reserved and quiet lad with barely a word to say. Kevin's far more outspoken than me though, so I'm sure you'd find his presence stimulating.
