Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2013 6:49:30 GMT -5
Firstly, the blackmail being referred to is in reference to Silver blackmailing Top, not me. (It looks like you placed me in the abusive husband role here)
As far as i can tell, you, not topology, stated silver was blackmailing, so i chose to speak to the person making the claim.
And i did state quite clearly that the analogy was not inferring any person in ST was either the husband or the wife,
that the analogy was focusing on the concept of blackmail.
I am well aware you don't see anything topology is doing has anything to do with silver feeling hurt.
When silver states she feels hurt by some of topology's style, you don't see what topology is doing. All you see is silver is blackmailing.
You cannot see topology from the position silver sees him.
You remain in your fixed position and see silver is blackmailing.
From that fixed position, you can only see one reason for silver's sharing of her pain, blackmail.
Well you wouldn't say she is blackmailing...you do say she is.
From the numerous threads i have read of your interactions with silver, it seems to me you are convinced your conclusion is correct.
Hence your fixed position.
I offer an alternative for you to move to explore the possiblity that slver is not blackmailing, but you will or can not.
Tzu, though i don't agree with his reflection approach( the effectiveness of it in ST, not the process itself),
has been engaging you to also move from your fixed position in order to explore other possibilities, but you will or can not.Then perhaps a nice chat with topology about his "pushing" style he states he uses might resolve the problem instead of claiming silver is blackmailing. EDIT: slight clarification |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2013 7:37:43 GMT -5
You've never had a strained lower back from over exertion, and placed your full awareness on it? I broke my wrist once and when it started throbbing that night after returning from the hospital I put my awareness on it and it stopped throbbing. The next day I had to go back to the doctor's office to have the wrist manipulated, and when he was finished he asked me if I wanted another prescription for pain medication. I told him it wouldn't be necessary, and handed him back the pain medication he had prescribed the night before. Awareness is healing.
I have never had any broken bones, but at the time i was beginning my self awareness journey,
i was not an avid water drinker so i suffered from extremely painful feet cramps.
These cramps were severe, i couldn't unlock them and i would weep from the pain.
I decided to experiment with with this awareness thing and i focused on a particular nasty cramp one day and was suprised
and fascinated to feel the pain very quickly dissappear and all that was left was a rather unusual feeling of my foot contorting rather strongly.
It was not a feeling of numbness, as i could feel the contortions extremely well, it's just there was no pain.
Which makes sense as the intense feelings of the contortions was due to the increase in awareness.
What came next was also quite fascinating.
Due to no pain, me being relaxed and calm, not trying to uncramp myself with physical or mental effort,
simply allowing the cramp to be and just observing it, the cramp quickly subsided.
What i noticed the most about this awareness experience was that with my mind's eye, i went into my foot.
That is to say, my awareness was not only focused on the foot, but i sensed i was inside the foot.
This was all new to me so i had no idea at the time what part of me was inside my foot, but that's how i described it.
And it was from experiences like that that i formulated a process, an understanding, that in order to heal any part of myself,
that this awareness part of myself is required to go into the pained area to see what the problem is and fix it.
Or another way to look at it, to go beyond the surface pain, to see the mechanism that the pain is alerting me to.
That if i just focus on the pain, it intensifies and i try all manner of inner tactics to avoid it, usually i was not aware of these avoidance tactics.
Yet my understanding now is that pain is part my own self love/protection/maintainance/health system.
That this type of pain is not to be avoided as it's alerting me to something that requires my immediate attention.
And this type of pain is not saying, "Hello M-G, look at me , look at me, i am hurting you."
No, this type of pain is saying, "Hey M-G, look at what i am pointing to, look at what i am warning you about, get in there and fix it."
I am now quite skilled at healing mental and emotional wounds and problems,
though my ability to heal and fix physical things needs a lot more development, or which i continue to practice. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2013 8:09:58 GMT -5
You got that from reading the first sentence? Yes, I did. I never read the book if eveything is clear from the first sentence. After I had read that " it was not easy for the author to be an ego, but he must talk as an ego in order to communicate", - I stopped reading. He was, still is, and always will be an ego. But he is trying to pretend he is some specia guy, al non-ego, and the whole story is just a very weak farting of his about nothing. Look at the table of contents. "Shares with the World". What can such a guy share in his book except farting? I suppose all he has is the money, and nothing else. So, he is just a well-provided guy who is entertaining himself with his sharing about nothing, and he is stupid enough to declare himself egoless, and full of bliss. His bliss will end as soon as his money end, and he has no food to eat. Then he will certainly realize that his ego is with him, and it has never left him.
I shared with laughter how i has a wonderfu spontanious kundalini awakening that lasted 3 months due to reading Tolle's first book.
Howver, a a several years later , upon rereading his second book, my conclusion is that Tolle's claims are illogical, unsubstanciated and extremely contradictory.
I still appreciate his insights regarding the importance of staying aware in the present moment, the Now as he calls it,
But his stuff about ego, pain bodies, how humans evolved, the elements of a human being etc etc,
i just ~facepalm~ because it looks like he switched his brain off when he was doing his calculations.
However, even though i strongly disagree with most of his ideas, it seems to me he shares what he believes is the truth about reality
from a genuine love for others.
If he is now rich it's because many people agree with his conclusions. That he is not scamming anyone.
If he is blissful, i think it's from his beliefs, not from the money.
And regardless of the reasons for his bliss, if he's happy and others become happy from applying his principles in their lives, then good for them.
I have found my own path to near 24/7 inner peace and joy and most of my conclusions do not sync up with his.
And it's due to my inner state of being that i don't condemn him or anyone who walks a different path to me,
even the one who constantly claim their path is the truth and mine is, using the local vernacular, a nonsense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2013 8:25:11 GMT -5
Maybe I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that the ego will always be for everyone. I thought you were making a general statement to that effect. I wasn't. But I have to say that no one is able to get rid of their ego completely. Till they are alive and in a sane mind. Ego can be diminished, though. In the so-called mind states ego seem to disappear completely, but then it comes back, so it wasn't. It doesn't matter so much if it disappear or not. What matters is creating more Love - intentionally or not intentionally.
Considering that the term 'ego' is a label (unless someone can actually show me an actual ego) created by person to signify elements of a human being,
who can accurately define what each of these elements are.
From the little experience i have had with reading and listening to people speak about this possibly made up element of a human being,
it seems to me that the term 'ego' was created in order to put all the elements of being human that someone doesn't like
and then one simply has to remove ego, and shazzam, instant bliss/enlightenment/whatever.
I find the theories about ego to be extremely erroneous.
They look sound on the surface, but when i explore them deeper, i come across huge cracks and holes.
And it seems the only way the theory stays together is by the efforts of those that believe it's the truth and not theory. EDIT: layout |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2013 8:28:30 GMT -5
Trying to be less egoistic - doesn't matter if it is done intentionally or not - will by no means create more Love than ATAing, noticing, etc. which may directly or indirectly be egoistic actions, and in this case they not only do not create Love, but create less Love. TRYING to be less egoistic reinforces the ego and attempt to control situations. EDIT: layout |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2013 9:28:10 GMT -5
I see it this way. Flowing takes effort. Granted that flowing takes far less effort that other actions. But just like 'doing nothing', flowing still requires effort. Regardless of how autonomic an action is or is perceived to be, there is still effort occuring. To me, not being consciously aware of the effort does not equate to only, "There is no effort", as the other possibility is, "I don't sense any effort." The effortlessness I am talking about is the effortlessness of the one in the flow. A boat floating down the river doesn't involve any effort on the boats part.
(putting aside any thoeries a boat is a conscious being who chooses to remain fixed)
A human, who also is made of energy, can manipulate it's energy.
A human is constantly moving, constantly making an effort.
A human, although theoretically comprised of the same type of energy as a boat, is not the same configuration as a boat.
The i add you to the list of people who can't prove the theory. With a note stating you responded just like the others.Why would you want me to look at the works of Dr.Csikszentmihalyi, as i am quite sure his "works" comprise of many text walls, thus according to your reasoning, Dr.Csikszentmihalyi thinks too much and is not seeing clearly. I just want you to take a look at what he describes as "flow experience" and how he describes it and what examples he provides to get an idea what non-doing and effortless means. And Dr. Csik uses the return key quite often and regularly so it will be a pleasant read. 
I have put his name on my list of people to read, but the issue of your conclusion regarding 'text walls' has not been addressed.
If the things thus guy describes is in 'text wall' format, then it doesn't make sense for you to suggest i read them.
Are the things you want me to read of his in 'text wall' format?
Do you have an exact number of grouping of words to signify when the author loses clarity, thus there is no point reading their words?
The connection is Numerology.
Tahoma matches the journey i am currently having. I used to use Verdana, but Verdana leads to Tahoma, so now i am Tahoma. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2013 9:47:04 GMT -5
Heey, speaking of love.
And silver, i expect you might get the biggest kick out of this as you are fairly clued up with my relationship with me crazy ol' Mah.
It's been just over two years now, and dear ol' Mah has just begun to want to go places with me.
Two reasons:
1: It took me a while to figure out that if i ask her to come with me, she will decline, but if i mention in passing that i am going to the beach sometime today,
she will, if her inner world is settled, she will ask if she can come.
2: She is slowly wanting to live instead of her usual self destructive thoughts she has, so she wants to go do things she actually likes.
So, the other day, she asked me and we went to the beach together.
Not for long as she is not up to long walks, due to illnesses and atrophy.
Talk about happy child mode though. Not exhuberently happy, but way happy compared to her usual mode.
Yesterday, this time i asked her if she would like to go to the beach as i said i might go to the beach if the weather is ok.
She went to feed chooks and pigs and i thought she would decline, but she burst in later and said, "I'm ready when you are."
Again, at the beach, happy child mode kicked in and increased in joyfulness from last time.
It was extra low tide so there were lots of things to examine and she ended up with a kilo or so of smooth pebbles and seashells.
She was so happy, enjoying life, carefree just like a kid.
It's taken me a gentle slow two years, but mah is starting to see the beauty of life that she has not seen for decades,
though still very sensitive, she interacts with life far better than she has for a long time.Hah, you're a clever guy, M-G. So glad you've slowly but surely coaxed her out and about with you - she obviously needs to do this - the out-of-doors is so healing. 
For just like all the other revelations i have had, once i finally see the solution,
upon a quick scan through my memory banks (more observation), i see that i saw the clues and signs for a long time, but still hadn't made the connections.
Perhaps if i was smarter i could find solutions quicker.
But then that's what growing is all about, as when i look through my history, i see i can find solutions a lot quicker now than i used to.
Our relationship is like a roller coaster at times, and outside observers, when me mah is at her worst, may think she is a hopeless case.
But they don't see what i see, and i see she is dramatically stepping towards healing.
I also imagine that me mah is also of the opinion she isn't making any progress.
But i have learnt to not say anything to her about it, i just walk with her when she is walking, and i sit when she is exhausted.
That's her inner jounrey i am speaking of.
She has her good days and bad, as you can imagine, and when she is having a good day,
she radiates so much that complete strangers want to hang around her, and their faces are beamng with joy.
EDIT: ST glitch |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2013 9:51:51 GMT -5
Hah, you're a clever guy, M-G. So glad you've slowly but surely coaxed her out and about with you - she obviously needs to do this - the out-of-doors is so healing. Heartening story MG. Reefs is right about the brush clearing or trip to the optomotrist or whatever it was you were talking about ... my guess is that he got that Ritalin prescription filled. |
|
|
|
Post by arisha on Feb 10, 2013 11:02:07 GMT -5
Yes, I did. I never read the book if eveything is clear from the first sentence. After I had read that " it was not easy for the author to be an ego, but he must talk as an ego in order to communicate", - I stopped reading. He was, still is, and always will be an ego. But he is trying to pretend he is some specia guy, al non-ego, and the whole story is just a very weak farting of his about nothing. Look at the table of contents. "Shares with the World". What can such a guy share in his book except farting? I suppose all he has is the money, and nothing else. So, he is just a well-provided guy who is entertaining himself with his sharing about nothing, and he is stupid enough to declare himself egoless, and full of bliss. His bliss will end as soon as his money end, and he has no food to eat. Then he will certainly realize that his ego is with him, and it has never left him.
I shared with laughter how i has a wonderfu spontanious kundalini awakening that lasted 3 months due to reading Tolle's first book.
Howver, a a several years later , upon rereading his second book, my conclusion is that Tolle's claims are illogical, unsubstanciated and extremely contradictory.
I still appreciate his insights regarding the importance of staying aware in the present moment, the Now as he calls it,
But his stuff about ego, pain bodies, how humans evolved, the elements of a human being etc etc,
i just ~facepalm~ because it looks like he switched his brain off when he was doing his calculations.
However, even though i strongly disagree with most of his ideas, it seems to me he shares what he believes is the truth about reality
from a genuine love for others.
If he is now rich it's because many people agree with his conclusions. That he is not scamming anyone.
If he is blissful, i think it's from his beliefs, not from the money.
And regardless of the reasons for his bliss, if he's happy and others become happy from applying his principles in their lives, then good for them.
I have found my own path to near 24/7 inner peace and joy and most of my conclusions do not sync up with his.
And it's due to my inner state of being that i don't condemn him or anyone who walks a different path to me,
even the one who constantly claim their path is the truth and mine is, using the local vernacular, a nonsense.
I have the same opinion about mental abilities of Tolle. He cannot be the one to trust, and the one who can guide others on their path. That is why I don't think it is useful for anybody to follow any of his ideas. If some people had a good result after reading his books it does not necessarily mean that his books triggered the result, - there could be some other reasons for that, and what caused the result was unnoticed. I know plenty of people who started having problems on their path after they tried to follow Tolle's ideas. The passage you cite is actually not about Tolle. It's about another guy who, like Tolle, decided that he can share with the world how egoless he is, and how much bliss he is having. The same stuff with no truth in it. It is very easy to feel a bliss if one has enough money for that. But let those guys try to feel the same bliss without money. None of those who claim to be enlightened and full of bliss would agree for such an experiment. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2013 11:04:49 GMT -5
I've gone back and reread from page one.
This is where the issue of mild(my opinion) plagiarism was brought up by you reefs.
Although i am of the opinion that authors work should be acknowledged, aka i feel heterodox tripped up a tad by not doing so.
I went back and looked at the exchange, especially the time passed between exchanges. One poster was was expressing limited thought about love, I posted words pointing at a more expansive view. As I pointed out, I've been reading Deepak every day for 20 years, and continue to do so every day. I felt the context of the posts were well within the framework of the discussion, and the intention behind the posts was to express a more expansive viewpoint about love. No hidden motive there. I agreed to quote authors as a result. But I didn't see the same agreement offered by reefs or enigma. Somebody authored the expressions they were sharing. The posts had a rote quality to them. Chopra's quite easy to quote in a discussion. Love dances in the freshness of the unknown. No copy and paste necessary. It's there at a touch. Alive. And a helluva lot fresher than the stale, repetitive memory of non dual dogma R&E are constantly engaged in.
I have never read anything of D. Chopra, not even a quote, if memory serves me correct.
I did see his cameo in The Love Guru though.
In the light of 20 years of reading, i can see how easy it would be to quote word for word without realiazing it.
You initially struggled to admit direct quoting, but eventually did.
In the grand scheme of things, in my mind, a very minor infraction.
A typical day at the office type of infraction.
I thoerise being hounded by reefs added to the reluctance.
I appreciate your post heterodox.
I have scanned several pages ahead and still see no explantion from reefs regarding the incident.
But E n R must like it, it must be some kind of good for them to remain so close to it.
And i haven't interacted with reefs that much, but it seems to me that enigma is not bothered if other's do not like it.
It's personal preference, which i equate to a person does not need or desire approval of others to make their own judgement about thier own likes and dislikes.
What still puzzles me today, though due to my journey, less than it used to.
But what still puzzles me somewhat today, as an example...nay, two examples.
1: Football fans.
In Oz we have Rugby League(boofhead football), and once a year NSW picks the best players from their state, and QLD picks the best from theirs,
and they have three grudge matches mid season.
The thing is, a player's state is determined by where they were born, not where they currently live or which team they play with.
So a QLD born player who's been living in NSW and has been playing for NSW teams has to play for QLD during The State of Origin series.
The weird thing is, that some QLD fans of QLD teams will hate the QLDer who plays for NSW teams during the season,
but as soon as he puts on the QLD jersey, he's loved by these same people.
After the three matches are over, they revert back to hating him again.
It also happens when a player signs up for another team.
He's hated when he plays for team A, whenever tem A plays that fan's team.
But if that player signs up with the fan's team, the fan instantly loves the player he's hated for years.
2: Cars.
In Oz, the big rival is between manufacturers, Holden and Ford.
Some people like Holdens so much they actually hate Ford owners, and vice versa.
They don't even have to know them personally, if they own or like the other brand, they are hated.
Me, when i used to watch team sports, i never had a fav team, i simply enjoyed the experience and was not interested in who won or lost.
It was a "good game" because of the overall exprience, not from who won or lost.
Cars, i have owned many brands, and to me, a good car is one i like the look of and it's reliable and i don't hate the ones i do not prefer,
thus neither is my opinion of another based on what car they own or like.
So, upon observing this odd behavior years ago, i looked up the dictionary definition of like, and it's the adjective that stood out for me.
Like - Resembling or similar; having the same or some of the same characteristics; often used in combination
That some peole when they see another person who is not the same as themself, which includes personal preferences to things,
will hate the other even thought the other has not done anything to warrant such a response, other than being different in some way.
The person can be a nice friendly open and approachable person who never adversely affects others with his words or actions.
But in the context of ST, if that person has a different view regarding reality, s/he is disliked/hated/looked down upon/etc.
And it can be very subtle, though it's usually revealed in the verbal exchanges they have.
And the $million question is, what is each person's motive for dislike/hatred when someone has different ideas?
Sort that out within oneself and love flows efforlessly towards others. Well that's been my experience.
|
|
|
|
Post by arisha on Feb 10, 2013 11:07:15 GMT -5
I wasn't. But I have to say that no one is able to get rid of their ego completely. Till they are alive and in a sane mind. Ego can be diminished, though. In the so-called mind states ego seem to disappear completely, but then it comes back, so it wasn't. It doesn't matter so much if it disappear or not. What matters is creating more Love - intentionally or not intentionally.
Considering that the term 'ego' is a label (unless someone can actually show me an actual ego) created by person to signify elements of a human being,
who can accurately define what each of these elements are.
From the little experience i have had with reading and listening to people speak about this possibly made up element of a human being,
it seems to me that the term 'ego' was created in order to put all the elements of being human that someone doesn't like
and then one simply has to remove ego, and shazzam, instant bliss/enlightenment/whatever.
I find the theories about ego to be extremely erroneous.
They look sound on the surface, but when i explore them deeper, i come across huge cracks and holes.
And it seems the only way the theory stays together is by the efforts of those that believe it's the truth and not theory. EDIT: layout Yes, I agree. I don't see any sense in the use of the term 'ego'. To be egoless is impossible. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2013 12:49:02 GMT -5
I have the same opinion about mental abilities of Tolle. He cannot be the one to trust, and the one who can guide others on their path. That is why I don't think it is useful for anybody to follow any of his ideas. If some people had a good result after reading his books it does not necessarily mean that his books triggered the result, - there could be some other reasons for that, and what caused the result was unnoticed. I know plenty of people who started having problems on their path after they tried to follow Tolle's ideas.
The passage you cite is actually not about Tolle. It's about another guy who, like Tolle, decided that he can share with the world how egoless he is, and how much bliss he is having. The same stuff with no truth in it. It is very easy to feel a bliss if one has enough money for that. But let those guys try to feel the same bliss without money. None of those who claim to be enlightened and full of bliss would agree for such an experiment.
Either she's really smart or i am really stoopid, for our respective ages, because we both would consistantly solve the puzzle in an average of 6 tries.
When we are the code holder, we both observe the other's attempts at solving it and calculate how many more tries are needed for the other to solve it.
We were playing one day, and chatting about a wide variety of things , from boys to consciousness...
and we both had a laugh at how it seems boys take longer to develop that part of themselves.
Anyways, we were playing along, and i solved the code in 6 tries, to which my dawta, exclaimed,
Dawta: How did you do that!?
M-G: What's the problem, We have both been consistantly solving it in around 6 tries?
Dawta: Well, i was looking at all your previous tries and i saw you were consistantly making two same errors,
that you were way off the mark, and i calculated it would take you at least 2-3 more goes to resolve those errors,
let alone solve the rest of the colours you haven't got right....did you guess that last go?
M-G: No, just calculated like i always do.
Dawta: No freakin' way...there is no way you could solve the code in one more go considering the mess you made of all the other tries...
ok, explain to me how you solve the codes.
To which i did, which didn't take long because my process is quite simple and effective, hence the '6 tries' average.
My dawta looked at me, jaw dropped and said, "That is the stoopidest system i have ever heard...
it dosn't make sense, it's illogical...and dumb...you are crazy...man, your head is broken."
I said, "Really? It seems to work quite well for me, ok, tell me your process."
She did, and i too had trouble with my jaw.
As she described it, all i saw in my mind was me getting tangled up trying to follow her procedure.
At the end i literally couild not comprehend how she consistantly solves it in 6 tries, not with that crazy process.
It didn't even look like a process to me, it just looked like a big mess that was more trouble than it was worth.
But the evidence was right there in front of both our eyes, we each could consistantly solve the code in 6ish tries.
My dawta being more teen angsty than me, focused more on how stoopid my process looked to her,
while i was trying to comprehend why i couldn't follow her system even though i knew it worked extremely well.
My theory, of which i shared with her is that we process the information from reality differently.
And because of this, her process will not work for me, it doesn't make sense, it seems irrational and illogical, and my process looks the same way to her.
Even though we both can see the end result is the same, we both got from A to B in the same amount of time, but each took different thinking paths to get there.
I cannot walk her path and she cannot walk mine.
I extend my theory that there will be people who find Tolle's or any specific person's understanding of something,
to make sense, it's logical and effective, and others will not.
I'll use Tolle as the reference point.
Some walk Tolle's path for years and will always benefit from it.
Some walk for a while but slowly conclude for XYZ reasons that his way is illogical, so they leave it.
Each person decides from their experiences of a path if it is the right one for them.
Some people decide just by looking at the sign at the entrance of a path.
Some decide after exploring for a season.
I know my kundalini awakening was directly from reading about being in the present moment, from his first book.
But i left his path because of all the other stuff that i reasoned and concluded will not help me on my journey.
His path is wrong for me, but not wrong for others who benefit from it.
Same with Osho, who was my main guide into eastern philosophies.
I produced a lot of permanent positive states within myself due to the writings of Osho,
But a few years down the track, when i reread these books, i see 50% i do not agree with.
It was not wrong for me to read Tolle's books or Osho's, but it is wrong if i believe everything they say.
But i would not know this unless i went on those paths and explored for myself.
If Tolle or whoever's thoughts seem wrong to you, then they do, but they may be right to others and that's why they go on those paths.
Perhaps one day they will leave those paths and perhaps they will remain on them.
It seems to me, from the early stages of my journey, that there is no absolute right or wrong regarding certain things in life.
That people choose paths that make sense to them, what they rez with, regardless if another doesn't rez with it.
It's like radio frequencies. Some people can tune into one frequency and can hear it very clearly and they enjoy it,
and others tune into another frequency and they hear that one clearly and enjoy it.
Condemning the prefererences of another may not be logical because they may be hearing exactly what they need and makes their life better according to them.
EDIT: spelling n layout n slight clarification |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 10, 2013 13:04:23 GMT -5
The petty bickering is the result of focusing on 'noticing' and deconstruction with egos that are too strong to even recognize the focus. The approach is misinterpreted as intimidation, mockery, tough love, agendas and bullying, which then determines the response.
That you interpret your style as A, and some others interpret your style as Z.
That if you see it as A does not mean the Z they see was due to misinterpretation.
It simply means their interpretation is not the same as yours.
So the classifying of another's interpretation as misinterpretation seems to comes from a mindset that you see your interpretation as right and theirs is wrong.
That your reasoning or clarity of sight is sound and the other's is not.
Seems evident to me by your constant labeling of other's observations as "giraffe spotting", but you have no derogatory name for your observations.
I assume "giraffe spotting" is a derogative term.Your point is what? That I should see myself as wrong and label it that way? What if you're wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Feb 10, 2013 13:05:04 GMT -5
Considering that the term 'ego' is a label (unless someone can actually show me an actual ego) created by person to signify elements of a human being,
who can accurately define what each of these elements are.
From the little experience i have had with reading and listening to people speak about this possibly made up element of a human being,
it seems to me that the term 'ego' was created in order to put all the elements of being human that someone doesn't like
and then one simply has to remove ego, and shazzam, instant bliss/enlightenment/whatever.
I find the theories about ego to be extremely erroneous.
They look sound on the surface, but when i explore them deeper, i come across huge cracks and holes.
And it seems the only way the theory stays together is by the efforts of those that believe it's the truth and not theory. EDIT: layout Yes, I agree. I don't see any sense in the use of the term 'ego'. To be egoless is impossible. Thats funny, because you've used the term a lot when preaching the virtues of right action, that we should strive to be less ego-tistical, less ego-centric, less ego-ic... |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Feb 10, 2013 13:13:51 GMT -5
Someone uttering their favorite word. No I wasn't speculating, I was just retorting. |
|
