Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

[onglob]

Nick_A wrote :
But what if she is right? The problem isn't that we have an ego but that it has become corrupt. Our ego should connect our inner world with the external world.

But I have problem with the existence of ego .
If our egos consists of our thoughts , ideas and judgements , then you cannot say that
it exists , because all of these phenomena or processes has happened in the past .

Logik wrote :
I have a problem with this conception.

If ego is the pursuit of power
And if knowledge is power.
Then the pursuit of knowledge is ego.

I suppose knowledge can be used as a tool or means to gain power.
Also power in this context is referring to the desire of having superiority over others .

[Age]

I inform the readers; I have NO beliefs.

That's what you think, yes?

YES, that is what I think and also what I KNOW.

Now, if you have some reason to think, or believe, otherwise, then PROVIDE IT.

If you think or believe that I have BELIEF/S, then provide examples of it or them. If you can NOT, then WHY are you trying to allude to some thing, which does NOT exist, or is NOT true?

I have also informed; Although I never want to make assumptions sometimes I do, unfortunately, make them.

What are your assumptions based on?

The EXACT SAME as EVERY one's are, Past Experiences.

Are they based on more than what you think?

In a way, yes. What do you think assumptions are based on?

I could NOT acknowledge that what I do NOT know.

If you can agree that other people's assumptions can cause distortion, and that you can (unfortunately) at times have assumptions, then why can you not acknowledge that your assumptions can cause distortion in what you think?[/quote]

But I have NEVER not acknowledged that.

WHY did you think or believe that I can NOT acknowledge that?

OF COURSE my assumptions can cause distortions. If I was to now make a rough "ASSUMPTION" of what percentage my assumptions can cause a distortion, then I would say around about 100%.

the very reason WHY I LOOK FOR clarity from the other person, BEFORE I make an ASSUMPTION, is so I can gain thee Truth from them.

What you hear is still being filtered through your way of thinking, correct?

NOT always.

By the way, how your next question is posed have you already arrived at a presumptive answer already?

So, your next question could be moot. But I will answer it anyway.

Do you think that what you think is truth?

By definition the word 'think' means; Do NOT know for sure. So, the answer is obviously NO. However, because you used the 'think' word twice, then your question can have double meaning so if you would like to delve into further, then I am more than happy to proceed.

If another person has written some thing down, and so have I, then the actual EVIDENCE is HERE, for ALL to SEE.

And there are lots of interpretations. Do you think that there is one interpretation that is the truth?

Yes. (But remember that what I 'think' I do NOT know for sure, and that what I 'think' can be completely or partly WRONG.)

One can have a 'distortion' of the Truth. One can NOT have a distortion of 'clarifying'.

Isn't "clarifying" affected by interpretation?

No, because True 'clarifying' revolves around having NO assumptions nor beliefs (interpretations) at all until what is being clarified is FULLY KNOWN and UNDERSTOOD. This happens through continual OPEN questioning until 'clarity' is reached.

And don't interpretations cause distortion?

Yes personal or individual 'interpretations' cause distortion. But obviously a collective 'interpretation' by ALL can NOT be distorted.

As I have been continually saying when, and if, ALL are in agreement, then there is NO one to disagree. If NO one is disagreeing with THAT what is being SEEN/INTERPRETED, then that observation/interpretation is of and IS thee Truth, and therefore NO distortion at all.

ALL of this is rather very simple really.

With any group, from a group of two people up to a group of ALL people, If all within a group have been clarifying successfully, and thus have reached clarity, then there is NO distortion at all within that group. However, that is NOT to say that THAT what a group has reached is NOT a distortion from thee actual Truth, which is only KNOWN by the group of ALL.

[Lacewing]

I inform the readers; I have NO beliefs.

That's what you think, yes?

YES, that is what I think and also what I KNOW.

Have there been times in your life when you thought you knew something, only to realize later that you didn't? How is it different now?

If you can agree that other people's assumptions can cause distortion, and that you can (unfortunately) at times have assumptions, then why can you not acknowledge that your assumptions can cause distortion in what you think?

But I have NEVER not acknowledged that.

WHY did you think or believe that I can NOT acknowledge that?

I asked because you said:

Now, do I acknowledge the distortion being caused by my own beliefs and assumptions, then the answer is no.

Now you're saying this:

OF COURSE my assumptions can cause distortions.

It has been my experience that the more wise a person is, the more they realize/understand that they don't know. I used the word "think" because you freak out over the word "believe". But you like to claim that you "know", which seems even more ridiculous.

True 'clarifying' revolves around having NO assumptions nor beliefs (interpretations) at all until what is being clarified is FULLY KNOWN and UNDERSTOOD. This happens through continual OPEN questioning until 'clarity' is reached.

Would you notice/acknowledge if you were making up truth to suit yourself and aligning yourself with THAT? In my experience, people who insist what is "True" while rejecting/denying inherent human traits/understanding, are being self-indulgent in self-righteous delusions. I don't think you know anything more of any significance than anyone else here. People who say they "know" what's "real" and "true" are speaking of what's real and true FOR THEMSELVES at any moment or state in time/space. How could it be any more than that?

Yes personal or individual 'interpretations' cause distortion. But obviously a collective 'interpretation' by ALL can NOT be distorted.

You don't think that ALL can distort all kinds of things for the collective interpretation? You don't think ALL can EVOLVE beyond a collective interpretation and limitations? Is "truth" some kind of static state? A state to be "reached" and "known"? By whom and for what purpose?

[Nick_A]

onglob

Nick_A wrote :
But what if she is right? The problem isn't that we have an ego but that it has become corrupt. Our ego should connect our inner world with the external world.
But I have problem with the existence of ego .

If our egos consists of our thoughts , ideas and judgements , then you cannot say that
it exists , because all of these phenomena or processes has happened in the past .

You seem to be describing the corruption of ego.

What enables our objective connection with the external world? We know that the results of past experiences are the source of corruption made possible through the absence of conscious experience and the dominance of imagination leading to interpretation.

A non-corrupted ego would not be the results of habitual associative thoughts. A non-corrupted ego is the result of the simultaneous conscious experience of thought, emotion, and sensation. When a person can intellectually reason, emotionally feel objective value, and put into practice by the body the same thing, then they understand it. Of course we lack the quality of consciousness to make this possible, Understanding and a non corrupted human ego is just a conscious potential for us.

[Age]

That's what you think, yes?

YES, that is what I think and also what I KNOW.

Have there been times in your life when you thought you knew something, only to realize later that you didn't? How is it different now?

BEFORE you ask a second question, immediately after your first question, and the second question is based upon an answer which you PRESUME i will give to the first question I suggest that you, instead, wait for my reply to the first question FIRST. That way things do NOT get twisted, distorted, nor go astray.

In regards to your FIRST question; Up to a few years ago I used to have BELIEFS and BELIEVE things, like just about ALL, but the very young, people do. That is; until I realized just how CLOSED OFF one becomes when they are in the state of BELIEVING or when they have BELIEFS. So, there were times I thought I knew some thing, AND believed them to be true, only to realize later that they were NOT true. Since then, I have NEVER "thought" I knew some thing. I either KNOW some thing or I do NOT. If I do NOT know some thing, then I only THINK some thing. The difference between THINKING some thing and KNOWING some thing, speaks for itself does it not?

How is this different now is just about EVERY thing that I now say is just how I VIEW or THINK things are. This MEANS that what I say could ALWAYS be WRONG or partly WRONG. What I VIEW or THINK by definition is just a view and/or what I think is true, right, and/or correct. Obviously a 'view', by definition, is just a perception, which could be WRONG, and so is 'thinking' some thing is NOT knowing some thing. So, 'thinking' some thing is stating that one is NOT sure of that thing.

But even if I were to state that I KNOW some thing, for sure, I would still NEVER "believe" it is true, right, and/or correct. I do NOT do this for the obvious reason that; If I were to BELIEVE any thing, then I am NOT fully and completely OPEN. And, only when one is FULLY and COMPLETELY OPEN is when thee Truth can be and IS SEEN.

If you can agree that other people's assumptions can cause distortion, and that you can (unfortunately) at times have assumptions, then why can you not acknowledge that your assumptions can cause distortion in what you think?

But I have NEVER not acknowledged that.

WHY did you think or believe that I can NOT acknowledge that?

I asked because you said:

Now, do I acknowledge the distortion being caused by my own beliefs and assumptions, then the answer is no.

Now you're saying this:

OF COURSE my assumptions can cause distortions.

It has been my experience that the more wise a person is, the more they realize/understand that they don't know. I used the word "think" because you freak out over the word "believe". But you like to claim that you "know", which seems even more ridiculous.

You are MISSING some words that I write. I can NOT acknowledge the distortion being caused by my own beliefs, because I have NO beliefs, however, I can acknowledge my assumptions can cause distortions because I MAKE assumptions.

Can you NOTICE the difference now? If not, then I will try again to explain in another way for you.

Just about EVERY word I write is placed in the position it is for very specific reasons. Some times, many times, the subtlety of this goes completely unnoticed, unfortunately. However, the subtleties will become more apparent as things go on.

True 'clarifying' revolves around having NO assumptions nor beliefs (interpretations) at all until what is being clarified is FULLY KNOWN and UNDERSTOOD. This happens through continual OPEN questioning until 'clarity' is reached.

Would you notice/acknowledge if you were making up truth to suit yourself and aligning yourself with THAT?

If I was consciously doing that, then yes.
If I was sub-consciously doing that, then yes and no.
If I was unconsciously doing that, then no.

But generally I NEVER make any thing up to suit myself. There is NOTHING that I have that I want to show or prove here, so there is NOTHING to suit myself nor align myself to. I am mostly here to just LEARN how to communicate better.

By the way noticing and acknowledging are two completely separate things. For example, if I did notice myself making up truth, for any reason, then I could and would stop doing that, thus not have to acknowledge any thing. If, however, I did NOT notice I made up truth, and some one pointed that out to me, with EXAMPLES and/or EVIDENCE, then I could, and would, acknowledge that. But, in saying that, if some one just accuses me of some thing, without any examples nor evidence, and I can NOT see/notice what it is that they are seeing/noticing, then I obviously could not nor would not acknowledge that. I have to be SHOWN with EXAMPLES or EVIDENCE before I will acknowledge some thing.

If you, or any one else, can point out and SHOW where exactly if I have been making up truth, for any reason, then I am the first who would love to see it, and if it is how it is being expressed as, then I would be the first one to acknowledge my WRONG doing.

In my experience, people who insist what is "True" while rejecting/denying inherent human traits/understanding, are being self-indulgent in self-righteous delusions.

You can base your ASSUMPTIONS on your past experiences all you like. But seeing and saying some thing in my words, which is NOT what I am doing at all, is an INTERPRETATION, which could be WRONG. Do you acknowledge that?

If you going to think that I am rejecting/denying inherent human traits/understanding, then what are those 'human traits' that you propose that I am rejecting/denying?

I don't think you know anything more of any significance than anyone else here.

I NEVER implied that I any thing of any more significance than another. In fact, when I finally say what it is that I want to say, I will SHOW how the Truth IS KNOWN by EVERY human being, EQUALLY, and ALREADY.

People who say they "know" what's "real" and "true" are speaking of what's real and true FOR THEMSELVES at any moment or state in time/space.

Is this what you are saying, at this moment, what you "know" what is "real" and "true"? Are you speaking of what is real and true FOR YOU at this moment or state in time/space? If yes, then what you say you "know" what is "real" and "true" now, could CHANGE.

In fact, you could be SEEING 'Me' in a completely distorted or wrong light. The 'Me' that says It KNOWS what is real and true might just be the 'Me' inside of 'you', but unfortunately 'you' are blocking from SEEING this because of those past experiences, which you base your ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS on, from which you make up truth from.

Just for your information this is NOT even a tiny fraction of what else there is that I want to say and SHOW. I just need to learn how to communicate better BEFORE I even begin.

How could it be any more than that?

A COLLECTIVE of ALL speaking of what is real and true FOR THEMSELVES, in Unity, then that is HOW "it" could be more than an individual or group of individuals speaking of what is real and true FOR THEMSELVES.

The difference being ALL can NOT be wrong, whereas, any person or any SEPARATE group of people can BE WRONG.

Yes personal or individual 'interpretations' cause distortion. But obviously a collective 'interpretation' by ALL can NOT be distorted.

You don't think that ALL can distort all kinds of things for the collective interpretation?

I am not sure what you are asking. But consider HOW ALL human beings could distort any kind of thing for the collective interpretation? If just one letter or one word is NOT seen as being correct in any interpretation, then ALL would (most likely) NOT be in agreement. Only THAT, what it is in agreement, is what IS True, Right, and/or Correct.

You don't think ALL can EVOLVE beyond a collective interpretation and limitations?

I am NOT sure what you are asking here.

Is "truth" some kind of static state?

NO.

A state to be "reached" and "known"?

A Truth state is NOT some thing that HAS TO be REACHED or KNOWN. But, some people are searching for It.

By whom and for what purpose?

Did you ask this question on an ASSUMPTION of what answer I would give?

But to answer your question the 'whom' might just be the 'I' in the question 'Who am 'I'?' and the 'purpose' might be so that 'I' can live can create a far better Life then the one that exists now on earth.

[Lacewing]

Have there been times in your life when you thought you knew something, only to realize later that you didn't? How is it different now?

BEFORE you ask a second question, immediately after your first question, and the second question is based upon an answer which you PRESUME i will give to the first question I suggest that you, instead, wait for my reply to the first question FIRST. That way things do NOT get twisted, distorted, nor go astray.

I'm trying to save time. You answered easily enough below.

there were times I thought I knew some thing, AND believed them to be true, only to realize later that they were NOT true.

Since then, I have NEVER "thought" I knew some thing. I either KNOW some thing or I do NOT. If I do NOT know some thing, then I only THINK some thing.

Uh huh. You are saying you know the difference between knowing and thinking... and that when you "know", you really know, and it's not because you think it.

just about EVERY thing that I now say is just how I VIEW or THINK things are.

Of the things you say, what percentage would you say is what you know, and what percentage is just how you view or think?

But even if I were to state that I KNOW some thing, for sure, I would still NEVER "believe" it is true, right, and/or correct. I do NOT do this for the obvious reason that; If I were to BELIEVE any thing, then I am NOT fully and completely OPEN. And, only when one is FULLY and COMPLETELY OPEN is when thee Truth can be and IS SEEN.

Got it. If we take "belief" completely out of the equation, is there anything else that might distort/disrupt your "knowing"?

You wrote: "Now, do I acknowledge the distortion being caused by my own beliefs and assumptions, then the answer is no."

You are MISSING some words that I write.

I can NOT acknowledge the distortion being caused by my own beliefs, because I have NO beliefs, however, I can acknowledge my assumptions can cause distortions because I MAKE assumptions.

That's not what your sentence said -- so how is it that I'm missing words?

Just about EVERY word I write is placed in the position it is for very specific reasons. Some times, many times, the subtlety of this goes completely unnoticed, unfortunately. However, the subtleties will become more apparent as things go on.

If it's all so simple (as you've said), why isn't it? I suggest it's because of the convoluted definitions and ideas that humans (including you) create.

Would you notice/acknowledge if you were making up truth to suit yourself and aligning yourself with THAT?

If I was consciously doing that, then yes.
If I was sub-consciously doing that, then yes and no.
If I was unconsciously doing that, then no.

But generally I NEVER make any thing up to suit myself.

Are you saying that there is generally no sub-conscious or unconsciousness at work through you to suit yourself?

There is NOTHING that I have that I want to show or prove here, so there is NOTHING to suit myself nor align myself to. I am mostly here to just LEARN how to communicate better.

Really? There is nothing you are trying to show? Then what was the point of you saying the subtleties of what you say becoming more apparent as time goes on?

Assumptions are a natural part of being human (it seems!), and interpretations vary widely -- some say "there are as many as there are people". I'm not sure there's anything wrong with that. I find it interesting when people claim that there are ultimate truths for all to agree on, and it seems that such a thing is said by those who claim to KNOW such ultimate truths.

In fact, when I finally say what it is that I want to say, I will SHOW how the Truth IS KNOWN by EVERY human being, EQUALLY, and ALREADY.

Why is that necessary? Is something "wrong"?

People who say they "know" what's "real" and "true" are speaking of what's real and true FOR THEMSELVES at any moment or state in time/space.

Are you speaking of what is real and true FOR YOU at this moment or state in time/space?

Yes. In my experience, change and movement seem to be organic across levels and spectrum. I'm dancing in it. I don't think there's a particular spot to land on, or place to go. I don't think I am anything in particular either. I'm guessing that it's ALL energy in movement.

The 'Me' that says It KNOWS what is real and true might just be the 'Me' inside of 'you', but unfortunately 'you' are blocking from SEEING this because of those past experiences, which you base your ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS on, from which you make up truth from.

Not sure what you're suggesting. I think your own assumptions and beliefs are revealing themselves. There is probably no separation. I'm at peace with that. I can be happy playing without knowing. I don't feel a need for hierarchies.

Just for your information this is NOT even a tiny fraction of what else there is that I want to say and SHOW.

I thought you said earlier there is NOTHING you want to show?

Am I providing good examples and evidence to you?

Perhaps you are more unconscious than you realize.

what it is in agreement, is what IS True, Right, and/or Correct.

So a vast expanse of infinite possibility is wrong?

Is "truth" some kind of static state?

NO.

A state to be "reached" and "known"?

A Truth state is NOT some thing that HAS TO be REACHED or KNOWN. But, some people are searching for It.

CAN it be reached and known? Is it moving or evolving?

the 'purpose' might be so that 'I' can live can create a far better Life then the one that exists now on earth.

Why does that require any particular path or knowing or agreement among all, at all?

[roydop]

What is going on in this thread is people not letting go of their egos.

There is no "I" or "you". Those are your egos; not the real Self.

[henry quirk]

When I think 'ego' I think 'myself' (the flesh and blood and bone and muscle and brain 'me'). With that as my definition: why the hell would I get rid of (or let go of) myself?

I get that a whole whack of folks are dissatisfied with themselves and need to dull, blunt, or excise 'pain', but such folks really got stop generalizin' their misery to include others. Some of us aren't miserable, aren't dissatisfied, aren't lookin' to dull, blunt or excise 'pain'.

[Lacewing]

What is going on in this thread is people not letting go of their egos.

There is no "I" or "you". Those are your egos; not the real Self.

Says who? Who is the "your" in reference to, if there is no "I" or "you"? Does ego create/define "real Self" vs. "false Self"? Who/what makes up the ideas of these divisions, and why?

[roydop]

Says who? Who is the "your" in reference to, if there is no "I" or "you"? Does ego create/define "real Self" vs. "false Self"? Who/what makes up the ideas of these divisions, and why?

That which is looking through those eyes. Which is the same awareness that is looking through these eyes.
Same singular consciousness.

[henry quirk]

Nope.

Not the same at all.

[Lacewing]

That which is looking through those eyes. Which is the same awareness that is looking through these eyes.
Same singular consciousness.

Then why say this...

There is no "I" or "you". Those are your egos; not the real Self.

Why use the word "your" if there is no "I" or "you"?

Why CREATE separateness by saying what is "real" and what is not?

Such inconsistent statements reveal an ego at work behind them.

[roydop]

That which is looking through those eyes. Which is the same awareness that is looking through these eyes.
Same singular consciousness.

Then why say this...

There is no "I" or "you". Those are your egos; not the real Self.

Why use the word "your" if there is no "I" or "you"?

Why CREATE separateness by saying what is "real" and what is not?

Such inconsistent statements reveal an ego at work behind them.

While one is playing a video game, they refer to their avatar as "Me" or "I" while simultaneously possessing the inherent intuition that that's not the "real" self. This is the state from which "I" use the same language. "I" just don't want to use "" each time words are expressed.

The appearance of separation arises from mistaking the avatar/ego "your name here" to be true self.

[Lacewing]

While one is playing a video game, they refer to their avatar as "Me" or "I" while simultaneously possessing the inherent intuition that that's not the "real" self. This is the state from which "I" use the same language. "I" just don't want to use "" each time words are expressed.

The appearance of separation arises from mistaking the avatar/ego "your name here" to be true self.

Of course. I'm asking about the state from which you identify others as being egos and not their true selves? You are talking AT people as if you are removed from that. In other words, you say "those are your egos" rather than saying "these are our egos". I'm trying to show how you are included.

Furthermore, how do we know what is real beyond our limited human ability? We may THINK we know "beyond"... we may say we know "beyond"... but the avatar in the video game could say the same in their own constructed world of many, many levels!

[roydop]

"Of course. I'm asking about the state from which you identify others as being egos and not their true selves? You are talking AT people as if you are removed from that. In other words, you say "those are your egos" rather than saying "these are our egos". I'm trying to show how you are included"

The consciousness looking through these eyes does not believe itself to be the thoughts that project the ego/illusion of "roy dopson". Nor does it take the body to be self. This is a higher level of self Awareness than consciousness that takes itself to be the convoluted combination of thoughts and sensations.

"Furthermore, how do we know what is real beyond our limited human ability? We may THINK we know "beyond"... we may say we know "beyond"... but the avatar in the video game could say the same in their own constructed world of many, many levels!"

The understanding is experiential, not intellectual. I know what I really am because I have transcended thought. Abiding in/as thought free Awareness, all is self evident, thusly no thoughts arise.

Consider: If thoughts are what are affirming thoughts to be correct (which one will recognize upon acute observation) then where would such a system lead?