Philosophy Now Forum

waechter418 wrote:…..after all ego (Latin: I) is just a viewpoint, a reference term – which might irritate, when overly used - but so does “you know”
“Egoists, Egocentrics & Egomaniacs” stem probably from the need to project and label something beyond the I – at least it would explain why ego is supposed to be synonymous for self. But what is self? – certainly not I, otherwise psychologists, mystics & gurus couldn’t make so much ado about it.
To me the term self encompasses what I am – including my ignorance about it – which doesn’t bother me, since I am what I do & I do what I am – thus having no problem with my self, and no desire to be someone else, or to go to a monastery to get rid of my self – which in my opinion requires an ego much larger than I can afford.

Greta wrote:
The ego is is an evolved defence mechanism - the boundary we draw between self and others in order to preserve our current form (or grow it). The primary aim of the ego is to stay in one piece, to delay our inevitable physical dissipation into the environment. Without ego we are entirely open to the world, seeing no boundary between self and others. It's obviously a poor survival strategy, which is why all living things have some kind of defensive shield - be it armour, a tough thick hide, spikes, toxins, huddling, sharp senses, etc.

Dontaskme wrote:''We need not take the transient self-sense to represent who and what we truly are, but we can instead simply appreciate it as the creative expedient that it is, like a space suit worn to navigate a particular environment. We are not the costume, we are not the program, but we do need it in order to provide Spirit the necessary access to the physical adventure it desires to immerse itself in, and so provide Source with eyes and hands and feet to discover and enjoy Itself in this shimmering corner of It's dream of living light.''

Greta wrote: Is this "Spirit" perfect in essence, sullied in its journey to Earth but emerges from death clean, pure and perfect again once it's been released from its physical form and returns to the "Source"?

Dontaskme wrote:Every word to describe physical form is an assumption. What is form but emptiness in form. We've only got language to describe the ineffable. Without language, without the knowledge we have of ourselves which is not actually ourselves, there's just an invisible internal driving force that motivates or ''animates'' our physical body to do things.
That's all we know.

Greta wrote:

Dontaskme wrote:Every word to describe physical form is an assumption. What is form but emptiness in form. We've only got language to describe the ineffable. Without language, without the knowledge we have of ourselves which is not actually ourselves, there's just an invisible internal driving force that motivates or ''animates'' our physical body to do things.
That's all we know.

Isn't the animating force just food, drink and information?

Dontaskme wrote:

Greta wrote:

Dontaskme wrote:Every word to describe physical form is an assumption. What is form but emptiness in form. We've only got language to describe the ineffable. Without language, without the knowledge we have of ourselves which is not actually ourselves, there's just an invisible internal driving force that motivates or ''animates'' our physical body to do things.
That's all we know.

Isn't the animating force just food, drink and information?

Yes, but not just that, it's also the energy of our thoughts directed, including our words which act as powerful tools that can carry the power of life, everything of an intangible nature carries a certain energy with it...when we feed the energy, the energy grows, and we get the dramas of life unfolding according to where we direct our thoughts and feelings, when we don't feed the energy, it dies..as for things not of the mind, like green grass and nature stuff well that all grows by itself, it is unknown what directs nature, but we see that all life depends on the light of the sun. Without light there would be nothing at all.

So I guess everything is light which is energy, which is electrical in nature.

No one has ever seen the light, it is invisible. Also, I might add, that we can't see the light because we are it.



IMHO..but don't take my word for it.

dontaskme wrote:We've only got language to describe the ineffable.

Dontaskme wrote:Yes, but not just that, it's also the energy of our thoughts directed, including our words which act as powerful tools that can carry the power of life, everything of an intangible nature carries a certain energy with it...when we feed the energy, the energy grows, and we get the dramas of life unfolding according to where we direct our thoughts and feelings, when we don't feed the energy, it dies..as for things not of the mind, like green grass and nature stuff well that all grows by itself, it is unknown what directs nature, but we see that all life depends on the light of the sun. Without light there would be nothing at all.

So I guess everything is light which is energy, which is electrical in nature.

No one has ever seen the light, it is invisible. Also, I might add, that we can't see the light because we are it.

Walker wrote:With this in mind, all movement in the universe is to balance. Atomic motion, biological reaction to stimulus, human choice of thinking to seek food, drink and information, galactic motion, all this movement is to balance. Like water seeking the level, any motion is a balancing force that can be called The Supreme Ordering Principle of the Universe. Every particular manifestation from infinite potentiality is due to conditions aligning in accordance to the balancing effect of the ordering principle. Since every motion caused by balancing radiates ripples of subsequent balancing movements into the universe with an exponential speed and progression … into a radiating construct too complex for human linear 3-D thinking to track into all possible permutations, or backwards to original cause owing to the fact that the database is as large as the universe itself … then after one of the radiating ripples beyond which the interactions become intersecting ripples that muddle the puddle, the limitations of human thought falls back to perceiving chaos, and from this basis maintains that man himself supplies the meaning. In truth, what man calls meaning is only a limited perception of existent order.

Greta wrote: In standard physics that EM force is not fundamental

Walker wrote: With this in mind, all movement in the universe is to balance. Atomic motion, biological reaction to stimulus, human choice of thinking to seek food, drink and information, galactic motion, all this movement is to balance. Like water seeking the level, any motion is a balancing force that can be called The Supreme Ordering Principle of the Universe. Every particular manifestation from infinite potentiality is due to conditions aligning in accordance to the balancing effect of the ordering principle. Since every motion caused by balancing radiates ripples of subsequent balancing movements into the universe with an exponential speed and progression … into a radiating construct too complex for human linear 3-D thinking to track into all possible permutations, or backwards to original cause owing to the fact that the database is as large as the universe itself … then after one of the radiating ripples beyond which the interactions become intersecting ripples that muddle the puddle, the limitations of human thought falls back to perceiving chaos, and from this basis maintains that man himself supplies the meaning. In truth, what man calls meaning is only a limited perception of existent order.

Speaking of perceived permutations, wasn’t that the crux empowering Herbert’s mentats in the Dune series? I read it a long time ago before the movie but as I recall, with a boost from the Spice and a boost from the essence of the Worm, among other things, Paul's hardwiring transformed so that he could instantly extrapolate all permutations of the present instant into an infinite future, which gave him the capacity to predict everything and thus control all reality even though he had no physical eyes. He was a mentat's mentat.

dontaskme wrote:We've only got language to describe the ineffable.

Communication also happens in silence.

Dontaskme wrote:The ''What Is'' can never be what it isn't