Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

The nature of ego.

Re: The nature of ego.
October 12, 2012, 09:53:40 PM
Transcix has an eternal emotional reaction to anything I write and immediately attempts to trash it while indicating I am an idiot. Understandably, I am not joyous about it.

It is never dissent I object to, but arrogant, unknowledgeable rudeness.
Read his shit again, and see if you can divine why I refer to it as shit.
He wants to be the resident guru, and sees me as a threat.
As any teenager would, I suppose.

He clearly knows stuff about stuff, but has, so far, been patently unable to do anything with it, other than belittle others. Primarily me.

End of unnecessary explanation.

Squawk!

Phoenix

Re: The nature of ego.
October 13, 2012, 01:43:46 AM
I guess you don't feel any need to rebut my arguments since you're so 'superior' that they're below you.

But why bother attacking me personally, then?

Why would you refrain from touching my arguments if you take the time to level personal attacks?

Ironically, perhaps this thread does offer pertinent insight into the nature of the ego after all.

Re: The nature of ego.
October 13, 2012, 02:21:55 AM
Not important enough to respond.
Squawk!

Re: The nature of ego.
October 13, 2012, 04:21:51 AM
Crow, it seems you get similar reactions elsewhere:

Quote
Might I recommend you start a blog instead of filling up the CT&P forum with your condescending superiority complex?

Quote
Your inane ramblings mean nothing. Your quasi-intellectualism is nauseating. Please stop.

There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us

Re: The nature of ego.
October 13, 2012, 05:33:59 AM
Indeed I do.
There is a reason for that.
Incisions are rarely pleasant.
Squawk!

Re: The nature of ego.
October 13, 2012, 09:25:57 AM
Petty polemics on the internet are only committed by complete fags, and such should only be reserved for trolling operations : so go out on the internet, you fags, and troll them instead.

Imagine if we were an actual army, like Hells Angels or the CIA, and not an equal mass of differing opinions. How would you fare?

Internet polemics are mostly retarded, as at least one side is neglecting the nuances of the others postulates.

Re: The nature of ego.
October 13, 2012, 03:03:13 PM
Can one drastically, sustainably realize a superior state with the snap of their fingers, without actually making any effort? Of course not. Because what a "superior" state is, is precisely unknown to them.

Crow speaks of certain qualities corresponding to 'superiority', such as experience, authority, lack of ego, etc.

Why not simply use the terms "experience", "authority", "lack of ego", etc? Oh, well actually he does. But then he adds the word "superiority" to top it all off. Does it imply anything extra?

Crow talks about his perspective of enlightenment and strategies for attaining enlightenment. But he never defines "superiority".

Don't take this the wrong way dude; but you really have to read between the lines a bit. I'll come out and say I usually don't participate in these kinds of discussions as I'm not well versed in psychology, but what crow is saying here is pretty evident.

Nowhere was it implied that "a snap of the fingers" (or some other instantaneous action) leads to superiority. Of course a superior state is unknown to many, as many are not superior. A "superior state" may also have different meanings to different folks.

On crow's qualities of superiority - yes, adding the word superior does imply something extra. It implies that the qualities listed aid one in being superior or are indicative of a superior being. He doesn't HAVE to define superiority, because instead of giving a personalized definition of the word (which is better left to people actually aspiring to it as it gives each their motivation; for example if I were a logger, my goal of superiority would be to be head logger/foreman, whereas someone who isn't a logger wouldn't have much use of that goal) - he instead uses enlightenment as a sort of allegory for superiority. Which then implies enlightenment = superiority (or, leads one down a path that will lead to superiority).

I'll admit, I find his style of writing a bit superfluous, and sometimes he does sound like a bit of an old coot  :P, but solid advice is solid advice man. Don't be so quick to jump on the ad hominem train; you're smarter than that (at least your posts indicate you to be).
No.

Having reviewed the thread, baby Jesus is most definitely weeping at this point.

Re: The nature of ego.
October 13, 2012, 04:41:22 PM
He probably sounds like a bit of an old coot, because that is what he is.
An old coot.
In fact he sounds like he sounds because he is what he sounds like.
He describes it. He does not claim it.
And what he constantly runs into is the cast-iron belief that if he describes something accurately, he is acting as if he is something he is not.
But he really doesn't give a toss, because he is what he is, and he knows it.
He does, however, dislike it when those who are not what they claim to be, tell him he is not what he is.
Because they are not what they claim to be.

See how crazy all this sounds?
It sounds that way because it is.

Squawk!

Re: The nature of ego.
October 13, 2012, 06:03:59 PM
If you are posting on this site and take concepts like superiority as being offensive, perhaps you need to reevaluate your participation here.
There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us

Re: The nature of ego.
October 13, 2012, 06:15:28 PM
Man with sense of humour.
But you are right.
I am not here for the reasons others are, and that is as good a reason as any to not be here.
Originally I came to sort out some problem posters.
Notice how quietly civilized it became, for a while.
If I become a problem poster, I will also sort myself out, too.

Squawk!

Phoenix

Re: The nature of ego.
October 14, 2012, 04:19:27 AM
Petty polemics on the internet are only committed by complete fags, and such should only be reserved for trolling operations : so go out on the internet, you fags, and troll them instead.

Imagine if we were an actual army, like Hells Angels or the CIA, and not an equal mass of differing opinions. How would you fare?

Internet polemics are mostly retarded, as at least one side is neglecting the nuances of the others postulates.

You must be true to your word, because you just trolled this thread.

He describes it. He does not claim it.

Ignoring the fact that you're referring to yourself in the third person, a descriptive opinion is so convenient because you don't have to prove anything beyond your own subjectivity. An objective claim on the other hand is a contestation and invites discourse and counter-points.

If you are posting on this site and take concepts like superiority as being offensive, perhaps you need to reevaluate your participation here.

Whether or not some people are ultimately superior compared to others is completely besides the point as far as I'm concerned. I'm not the fluffy love bunny you seem to think me to be.

Life isn't about proof.
It is about living.
And proof is nothing, whatever, to do with living.
Neither is ego.

I wonder, then... do you believe absence of proof is just as valid as proof, in which case there's no reason to be afraid of proof; or do you believe absence of proof is superior to proof and is to be promoted?

NHA

Re: The nature of ego.
October 14, 2012, 07:19:44 AM
Ego is what you pretend you are, when you aren't.
Ego stands in for the substance that is lacking.
Ego makes of you, something you wish you were, but aren't.
Ego prevents you, from ever being what you claim to be.

It never occurs to the inferior, that they behave as they do, because of their inferiority.
It never occurs to them, either, that what they see in a superior being, is, in fact, superiority.

There are a few who recognize their inferiority.
And seek to leave it behind, as a child outgrows its toys.
But for every one of those, there are a hundred who cling to childhood.



You can see all sorts of these nasty social habits very clearly in a lot of online video games.


From "The 9 layers of elo hell":
http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=292682
Quote
4th Layer
(900-1200 ELO)

Smell of sulfur everywhere and the oppressive heat is getting to your head, hopefully you get out of here quick...

The "Misplaced Tryhard" level as i like to call it. This ELO range consists of players who are pretty much raging before the game even starts. Chances are the players are also always between the ages of 12-14. They feel that they were misplaced and aren't actually this bad, when in reality they are much much worse. Teamwork once again is LOWER than the previous levels, this is because your teammates are too busy blaming that 9/1 teemo for the loss, or *****ing at that guy who plays AP taric instead of AD.

Whatever they are complaining about, they think they are always right, always the best and always not the one at fault for the loss. If you manage to keep your sanity in this 4th layer, you've already won the game forever, because if you can accept that sometimes maybe sometimes, it was your fault your team lost... then you're always a better player than the 900-1200 range.

1200 elo is dead center of the bell curve btw.

The Dunning–Kruger effect seems to plague people regardless of their general intelligence level.


Re: The nature of ego.
October 14, 2012, 12:21:30 PM

Rather one bit of insigth than hundreds of words of polemic nitpicking.

Intellectual disputes are reserved for the Socratic way of trolling, not for finding actual insigths and "scientific" truths.

Re: The nature of ego.
October 14, 2012, 05:01:50 PM
Proof is a strange concept, for anything taking place outside a laboratory.
The idea that one must obtain a guarantee of authenticity before one considers something is bizarre.
In the real world, one discovers one's truths by considered trial and error.
One gets it wrong, sometimes, and by so doing, gets it wrong less and less.
This process is called experience.
There is no substitute.
Squawk!

Re: The nature of ego.
October 14, 2012, 11:04:27 PM
Whether or not some people are ultimately superior compared to others is completely besides the point as far as I'm concerned. I'm not the fluffy love bunny you seem to think me to be.

"Furthermore, not only is it derogatory towards others to call one's self superior, but to make it the central thesis of a thread, to imply it goes hand-in-hand with enlightenment, to never give any definition of it, and to stress that unenlightened folks are painfully ignorant of it... it's a sneaky, passive-aggressive way of touting one's horn for no other purpose than to get off on it."

That right there is why I said what I did.
There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us