Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

The nature of ego.

Re: The nature of ego.
October 15, 2012, 01:30:54 PM
I still maintain that superiority becomes a null concept when devoid of ego.  Is a pic superior to a transistor?  They both serve their specific functions within the whole, but I suppose a pic might have a greater capacity with which to consider itself superior to the transistor ; )

Transcix made a sensible post, I fail to see anything wrong with it.  Furthermore, there's a difference between being superior and making sure others know they're inferior - the latter is the behaviour of an inferior person.

Re: The nature of ego.
October 15, 2012, 03:19:40 PM
Strange that a bunch of rough, tough Death Metal guys gets so wound up over somebody they judge to be egotistical.
I operate on a different plane, I guess.
Does that mean I feel superior, and others inferior?
And even if it did, so what?
There are those who don't give a toss what I think.
Is it reasonable to expect I would give a toss about what they think?
You know, from a very early age, I really didn't see much to like in people.
The older I get, the more I defer to the wisdom of my childhood.

Re: The nature of ego.
October 15, 2012, 06:10:39 PM

You know, from a very early age, I really didn't see much to like in people.



Somes say that love is blind. In the case of the love for humans, it's true a lot of times because If not, it would be hard to pass over all their imperfections and still have a love for them.

Re: The nature of ego.
October 15, 2012, 07:04:57 PM
Quite so. I have long lived for the purpose of not being blind.
While the many live to become ever more blind.
Socialism is deliberate blindness, for example.
I do not actively celebrate my lack: I actively seek to lessen it.


Re: The nature of ego.
October 15, 2012, 11:51:02 PM
Does that mean I feel superior, and others inferior?
And even if it did, so what?

Well, it seems to me that they're getting riled up that you seem to be treating them as inferiors. I don't think you're being mean or treating anyone unfairly, you simply assume that the members here are intelligent and get what you have to say. I suppose one would ask at this point for you to get off your high horse, but I don't see any problem with anything you said so far in this thread apart from some semantic issues. (which are really not that important when you think about it)

By the way, the "old coot" jab was not meant to offend, excuse me if it did.

Re: The nature of ego.
October 16, 2012, 06:01:29 AM
I still maintain that superiority becomes a null concept when devoid of ego.  Is a pic superior to a transistor?  They both serve their specific functions within the whole, but I suppose a pic might have a greater capacity with which to consider itself superior to the transistor ; )

Transcix made a sensible post, I fail to see anything wrong with it.  Furthermore, there's a difference between being superior and making sure others know they're inferior - the latter is the behaviour of an inferior person.

It's a matter of definitions.  In one sense all humans are equal in respect of their shared humanity and their spiritual potential, however, for most people, this potential will never be actualized so from another point of view there is quite clearly a marked qualitative difference between humans in a practical sense.  Superiority and inferiority clearly refer to a qualitative differentiation.  In this realm, man exists between two poles, that of his essence and that of his ego.  A man who has realized that he is not his ego is clearly spiritually superior to someone who chooses to identify themselves with the lowest aspects of their being and they will probably be aware of this.  An egotistical person will always assume that someone who declares themselves superior must do so out of pride rather than as an objective observation.

I cannot discern whether or not Crow's claims are legitimate, although he often makes good points I remain skeptical regarding his claims of enlightenment.  As for his dialogue with Transix, they seem to have carried on some personal quarrel from other threads so communication between them has broken down entirely.

Re: The nature of ego.
October 16, 2012, 10:43:47 AM
Nobody's getting riled up about him treating people here as inferior - I'd assumed he was talking about people in general, not people on this board.  It's simply a problem of perspective, for me.  While I can understand that, at the individual level, one thing is greater or lesser than another in whatever respect, it seems odd to start talking about such things from an unindividualised perspective.  Which lego piece is the best of a set?

That said, I can see how the Father might recognise superior qualities in one of his sons over another, while his love for each would remain equal and constant.

Phoenix

Re: The nature of ego.
October 19, 2012, 03:25:18 AM
Strange that a bunch of rough, tough Death Metal guys gets so wound up over somebody they judge to be egotistical.

You're hilarious. And by that I mean, I'm honestly laughing quite hard. I'm not getting flustered or emotional. I love to burst people's bubbles, it's fun and even informative! The question I've been asking, on the other hand, is what in the world motivates you to talk so much about your own superiority?

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.

So if I call you an asshole out of the blue in a patronizing, passive-aggressive, snobish, weak, sneaky, emo-esque manner, you won't find that the least bit tempting? You're pretty boring then, and you don't stand for much. You don't have fire in your heart.

By the way, the "old coot" jab was not meant to offend, excuse me if it did.

WAAAAAAGH! can call out whatever he wants. I'll call out this kind of apologetic weirdness.

Re: The nature of ego.
October 19, 2012, 01:34:48 PM
Well that was the impression I got from your statement. So o guess that answers that

Re: The nature of ego.
October 19, 2012, 05:38:13 PM
Lack of ego look like ego to one with ego but unable to see it.
Ego reality to one who see ego as reality.
Reality reality to one who not have ego.

Phoenix

Re: The nature of ego.
October 19, 2012, 08:18:04 PM
Lack of ego look like ego to one with ego but unable to see it.
Ego reality to one who see ego as reality.
Reality reality to one who not have ego.

What's poor grammar to you?

Re: The nature of ego.
October 19, 2012, 09:29:05 PM
Grammar removed so you can understand.
Tried grammar. You don't understand.
Remove grammar, all you see is no grammar.
You understand nothing.