Necessity is the Mother of Invention.
-
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
Re: Necessity is the Mother of Invention.
Well, I guess its consistent a perception one can expect from a talking non-person.
Between Suicides
Re: Necessity is the Mother of Invention.
Well, I'm not saying that I'm not real, I'm just saying that I can realize that I am just a manifestation of the universe itself.Leyla Shen wrote:Well, I guess its consistent a perception one can expect from a talking non-person.
- Captain Crunch
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 3:42 am
Re: Necessity is the Mother of Invention.
Ssssshit!
Vividness---All maybe perceived through-and-through the 'consciousness.' I haughtily get what you're insinuating, Leyla. But,...you withdraw the mind's perception---to, and, fro, to be able to read' another's(subject's) mind.
We perceive to know' hence, the laws of-gravity.
'Wish" your' skirt was up....But, then, plainly, I read somewhere' that the laws of nature are meant' to be-
Not as we are, but..the 'thought' Why? be tired'? When, you can own the 'world?'
Vividness---All maybe perceived through-and-through the 'consciousness.' I haughtily get what you're insinuating, Leyla. But,...you withdraw the mind's perception---to, and, fro, to be able to read' another's(subject's) mind.
We perceive to know' hence, the laws of-gravity.
'Wish" your' skirt was up....But, then, plainly, I read somewhere' that the laws of nature are meant' to be-
Not as we are, but..the 'thought' Why? be tired'? When, you can own the 'world?'
- Captain Crunch
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 3:42 am
Re: Necessity is the Mother of Invention.
Further, more,
The teachings' of per-say, " Lai-Tzu"
" Feeling" " Genius" " Want"
@ 2 separate things.........
The teachings' of per-say, " Lai-Tzu"
" Feeling" " Genius" " Want"
@ 2 separate things.........
- Dan Rowden
- Posts: 5740
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: Necessity is the Mother of Invention.
How the fuck do you manage to use a keyboard?
- Diebert van Rhijn
- Posts: 6469
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Re: Necessity is the Mother of Invention.
Voice input on some mobile dumbing device while on the stairmaster?
- Captain Crunch
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 3:42 am
Re: Necessity is the Mother of Invention.
You "two" don't seem to understand genius, when, it's right infront!
I bet you Alexander The Great Uses(d) phrases that weren't quit as exquisite/extraordinary, but, the lavishing-women took a 'woo' at 'him.
Men, are just 'apes' from another planet collecting apples. That, sinch-
I bet you Alexander The Great Uses(d) phrases that weren't quit as exquisite/extraordinary, but, the lavishing-women took a 'woo' at 'him.
Men, are just 'apes' from another planet collecting apples. That, sinch-
- Diebert van Rhijn
- Posts: 6469
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Re: Necessity is the Mother of Invention.
This is the thing Oren, you appear to insert the ego into so many processes, as a given really, and then turn around and say: it's there and we cannot stop it.Orenholt wrote:Yes. Sure, the ego wants other things besides to eat etc. It also might want material luxuries such as a new radio.Diebert van Rhijn wrote: You mean your definition of the ego as "the thing being dissatisfied"? Which would become then "ego is the thing being discontent". There are several problems with defining ego as "thing" of course but lets talk about seeing ego as at the core being this very notion of discontentment. The main difference you appear to make between this and Buddhist ideas on suffering and ignorance is that you seem to argue for various "natural" desires and drives which cannot be disabled but are needed to keep the engine running. Is this a decent enough summary?
The ego appears in your writing as some actor who wants a warm dinner tonight and a new radio tomorrow. You try to insert a Freudian idea but then directly expand it by adding elements which Freud distinguished from ego like "id" and "superego". That way we end up with nearly every action, need and reaction in the universe being ego-driven. The ego is now the hammer and everything else becomes something to nail down with it.
So we're talking here about reward in the form of endorphins which are released with exercise, excitement, pain, spicy food, laughter, orgasms, etc. The "reward" of this chemical is generally compared with drugs in the way it can relieve certain types of pain and generate a feeling of well-being ("pleasure"), although sometimes by generating constrast: suffer->release. So one type of pain can easily be desired to relieve another form of pain? Or there is a trade-off: this amount of pain weighs up to that amount of feeling well.But let's take this a step further. Masochism. If someone cuts their self they might say they're doing it for the "pain" but they're actually doing it for the pleasure. The pain can CAUSES pleasure. It's the endorphins that the brain releases during the act of cutting that they're after, not the physical pain itself.
It's unclear if you're arguing for anything else but the reward system which regulates and controls behavior. Then you say that all regulated and controlled behavior is "ego".
But by defining ego like that you are making it impossible to address it anymore as something to overcome since our dopamine-containing neurons cannot be suspended without suspending all the rest. Then to still talk about spiritual goals you would need to talk about a specific, distorted part of pleasure-pain which causes or would maintain ignorance. And you need a new term. Which nobody would really understand but you.
-
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
Re: Necessity is the Mother of Invention.
You've been saying you don't/the self does not exist. Why do you not say instead that the self is caused rather than contradicting yourself by saying such things such as, "I do not exist/you don't know you do not exist yet" and then "I can realise that I am just a manifestation of the universe itself"?Orenholt wrote:Well, I'm not saying that I'm not real, I'm just saying that I can realize that I am just a manifestation of the universe itself.Leyla Shen wrote:Well, I guess its consistent a perception one can expect from a talking non-person.
How do you manage to realise you are a manifestation of something when you deny manifesting?
Between Suicides
Re: Necessity is the Mother of Invention.
Orenholt, indeed, you aren't being consistent. Regardless, are you attempting to argue for something along the lines of "psychological hedonism", the idea that all actions are done to satisfy the actor?
Even if we agree with this, let's take a look at where it leads us, in relation to enlightenment. According to this, the actor does the action of gaining Higher Knowledge (eternal verities, spiritual wisdom, etc.), and did so to satisfy herself. The actor did this, let's say, because no other sort of knowledge was really satisfying her in a lasting and meaningful way. In other words, people seek enlightenment and wisdom for selfish, egotistical reasons. All good so far...
... But isn't there something unique about Higher Knowledge? Isn't it the one sort of knowledge that sabotages the ego? And by sabotage I don't mean upset -- the information that, say, one's spouse is cheating on them could certainly upset the ego. Rather, I mean isn't enlightenment a unique finding that works not excite the ego in either a positive or negative way, but instead works to erase the ego entirely?
"Know that when you learn to lose yourself, you will reach the Beloved.
There is no other secret to be learned, and more than this is not known to me."
- Ansari of Herat
Also, you may find the beginning of this conversation between Dan, David, and Kevin to be relevant (and the entire conversation to be helpful, too): http://www.theabsolute.net/minefield/j15.html
Even if we agree with this, let's take a look at where it leads us, in relation to enlightenment. According to this, the actor does the action of gaining Higher Knowledge (eternal verities, spiritual wisdom, etc.), and did so to satisfy herself. The actor did this, let's say, because no other sort of knowledge was really satisfying her in a lasting and meaningful way. In other words, people seek enlightenment and wisdom for selfish, egotistical reasons. All good so far...
... But isn't there something unique about Higher Knowledge? Isn't it the one sort of knowledge that sabotages the ego? And by sabotage I don't mean upset -- the information that, say, one's spouse is cheating on them could certainly upset the ego. Rather, I mean isn't enlightenment a unique finding that works not excite the ego in either a positive or negative way, but instead works to erase the ego entirely?
"Know that when you learn to lose yourself, you will reach the Beloved.
There is no other secret to be learned, and more than this is not known to me."
- Ansari of Herat
Also, you may find the beginning of this conversation between Dan, David, and Kevin to be relevant (and the entire conversation to be helpful, too): http://www.theabsolute.net/minefield/j15.html
Re: Necessity is the Mother of Invention.
The "I" is for practical purposes. The ego exists even if the concept is a "false" one.Leyla Shen wrote: You've been saying you don't/the self does not exist. Why do you not say instead that the self is caused rather than contradicting yourself by saying such things such as, "I do not exist/you don't know you do not exist yet" and then "I can realise that I am just a manifestation of the universe itself"?
How do you manage to realise you are a manifestation of something when you deny manifesting?
The concept of the ego can be "erased" but the ego cannot (unless you physically die).Getoriks wrote: Rather, I mean isn't enlightenment a unique finding that works not excite the ego in either a positive or negative way, but instead works to erase the ego entirely?
Otherwise merely denying you have an ego would mean you have "transcended" it.
Last edited by Orenholt on Fri Apr 05, 2013 9:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Necessity is the Mother of Invention.
Yes, but even "natural" desires such as eating cause suffering beyond the physical. The reason that you do eat is because the ego is suffering in some way. Otherwise you could be in physical pain and simply ignore the desire to alleviate it.Diebert van Rhijn wrote: You mean your definition of the ego as "the thing being dissatisfied"? Which would become then "ego is the thing being discontent". There are several problems with defining ego as "thing" of course but lets talk about seeing ego as at the core being this very notion of discontentment. The main difference you appear to make between this and Buddhist ideas on suffering and ignorance is that you seem to argue for various "natural" desires and drives which cannot be disabled but are needed to keep the engine running. Is this a decent enough summary?
Explain to me what you think the ego is then. Maybe we are just talking past each other.This is the thing Oren, you appear to insert the ego into so many processes, as a given really, and then turn around and say: it's there and we cannot stop it.
Did I not prove that the ego is involved in many of the processes that you presumed that is wasn't?
Yes, I admit that my model of the ego is a bit different than Freud's. Instead of saying that the id and super ego are separate entities I say that they are part of the ego itself BECAUSE they are part of the process of suffering from "want".You try to insert a Freudian idea but then directly expand it by adding elements which Freud distinguished from ego like "id" and "superego".
Well as I said, there are some processes such and blinking and breathing which are automatic and do not require the ego because of that. In fact, they are so automatic that if you want to STOP doing them you must make an effort to stop rather than the other way around.That way we end up with nearly every action, need and reaction in the universe being ego-driven. The ego is now the hammer and everything else becomes something to nail down with it.
I would say that the pleasure or "reward" of the endorphins outweighs the physical pain for the masochistic individual.So we're talking here about reward in the form of endorphins which are released with exercise, excitement, pain, spicy food, laughter, orgasms, etc. The "reward" of this chemical is generally compared with drugs in the way it can relieve certain types of pain and generate a feeling of well-being ("pleasure"), although sometimes by generating constrast: suffer->release. So one type of pain can easily be desired to relieve another form of pain? Or there is a trade-off: this amount of pain weighs up to that amount of feeling well.
Yes, the "reward system" is basically the ego because it is the source of desire.It's unclear if you're arguing for anything else but the reward system which regulates and controls behavior. Then you say that all regulated and controlled behavior is "ego".
Well that is because I do not think that the ego should be "overcome" I think that it should be emboldened. Basically I agree with that thread about "how to make a stronger ego". What should be abandoned is the concept of the "I" because you can then realize how "you" are just a part of the universe, or the universe itself.But by defining ego like that you are making it impossible to address it anymore as something to overcome since our dopamine-containing neurons cannot be suspended without suspending all the rest. Then to still talk about spiritual goals you would need to talk about a specific, distorted part of pleasure-pain which causes or would maintain ignorance. And you need a new term. Which nobody would really understand but you.
There's a famous quote that goes something like this:
At the beginning of the journey I thought that trees were trees and mountains were mountains.
Then I realized that trees were not trees and mountains were not mountains.
At the end of the journey I realized that trees were really trees and mountains were really mountains.
- Diebert van Rhijn
- Posts: 6469
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Re: Necessity is the Mother of Invention.
No, you just asserted that it's ego all the way without providing any coherent reasoning. Actually there have been many contradictions pointed out to you but you do not address them so far. You're only seeing "your ego" or at least your own all compassing definitions of it.Orenholt wrote:Yes, but even "natural" desires such as eating cause suffering beyond the physical. The reason that you do eat is because the ego is suffering in some way. Did I not prove that the ego is involved in many of the processes that you presumed that is wasn't? ... Instead of saying that the id and super ego are separate entities I say that they are part of the ego
So if you're not conscious of it, ego disappears? If being threatened or excited our breathing automatically adjusts as one might notice. But is it now "ego breathing"? You've dug a deep hole for yourself, I'm afraid.Well as I said, there are some processes such and blinking and breathing which are automatic and do not require the ego because of that. In fact, they are so automatic that if you want to STOP doing them you must make an effort to stop rather than the other way around.
Why would the masochist not seek this pleasure elsewhere if that's the reward he seeks? There are easier ways to feel pleasure. But not for her?I would say that the pleasure or "reward" of the endorphins outweighs the physical pain for the masochistic individual.
Then why not talk about the reward system instead of renaming it "ego"? From where the need to re-brand it? Which satisfaction or use does it have for you doing that?Yes, the "reward system" is basically the ego because it is the source of desire.
Yeah sure, kids gloves. But do you think "ignorance" exists and should be addressed? Which specific part of that "ego" you defined plays a part in that ignorance?Well that is because I do not think that the ego should be "overcome" I think that it should be emboldened. Basically I agree with that thread about "how to make a stronger ego".
You abandon something only to realize the same thing again, a "you", a "part", a "universe of you". In my opinion you should really rethink this and consider it might go a bit above and beyond the stuff you're dabbling with right now with all the best intentions.What should be abandoned is the concept of the "I" because you can then realize how "you" are just a part of the universe, or the universe itself.
Re: Necessity is the Mother of Invention.
Well tell me my contradictions that I haven't addressed because I thought I addressed all of them.Diebert van Rhijn wrote: No, you just asserted that it's ego all the way without providing any coherent reasoning. Actually there have been many contradictions pointed out to you but you do not address them so far. You're only seeing "your ego" or at least your own all compassing definitions of it.
The concept of the ego may disappear but the ego itself is present until the death of the physical body.So if you're not conscious of it, ego disappears? If being threatened or excited our breathing automatically adjusts as one might notice. But is it now "ego breathing"? You've dug a deep hole for yourself, I'm afraid.
Breathing for the most part is automatic, but if you CHOOSE to hold your breath that's because you WANT to do it and it interrupt the natural process of automatically breathing.
It's a certain kind of desire. For example, if you were really hungry you wouldn't instead listen to beautiful music.Why would the masochist not seek this pleasure elsewhere if that's the reward he seeks? There are easier ways to feel pleasure. But not for her?
Sure you would feel good about listening to the music and derive pleasure from it but you wouldn't be satisfied.
Likewise if you wanted a new radio and someone gave you a calculator you would not be satisfied.
I am calling the reward system "ego" because it is the source of suffering.Then why not talk about the reward system instead of renaming it "ego"? From where the need to re-brand it? Which satisfaction or use does it have for you doing that?
Is the ego not the source of suffering?
Therefore are they not synonymous?
Yes, I do think that ignorance exists and that it should be eliminated within reason.Yeah sure, kids gloves. But do you think "ignorance" exists and should be addressed? Which specific part of that "ego" you defined plays a part in that ignorance?
The ego can sometimes be fooled into thinking certain things that aren't true, but it's main concern is happiness or "reward".
Why? does it not make sense to you yet?You abandon something only to realize the same thing again, a "you", a "part", a "universe of you". In my opinion you should really rethink this and consider it might go a bit above and beyond the stuff you're dabbling with right now with all the best intentions.
It makes perfect sense to me.
Re: Necessity is the Mother of Invention.
Orenholt, concerning the ego, how would you differentiate between enlightenment, narcissism, and solipsism?
Re: Necessity is the Mother of Invention.
The ego, according to you, then, is any living thing? A thing needs an ego to live, to survive?Orenholt wrote:The concept of the ego can be "erased" but the ego cannot (unless you physically die).
Re: Necessity is the Mother of Invention.
Enlightenment: The universe is the universe and "we" are all the universe.Getoriks wrote:Orenholt, concerning the ego, how would you differentiate between enlightenment, narcissism, and solipsism?
Narcissism: I love myself for my attributes and I am my body.
Solipsism: I made the universe and everything in it is my "dream".
Well, I don't think that trees have egos if that's what you're asking but yes, humans and animals for example need ego to survive.The ego, according to you, then, is any living thing? A thing needs an ego to live, to survive?
Re: Necessity is the Mother of Invention.
Mhmm... I see... And how do you differentiate between reason and rationale, or reasoning and rationalizing?
Re: Necessity is the Mother of Invention.
Reason: A cause or explanation for an act or belief.Getoriks wrote:Mhmm... I see... And how do you differentiate between reason and rationale, or reasoning and rationalizing?
Rationale: A statement of reason.
Reasoning: An act or process of a person who reasons.
Rationalizing: To treat or explain in a rational manner.
Rational: endowed with the faculty of reason.
- Captain Crunch
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 3:42 am
Re: Necessity is the Mother of Invention.
You don't need to be a katharsis' to do-or know 'evil' my friends'. Oh, wait!!!
There are certain artifacts which I've concerned myself with-the beast, the anti-Christ, and the false prophet- all thereby being One.
Speaking-of long-jevity.
I'm going to quote The Doors:
'Riders on a storm'
'Riders on a storm'
'Into, this 'house' were borne'
'Into, this-world were thrown'
'Like a dog without a bone'
'State; rapture; out-alone'
'Riders on a storm'
' Today's your holiday'
'Let your children' play'
'If, you give a man-a ride'
'Sweet-memories will die'
'Riders on a storm'
.........................
There are certain artifacts which I've concerned myself with-the beast, the anti-Christ, and the false prophet- all thereby being One.
Speaking-of long-jevity.
I'm going to quote The Doors:
'Riders on a storm'
'Riders on a storm'
'Into, this 'house' were borne'
'Into, this-world were thrown'
'Like a dog without a bone'
'State; rapture; out-alone'
'Riders on a storm'
' Today's your holiday'
'Let your children' play'
'If, you give a man-a ride'
'Sweet-memories will die'
'Riders on a storm'
.........................
-
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
Re: Necessity is the Mother of Invention.
She thinks that "all things are illusory" literally means that no thing is real rather than all things are impermanent. Her misconceptions, irrational assertions and outright contradictions on the subject of ego are all about protecting this delusion.
Between Suicides
-
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
Re: Necessity is the Mother of Invention.
I mean, really. What are you talking about?The concept of the ego may disappear but the ego itself is present until the death of the physical body.
Breathing for the most part is automatic, but if you CHOOSE to hold your breath that's because you WANT to do it and it interrupt the natural process of automatically breathing.
The "I" is for practical purposes. The ego exists even if the concept is a "false" one.
Between Suicides
- Diebert van Rhijn
- Posts: 6469
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Re: Necessity is the Mother of Invention.
So all volition is now ego? What's wrong with the word "will"? We could discuss if it's free like adults would.Orenholt wrote:but if you CHOOSE to hold your breath that's because you WANT to do it ...
So all desire is now ego? What's wrong with the word "desire"?It's a certain kind of desire. For example, if you were really hungry you wouldn't instead listen to beautiful music.
So all ignorance is now ego? What's wrong with the world "ignorance"?I am calling the reward system "ego" because it is the source of suffering. Is the ego not the source of suffering?
So sometimes the ego is really a bad ass ego?The ego can sometimes be fooled into thinking certain things that aren't true, but it's main concern is happiness or "reward".
It would be way more useful to try to understand the precise process of how these certain things arise and give a name to the "being fooled into".
- Captain Crunch
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 3:42 am
Re: Necessity is the Mother of Invention.
This_and only this---
Is "assumption-assuming Everthing-----Knowing It All
0-0
What? Is thee assumption here?
A=A
Using-versatile-gradiant, incomprehensibly-knowingness as a matter of fact. What fact? Assumption. Say-take a modern-physiological-model 'A' and recline it's interest' of assumption to model 'B.' The models aren't what's apart from you, inherently. You shield the two-by an ego' so large it takes the place of Modern-'A-Egoism.
So, assuming the total query A=A. and..
'Well, bull, it's the 'thought' that counts.' I as in I am assuming this theory is clavical-and stupid!'
But, to the reader' knowing 'assumption' is as good as knowing...(E)verything!
NO! BULL-SHIT!
I guess.
Orenholt---is correct.
As far as the 'ego' is assumed---in every-bit of information on your body.. I was a soldier. I am now a civilian. Spiritually, speaking I'm still a soldier------
;-)The world' is my Kur. ;-)
I decided this-
Is "assumption-assuming Everthing-----Knowing It All
0-0
What? Is thee assumption here?
A=A
Using-versatile-gradiant, incomprehensibly-knowingness as a matter of fact. What fact? Assumption. Say-take a modern-physiological-model 'A' and recline it's interest' of assumption to model 'B.' The models aren't what's apart from you, inherently. You shield the two-by an ego' so large it takes the place of Modern-'A-Egoism.
So, assuming the total query A=A. and..
'Well, bull, it's the 'thought' that counts.' I as in I am assuming this theory is clavical-and stupid!'
But, to the reader' knowing 'assumption' is as good as knowing...(E)verything!
NO! BULL-SHIT!
I guess.
Orenholt---is correct.
As far as the 'ego' is assumed---in every-bit of information on your body.. I was a soldier. I am now a civilian. Spiritually, speaking I'm still a soldier------
;-)The world' is my Kur. ;-)
I decided this-
- Captain Crunch
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 3:42 am
Re: Necessity is the Mother of Invention.
Oops!
I did it' again....
My theory/intelligence-bracket; drops down to "9" no, wait! 0
I'd prefer not to use statements that don't apply anymore:
In the words' of GF:
Squabbly=wabbly
Look:
The terms I use aren't suppose to frieghten' anyone " else"
If that's what your posting on me? Then, I quite this, syrum.
SOS
I did it' again....
My theory/intelligence-bracket; drops down to "9" no, wait! 0
I'd prefer not to use statements that don't apply anymore:
In the words' of GF:
Squabbly=wabbly
Look:
The terms I use aren't suppose to frieghten' anyone " else"
If that's what your posting on me? Then, I quite this, syrum.
SOS