Dance Monkey Dance

Nick · Post by **Nick** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:03 am

I hate monkeys that pretend their not monkeys...god damn monkeys!

Carl G · Post by **Carl G** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:49 am

drowden wrote:Grow up.

Juvenile response.

Guess this is the off-hours lounge for sages.

Sorry to be serious. Ha, great video. Fun. Is that better?

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 6:25 am

Carl wrote:

Guess this is the off-hours lounge for sages.

I thought it either was or could be used as such.

By the way, the ability to recognize humor is one form of intelligence...

Tharan · Post by **Tharan** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 6:38 am

Being Enlightened doesn't make you humorless. Even Buddha was smiling, haven't you seen the statues?

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 6:53 am

I agree with mookestink that this video is juvenile. If this represents the fruits of philosophy, the pinnacle of thought, then I am glad I'm just a monkey who is incapable of such stupidity.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 7:43 am

I think they try to keep what they think are pinnacles on the genius forum, and "other stuff" on worldly matters.

Isn't a more advanced genius supposed to be well rounded (and I don't mean "having a body like Buddha")?

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 7:47 am

Yeah, putting that film together probably gave the guy who put it together a momentary release from his unusual level of misanthropy.

I'm glad I watched the video though, and I admit that it did amuse me even though I realize the guy who made it is obviously lacking in understanding.

The 'monkey' thing was a juvenile gimmick.

I guess the creator of that film is convinced that humanities problem is its penchant for self-aggrandizing - - - and nobody gives off the odour of self aggrandization like Nietzche does.

But considering it is only a 3:00 minuite video, they didnt do too bad a job in capturing the absurdity of the human condition.

I'd like to hear the directors thoughts on what humanity needs to do to turn itself around.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 7:53 am

CP wrote:

It illustrates how feeble the species is as a whole, but by illustrating the problem, the solution becomes self-evident.

I think the director's thoughts on what humanity needs to do to turn the problem around is to just get over ourselves. That was the main truth that I found so true as to be funny.

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 8:18 am

Elizabeth wrote:

I think the director's thoughts on what humanity needs to do to turn the problem around is to just get over ourselves. That was the main truth that I found so true as to be funny.

Do you equate 'getting over yourself' with 'ending the ego'?

And do you think 'ending the ego' is an easy thing to do?

sue hindmarsh · Post by **sue hindmarsh** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 8:44 am

Dan wrote:

Hahaha. Don't "work" me Sue.

Well Dan, you posted it. If you donâ€™t want to catch any fish â€“ stop throwing out the line.

-
Sue

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 10:29 am

Cory asked:

Do you equate 'getting over yourself' with 'ending the ego'?

Yes, pardon the colliquialism.

and:

And do you think 'ending the ego' is an easy thing to do?

Ooph - good question. Ending the ego is painful, and the stronger the ego that ends, the more painful it is. In that way, it is not easy. But "easy" as in accomplishable? That's different.

I didn't have any choice in the matter, so as painful as it was - repeatedly - it was as easy as falling off a dock after being shoved. There are a number of people whose egos get at least nearly killed, but the body lives on. In these cases, ending the ego is easy. Everybody gets their egos wounded, but how fatal that wound is to the ego - that's a function of too many things to pin down. There are variables that make each individual's experiences with their egos a truly unique experience.

What the individual does with the mind left in the body then somehow becomes more of a choice, at least at first. The mind keeps trying to grow another ego. If the mind happens to grow an ego that's comfortable, even fun, the mind is going to try to hold on to that one even more firmly than the other egos it once had. In that case, ending the ego is not easy.

The more egos that die, or the more times the ego is recussitated, the easier it is to choose to make the ego go away. The longer and better any ego is protected, the stronger it gets.

So Cory, my answer is that although ending the ego is painful (although the moment the ego is gone is a relief), sometimes for some people it is impossibly easy, and for others, it is impossibly hard.

Shardrol · Post by **Shardrol** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 12:54 pm

sue hindmarsh wrote:And what about the line in the video where he says that monkeys are â€œcursed with consciousnessâ€ - what the...?

That's known as 'irony'.
.

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:25 am

Elizabeth wrote,

What the individual does with the mind left in the body then somehow becomes more of a choice, at least at first

Why wasnâ€™t ones actions based on choice preceding the ego death? And why do you say that after ones ego dies, one now has choice - -but only â€˜at firstâ€™?

Why 'at first'?

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 4:43 am

There was a choice before, hence "more of" a choice. When the ego is gone, the ego does not get in the way of clear thinking and clear understanding (understanding connotates "input" more and thinking connotates more "output" even thought the concepts are similar).

"At first" references what I explained about regrowth of the ego or growth of a new ego. At that point, the ego isn't gone anymore, but the growth process is so subtle that it may take several rounds of ego-ectomies before one becomes able to recognize when a new ego-weed is sprouting.

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 6:22 am

There was a choice before, hence "more of" a choice. When the ego is gone, the ego does not get in the way of clear thinking and clear understanding

So the bigger the ego's we have, the more choices we have?

the less of an ego, the less of a choice?

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 7:18 am

No, almost exactly the opposite. The bigger the ego, the harder to see around to ego to see ultimate truth. The ego stands between a person and the truth, so the less of an ego, the less in the way of seeing truth.

A person with a big ego will decide for himself what is true, and if it does not match ultimate truth, he will not change his mind becasue all he really sees is his ego (and any delusions painted on the ego).

A person without an ego will be willing to admit when he is wrong, will see when things change, and will be flexible enough to know the new reality or the greater reality than he saw before.

The motto of an egomaniac is "I'm right and you're wrong" even when presented with overwhelming evidence. The egomaniac does not grow.

*******************************

I feel it necessary to really delineate this as a separate (although related) thought:

The danger of no ego (versus having a healthy ego) is that if the person without an ego does not have the intelligence to function without one, he may blow from one fancy to another and never be grounded in truth.

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 8:42 am

Elizabeth wrote,

If one does not have the intelligence to function without an ego, one may blow from one fancy to another and never be grounded in truth.

Isnt 'blowing from one fancy to another' egotistical activity?

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 8:57 am

It could be if it were the fancy of one's self, but the egoless moron would be riveted to every infomercial, continually convinced that each item offered was the answer to all of his problems in that area, be convinced that every word of Dianetics was true until page 376 when the Mormons ring his doorbell and he joins The Church of Latter Day Saints - but on his way to Utah, a card-carrying member of The Church of Satan sits next to him, and before he crosses state lines, he's calling out "Hail Satan" at the bus stop. You get the idea.

It wouldn't be as bad if the individual had some more intelligence, but there would be a scale to this.

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:54 am

Elizabeth wrote:

It could be if it were the fancy of one's self, but the egoless moron would be riveted to every infomercial, continually convinced that each item offered was the answer to all of his problems in that area, be convinced that every word of Dianetics was true until page 376 when the Mormons

I don't see any reason why you think that this 'moron' is egoless. You seem to equate 'naivity, docility, and meekness' as egolessness. This is incorrect.

Besides, the moron that you were depicting was a cartoon character.

Stupid people arent that one dimensional in real life.

Handicap people in real life are more complicated than that.

They get angry, have sorrows, and their pleasures are accompanied by bordom and forms of hurt and frusteration just like a person with a very high IQ.

To be egoless is to be intelligent enough to percieve the illusion of the ego as something that exists to begin with.

In other words, someone who is truly without selfishness, who is without a sense of 'me', is someone who sees that his or her ego wasnt even real to begin with.

This requires tremendous 'attention, consciousness, and energy'.

'Ending the ego' is really a misleading phrase.

To see through the illusion of self is more accurate.

And it requires tremendous intelligence to do that.

Much more than a monkey.

So in that sense, humans are not just monkeys and we have the potentional to be more than mere human.

Blair · Post by **Blair** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:56 pm

Some humanist's answer to the monkey video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZJrcsS1MEU

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 2:09 pm

Cory wrote:

I don't see any reason why you think that this 'moron' is egoless. You seem to equate 'naivity, docility, and meekness' as egolessness.

No, I do not. The point I was trying to convey is that a moron without an ego can become more susceptible to the hazards of naivity.

And I'd hardly classify calling out "Hail Satan" at a bus stop as "meekness."

and:

Stupid people arent that one dimensional in real life.

I know; I was trying to simplify the example for illustrative purposes.

and:

Handicap people in real life are more complicated than that.

I know; this was merely an illustration. I have a lot more experiences and exposure than you are giving me credit for in the above post.

They get angry, have sorrows, and their pleasures are accompanied by bordom and forms of hurt and frusteration just like a person with a very high IQ.

I don't think that they are just alike. I have a friend who is blind and has brain damage. I think his anger and sorrows are far more justified than any of mine - especially when he fell down the stairs and broke both of his arms. He had to move to a 2 story building because his old place was condemned and couldn't afford anyplace else. I hear his frustration when his brain damage makes it so that can't remember which redial button goes to who, or where he set something down, and he can't see to figure it out. I'm closer friends with his wife, who is bipolar and has schizoaffective disorder. She is probably about as intelligent as I am except when the VA rotates psychiatrists and they mess up her meds again. She is still my dear friend even when her meds are so off that it is barely possible for anyone to communicate with her. I know some of the things handicapped go through.

Technically, my post traumatic stress disorder makes me handicapped because even though I have managed to deflect many of the symptoms and incorporate most of the rest of the symptoms into a functional personality without having to stay on medication, there is nothing that can "cure" the startle reflex that is bad enough to significantly bother others, including a couple of supervisors that I used to have.

I do understand.

And the monkey video used humor to illustrate a point. Taking humor literally negates the humor and causes a person to miss the point.

and:

To be egoless is to be intelligent enough to percieve the illusion of the ego as something that exists to begin with.

In other words, someone who is truly without selfishness, who is without a sense of 'me', is someone who sees that his or her ego wasnt even real to begin with.

This requires tremendous 'attention, consciousness, and energy'.
...
And it requires tremendous intelligence to do that.

In one of the facilities where I worked taking care of mentally retarded and developmentally disabled adults, there was a guy who was born without a brain, only a brain stem (he was about 30 years old when I was there). He was my favorite client. He was fascinating - everything that he did was exactly what a human body is - if he was in severe pain, he would scream, but only exactly as long as the pain lasted. He had no memory of the pain, so as soon as whatever was hurting him stopped, there was no sign that anything was ever wrong. Same with pleasure - he would smile and gurgle "ahh" when I would rub his head, but the second I stopped he would go back to a spaced-out look. If I rubbed his head in intervals, no matter how close the interval, he would experience pleasure when his head was being rubbed and it would stop in between. I showed the nurses that phenomenon once - the client said "Aah - ah- aaaah - ah" exactly in the duration of his head meing rubbed. It was cute, and it was not mean because he did not experience any frustration at the stimulus being withdrawn.

I would say that this man had no ego, but neither did he have attention or much conciousness (there was a difference between when he sort of seemed to be asleep and when he was awake, but not much).

I agree that there is a difference between ending the ego and seeing the illusion of self, but I also think that a person can accomplish one, the other, or both.

sue hindmarsh · Post by **sue hindmarsh** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 7:26 pm

Shardrol wrote:

Sue: And what about the line in the video where he says that monkeys are â€œcursed with consciousnessâ€ - what the...?
That's known as 'irony'.

What do you think the film was about?

-
Sue

Kevin Solway · Post by **Kevin Solway** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 7:36 pm

I think the video was effective.

Though it did use an overstretched gimmick to grab the viewer's attention, it was still thought provoking.

The images were good, and I liked the music.

I'd like to see it as part of a series. The next one could be "All men are gods", or suchlike.

What do you think the film was about?

I'd like to think it was about challenging the ego, but I don't think there was enough consciousness behind it to have any distinct purpose. It was like rhyming poetry, with the words decided by whether they rhyme or not.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:00 pm

The "What We REALLY Are" video, which prince posted, was a lot more truthful...even though it's not as funny as the other one.

Yep...sometimes truthfulness and honesty is hard to swallow. It's much easier to laugh at something half baked, than to listen to something sensible.

Kevin Solway · Post by **Kevin Solway** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:34 pm

I found a website that enables you to save these videos to your own harddrive. You just copy and paste the URL to the video, then use the download link when it appears.

http://keepvid.com/

[You may need to download the free flv player]