No ego = bullshit

[skipair]

If there was such a thing as having no ego, which I think is probably impossible, then this person would have no problem with me coming over and blowing their head off with a shotgun.

Ego keeps you alive.

[Atum]

Unless he thought it was to the detriment of mankind at large.

[skipair]

Well that person would have an ego: valued attachment to mankind.

[Nick]

Well, when one believes in the inherent existence of the self (ego), the idea of self preservation is much more attractive.

Are you saying an individual operating purely based on a perfect understanding of Reality can not make informed decisions? Like, if I were operating in such a way, I wouldn't be able to make the decision to travel north if I wanted to go to Canada? Or, If someone were trying to kill me I couldn't make the decision to run or fight back? If not, why not?

[skipair]

Are you saying an individual operating purely based on a perfect understanding of Reality can not make informed decisions?

No, I'm saying that there would be no reason to value one decision over another.

[Nick]

They wouldn't value any decision in an emotional sense.

I agree having an ego makes surviving a top priority at the expense of everything else, and it can be very useful in a hostile environment. Without ego the human race probably would have died off a long time ago. But when you say ego keeps you alive, are you saying you can not find any purely logical reasons why a perfectly enlightened individual might value continuing their life instead of dying?

[jupiviv]

An enlightened individual would not care if he is living or dead. However, he would still have an ego because he would have his senses. If we feel anything, we automatically attach some importance to ourselves. He may try to run away if somebody tries to blow his head off, but he certainly won't attempt to fight back - his ego would be too small for him to take such an action.

On the other hand, I seriously doubt the sanity of the individual who would want to blow a person's head off because he wants to see whether that person has an ego.

[skipair]

They wouldn't value any decision in an emotional sense.

Without some form of emotion there is no value.

But when you say ego keeps you alive, are you saying you can not find any purely logical reasons why a perfectly enlightened individual might value continuing their life instead of dying?

Yes.

[Atum]

Fair enough.

Perhaps the enlightened man would still have the momentum of an ego in the mode of goodness. Like a rocket-ship after it has blasted out of orbit and gotten rid of its engines is still carried along in frictionless space.

[skipair]

Perhaps the enlightened man would still have the momentum of an ego in the mode of goodness.

I think if there was no ego, there would be no good or bad. So still we have the case of some ego being left over = some ego being left over.

[Atum]

Perhaps the enlightened man would still have the momentum of an ego in the mode of goodness.

I think if there was no ego, there would be no good or bad. So still we have the case of some ego being left over = some ego being left over.

But the ego would be a shell. It wouldn't be propelling you any more.

[skipair]

But the ego would be a shell. It wouldn't be propelling you any more.

If values=pleasures=attachments=goals=reasons to take action=morals arise it would. That's how I'm defining it and don't see a good reason to do otherwise.

[jupiviv]

Perhaps the enlightened man would still have the momentum of an ego in the mode of goodness.

I think if there was no ego, there would be no good or bad. So still we have the case of some ego being left over = some ego being left over.

I think that the concept of morality is inherently linked with logic. The more perfect the morality, the more perfect the logic behind it, and vice versa. Ordinary concepts of good and bad will not influence the enlightened man, but morality certainly will. An enlightened man, or a genius, has the highest form of morality, because his mind is able to grasp logic most completely.

[Nick]

Without some form of emotion there is no value.

What if one, knowing he is one of only a handful beings who behaves in a perfectly logical manner, values his life because he carries with him the wisdom and knowledge of absolute truth? Just like if someone were to ask him what the nature of existence was, he would value responding to them in a truthful manner in order to perpetuate wisdom, so to would he perpetuate wisdom by preserving and valuing his life. I don't think emotion is necessarily involved just because the perpetuation of wisdom might involve preserving one's life. Maybe value isn't the right word. I'm thinking that the tendency for conscious beings to perpetuate their purpose in life is part of what being a purposeful being is whether they are enlightened or not. What do you think of this?

[skipair]

What if one, knowing he is one of only a handful beings who behaves in a perfectly logical manner, values his life because he carries with him the wisdom and knowledge of absolute truth?

If he knew the absolute truth he would also know that that knowledge has no inherent value.

I'm thinking that the tendency for conscious beings to perpetuate their purpose in life is part of what being a purposeful being is whether they are enlightened or not. What do you think of this?

I think if a person is conscious they automatically value something, which to me means they automatically have an ego. Logic tells us the universe is meaningless and purposeless, so if one lives totally by that, there is nothing really to stop them from getting shot.

[skipair]

I think that the concept of morality is inherently linked with logic.

That's just YOUR morality. There's no universal, inherent law that says that's the case.

[jupiviv]

I think that the concept of morality is inherently linked with logic.

That's just YOUR morality. There's no universal, inherent law that says that's the case.

Logic is universal. And it can be proven that morality is primarily based on logic.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

If there was such a thing as having no ego, which I think is probably impossible, then this person would
have no problem with me coming over and blowing their head off with a shotgun.

Show me first where drives and instincts reside in any organism and in which way they develop and by which mechanism. At which stage an ego could be said to be at work in this process? It seems here you try to include all of existence into ego first and then turn around and claim all existence will always include this ego?

Without some form of emotion there is no value.

The tree therefore does not value sunlight? Or does it perhaps smile while moving upward?

[Nick]

If he knew the absolute truth he would also know that knowledge has no inherent value.

Yes he would know that, but that doesn't mean his purpose ceases to be.

I think if a person is conscious they automatically value something, which to me means they automatically have an ego.

I think value is a word with a lot of egotistical ties which is why I don't like using it, but when it is one's purpose in life to perpetuate truth then it is only natural to "value" (if you want to use that word) his continued survival if it means the survival of truth. He doesn't even have to "value" his life in the sense that you're talking about. He takes the path of least resistance in order to perpetuate truth, and if he lives he lives, if he dies he dies.

Logic tells us the universe is meaningless and purposeless, so if one lives totally by that, there is nothing really to stop them from getting shot.

The universe is meaningless, but anything short of that is not the Universe, so it is impossible to behave in a meaningless and purposeless manner. Even the choice to behave in a purposeless manner would actually be one's purpose. It can't be escaped.

[Loki]

The universe is meaningless, but anything short of that is not the Universe, so it is impossible to behave in a meaningless and purposeless manner.

What about extremely mentally ill people. Is it really fair to say a highly psychotic person is behaving with any kind of purpose or meaning?

Even the choice to behave in a purposeless manner would actually be one's purpose. It can't be escaped.

What about things that can't choose, like rocks? Rocks are purposeless, aren't they?

Purpose/meaning seems to be generated by the perspective we take of things.

[Nick]

What about extremely mentally ill people. Is it really fair to say a highly psychotic person is behaving with any kind of purpose or meaning?

I think that some where in their mind they manage to form some kind of intuitive purpose for their life, but it probably wouldn't make much sense to me or you.

What about things that can't choose, like rocks? Rocks are purposeless, aren't they?

A rock is not capable of deciding a purpose for itself because it lacks any type of cognitive ability. Still, a rock can serve a purpose for me and you, so going by that it's still not entirely without purpose.

Purpose/meaning seems to be generated by the perspective we take of things.

Absolutely, nothing comes built in (inherent) with meaning, we are the ones who decide the meaning of something. We are Gods! muahahahaha...

[Loki]

What about things that can't choose, like rocks? Rocks are purposeless, aren't they?

A rock is not capable of deciding a purpose for itself because it lacks any type of cognitive ability. Still, a rock can serve a purpose for me and you, so going by that it's still not entirely without purpose.

What I do know for certain is that it's impossible to look at a rock and see no effects that it's causing. All things must generate effects, because it's the nature of all things to always produce effects.

But isn't it possible to look at rock and see no purpose or meaning in it?

[Nick]

If we are observing the rock or thinking about the rock then it's always going to be serving at least the "minimal" purpose of helping us distinguish between whatever is not the rock.

[skipair]

Logic is universal. And it can be proven that morality is primarily based on logic.

Have YOU proved this? How?

[skipair]

Show me first where drives and instincts reside in any organism and in which way they develop and by which mechanism.

I can't. I've only observed determination as a constant, and in the face of the infinite this is to no ultimate end but to a personal one.

At which stage an ego could be said to be at work in this process? It seems here you try to include all of existence into ego first and then turn around and claim all existence will always include this ego?

Yeah, I think experience IS egotistical, whether it includes understanding logical implications or not.

S: Without some form of emotion there is no value.

D: The tree therefore does not value sunlight? Or does it perhaps smile while moving upward?

I think the nature of tree values are different from human values. Problem is that talking like this turns ultimately into meaningless jibberish - there is really nothing to say about a logically meaningless universe. All I can do is relay my own experience, that I am driven to be selfish with no alternative other than death.