No ego = bullshit
No ego = bullshit
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.
Ego keeps you alive.
Re: No ego = bullshit
Unless he thought it was to the detriment of mankind at large.
Re: No ego = bullshit
Well that person would have an ego: valued attachment to mankind.
Re: No ego = bullshit
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?
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?
Re: No ego = bullshit
No, I'm saying that there would be no reason to value one decision over another.Nick Treklis wrote:Are you saying an individual operating purely based on a perfect understanding of Reality can not make informed decisions?
Re: No ego = bullshit
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?
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?
Re: No ego = bullshit
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.
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.
Re: No ego = bullshit
Without some form of emotion there is no value.Nick Treklis wrote:They wouldn't value any decision in an emotional sense.
Yes.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?
Re: No ego = bullshit
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.
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.
Re: No ego = bullshit
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 wrote:Perhaps the enlightened man would still have the momentum of an ego in the mode of goodness.
Re: No ego = bullshit
But the ego would be a shell. It wouldn't be propelling you any more.skipair wrote: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 wrote:Perhaps the enlightened man would still have the momentum of an ego in the mode of goodness.
Re: No ego = bullshit
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.Atum wrote:But the ego would be a shell. It wouldn't be propelling you any more.
Re: No ego = bullshit
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.skipair wrote: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 wrote:Perhaps the enlightened man would still have the momentum of an ego in the mode of goodness.
Re: No ego = bullshit
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 wrote:Without some form of emotion there is no value.
Re: No ego = bullshit
If he knew the absolute truth he would also know that that knowledge has no inherent value.Nick Treklis wrote: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?
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.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?
Re: No ego = bullshit
That's just YOUR morality. There's no universal, inherent law that says that's the case.jupiviv wrote:I think that the concept of morality is inherently linked with logic.
Re: No ego = bullshit
Logic is universal. And it can be proven that morality is primarily based on logic.skipair wrote:That's just YOUR morality. There's no universal, inherent law that says that's the case.jupiviv wrote:I think that the concept of morality is inherently linked with logic.
- Diebert van Rhijn
- Posts: 6469
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Re: No ego = bullshit
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?skipair wrote: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.
The tree therefore does not value sunlight? Or does it perhaps smile while moving upward?skipair wrote:Without some form of emotion there is no value.
Re: No ego = bullshit
Yes he would know that, but that doesn't mean his purpose ceases to be.skipair wrote:If he knew the absolute truth he would also know that knowledge has no inherent value.
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.skipair wrote:I think if a person is conscious they automatically value something, which to me means they automatically have an ego.
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.skipair wrote: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.
Re: No ego = bullshit
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?Nick Treklis wrote: 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 things that can't choose, like rocks? Rocks are purposeless, aren't they?Even the choice to behave in a purposeless manner would actually be one's purpose. It can't be escaped.
Purpose/meaning seems to be generated by the perspective we take of things.
Re: No ego = bullshit
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.Loki wrote: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?
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.Loki wrote:What about things that can't choose, like rocks? Rocks are purposeless, aren't they?
Absolutely, nothing comes built in (inherent) with meaning, we are the ones who decide the meaning of something. We are Gods! muahahahaha...Loki wrote:Purpose/meaning seems to be generated by the perspective we take of things.
Re: No ego = bullshit
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.Nick Treklis wrote: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.Loki wrote:What about things that can't choose, like rocks? Rocks are purposeless, aren't they?
But isn't it possible to look at rock and see no purpose or meaning in it?
Re: No ego = bullshit
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.
Re: No ego = bullshit
Have YOU proved this? How?jupiviv wrote:Logic is universal. And it can be proven that morality is primarily based on logic.
Re: No ego = bullshit
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.Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Show me first where drives and instincts reside in any organism and in which way they develop and by which mechanism.
Yeah, I think experience IS egotistical, whether it includes understanding logical implications or not.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?
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.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?