GENIUS FORUMS

Interfaith-

Did you 'know' baptism-is a deadly' wort?

Leyla Shen wrote: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.

The universe itself is real even if it doesn't have an appearance and things within the universe do have an appearance but it's the illusion that they are separate entities.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: So all volition is now ego? What's wrong with the word "will"? We could discuss if it's free like adults would.

Ego is just desire, it has nothing to do with whether free will exists or not. If you think otherwise please explain.

So all desire is now ego? What's wrong with the word "desire"?

There's nothing wrong with the word desire. We can substitute it if you want.

So all ignorance is now ego? What's wrong with the world "ignorance"?

The ego's suffering isn't only due to ignorance is why.

So sometimes the ego is really a bad ass ego?

Are you saying that its "bad ass" quality is due to the fact that sometimes it knows things that are true?
Well, if you want to put it that way then yes, sometimes the ego is "bad ass".

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".

Easy. Christians for example think that if they accept Jesus as their savior they will go to Heaven. Heaven indicates a state of eternal bliss for them. Their ego says "yes! I want that eternal bliss!" so they accept Jesus as their savior and decide to be Christian rather than Wiccan or Jewish or any other religion.

The universe itself is real even if it doesn't have an appearance and things within the universe do have an appearance but it's the illusion that they are separate entities.

Yeah, like gravity. But that doesn't mean gravity IS aerodynamics, or a plane.

Leyla Shen wrote: Yeah, like gravity. But that doesn't mean gravity IS aerodynamics, or a plane.

I understand where you're coming from but you must understand that we only separate things and give them names for practical purposes. No, we would not say that gravity IS a plane but substitute the word "reality" for both of those and you get "reality IS reality" and that is an undeniable fact.

It's like if the universe was a car. Sure you wouldn't say the motor is the body frame but when you realize they are both just the car itself then you can see where I'm coming from.

No, we would not say that gravity IS a plane but substitute the word "reality" for both of those and you get "reality IS reality" and that is an undeniable fact.

Llool

Wow. You are mad!

Leyla Shen wrote: Llool

Wow. You are mad!

So are you saying that gravity and planes are not part of reality?

Yeah, that must be it...

Orenholt wrote:

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".

Easy. Christians for example think that if they accept Jesus as their savior they will go to Heaven. Heaven indicates a state of eternal bliss for them. Their ego says "yes! I want that eternal bliss!" so they accept Jesus as their savior and decide to be Christian rather than Wiccan or Jewish or any other religion.

Christians accept Jesus because they feel like it's something they should do. They feel "guided". The heavenly stuff is secondary or perhaps serves as a reminder to keep straight later on. I'm not familiar with Christians contemplating eternal bliss much and I know Christianity very well.

You didn't read carefully though and failed to answer in every aspect. How would we call that particular trick of "ego" then? Desire? But is all desire leading to ignorance or just some of it? And how would we call that specific bit since you used up all usual names for something else.

It's also not clear if you see desire as a movement towards a positive feeling or as escape from a negative one. What if it's the same coin? Then seeking satisfaction creates dissatisfaction just the same. And we can define your ego purely negatively as fear based.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Christians accept Jesus because they feel like it's something they should do. They feel "guided". The heavenly stuff is secondary or perhaps serves as a reminder to keep straight later on. I'm not familiar with Christians contemplating eternal bliss much and I know Christianity very well.

They only feel like they "should" do it because they get "reward" from pleasing their imaginary god, whether it's intrinsic or extrinsic motivation doesn't make a difference. But in my experience most people stick with what they were brought up with because of the fear of Hell.

You didn't read carefully though and failed to answer in every aspect. How would we call that particular trick of "ego" then? Desire? But is all desire leading to ignorance or just some of it? And how would we call that specific bit since you used up all usual names for something else.

It's a trick of the ego because Heaven and Hell are not real and the ego/desire wants to be happy so it chooses Heaven.
It's only SOME desire that leads to ignorance. Not all.
If we accept that enlightenment is living without delusion, we know that the ego wants enlightenment and that's not ignorance.

It's also not clear if you see desire as a movement towards a positive feeling or as escape from a negative one. What if it's the same coin? Then seeking satisfaction creates dissatisfaction just the same. And we can define your ego purely negatively as fear based.

Positive and negative ARE 2 sides of the same coin. You cannot have one without the other. Seeking satisfaction doesn't create dissatisfaction. It's that dissatisfaction is a natural state that occurs. Why would you seek satisfaction unless you were already dissatisfied?

Orenholt wrote:They [christians] only feel like they "should" do it because they get "reward" from pleasing their imaginary god, whether it's intrinsic or extrinsic motivation doesn't make a difference.

But what does make a difference is the question if they go for a "reward" or just flee punishment. Perhaps they are looking for "relief". But that's the desire to escape suffering and not reward based but fear based. More like opium based.

It's important to see fear and desire linked because it's not as much the lack of something to gain but an attempt to get rid of an addition, a "sin", a "pressure". It's an element I miss in your presentations so far apart from you saying it's "a natural state" . The running away from is way more interesting to study than what's being run towards.

If we accept that enlightenment is living without delusion, we know that the ego wants enlightenment and that's not ignorance.

The ego, when defined as ignorance, would never strive for its own undoing. Striving for enlightenment is ultimately an illusion, it's the systematic error of the ego, like a loose thread sticking out of a cardigan and neurotically you keep pulling until it starts to unravel. At some point it will look like the unraveling was already happening, that you only thought you desired it once upon a time.

Seeking satisfaction doesn't create dissatisfaction. It's that dissatisfaction is a natural state that occurs. Why would you seek satisfaction unless you were already dissatisfied?

It's a pendulum swing really, like day and night follow each other up or like the seasons. The first one has the unavoidable seeds of the next phase in place. But just because everything works with this swing, even on some neurological or hormonal level perhaps, does not mean we have identified the ignorance yet. Actually we might just have removed some ignorance about cause and effect a little bit.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: But what does make a difference is the question if they go for a "reward" or just flee punishment. Perhaps they are looking for "relief". But that's the desire to escape suffering and not reward based but fear based. More like opium based.

It's important to see fear and desire linked because it's not as much the lack of something to gain but an attempt to get rid of an addition, a "sin", a "pressure". It's an element I miss in your presentations so far apart from you saying it's "a natural state" . The running away from is way more interesting to study than what's being run towards.

Oh, ok. I didn't mean to say that there is no fear involved. Certainly there is but if we take something like the fear of death then it's easy to see why Christians would want there to be Heaven and it's only "natural" that people would fear death. Likewise it's only natural to be dissatisfied with the bad elements in the living realm such as crime or disease etc. That's why people become police officers and doctors.

The ego, when defined as ignorance, would never strive for its own undoing. Striving for enlightenment is ultimately an illusion, it's the systematic error of the ego, like a loose thread sticking out of a cardigan and neurotically you keep pulling until it starts to unravel. At some point it will look like the unraveling was already happening, that you only thought you desired it once upon a time.

I get what you're saying but why would we define ego as ignorance instead of desire?
Also, if we accept that ego is ignorance, why would ANYONE want to be enlightened?

Orenholt wrote: Certainly there is but if we take something like the fear of death then it's easy to see why Christians would want there to be Heaven and it's only "natural" that people would fear death.

It's interesting to observe how Christians have little to no theory about how it would be like in heaven. It's purely defined by what is not there. Anything what's bothering right now, one might assume.

I get what you're saying but why would we define ego as ignorance instead of desire?

Because it would make more sense when talking about it. The way you are defining desire is that a river "desires" to run down to the sea, as if it had a will of its own. But unless one protests gravity itself, there is no problem at all worthy to discuss outside physics or poetry.

Also, if we accept that ego is ignorance, why would ANYONE want to be enlightened?

Good question.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: It's interesting to observe how Christians have little to no theory about how it would be like in heaven. It's purely defined by what is not there. Anything what's bothering right now, one might assume.

Yeah I guess that's true.

I get what you're saying but why would we define ego as ignorance instead of desire?

Because it would make more sense when talking about it. The way you are defining desire is that a river "desires" to run down to the sea, as if it had a will of its own. But unless one protests gravity itself, there is no problem at all worthy to discuss outside physics or poetry.

But you're only assigning ignorance to ego because you think both are bad. Which is the cause of suffering? Desire or ignorance?
Or are you saying desire IS ignorance? If so, why?

Also, if we accept that ego is ignorance, why would ANYONE want to be enlightened?

Good question.

I meant to say if we define ego "like this" then why would anyone want to be enlightened.
It's obvious why someone wouldn't want to be ignorant. It would increase their ability to find pleasure.
But if we say that enlightenment is like the unraveling of a sweater that doesn't make you happy in the end I see no reason to do it.

Orenholt wrote:But you're only assigning ignorance to ego because you think both are bad.

It's more like seeing the ego as a controlling structure in psychological terms which is a key factor in keeping ignorance about itself alive. Some call it "false self".

Or are you saying desire IS ignorance? If so, why?

This is a pointless question since we do not yet agree on what desire might be. Not knowing truth is ignorance. In that context desire could be said to be related to clinging to whatever state or experience that might occur. The word really says a lot. While life affirms itself and tries to last by its very own nature, it can become death if it cannot release.

It's obvious why someone wouldn't want to be ignorant. It would increase their ability to find pleasure.

You're talking here about ignorance as the lack of knowing how to "find pleasure" or knowledge over how to disrupt the suffering. The knowledge of optimized opium distribution?

But if we say that enlightenment is like the unraveling of a sweater that doesn't make you happy in the end I see no reason to do it.

There is none if happiness is the goal. What would be better than happiness, what could be more "rewarding" than any reward?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: It's more like seeing the ego as a controlling structure in psychological terms which is a key factor in keeping ignorance about itself alive. Some call it "false self".

As I've said before, I think the different definitions of ego are what's getting in the way here.

You're talking here about ignorance as the lack of knowing how to "find pleasure" or knowledge over how to disrupt the suffering. The knowledge of optimized opium distribution?

Well let's say that you find out that your wife is cheating on you.
You might be mad at first, but knowing sooner than later will make you happier in the long run.

There is none if happiness is the goal. What would be better than happiness, what could be more "rewarding" than any reward?

That's pretty much my point. Happiness is always the end goal. It's just that the ends don't justify the means if you're a good person.

Is knowing something is good and feeling good the same thing?

If so, what is the process of ego that gives rise to wisdom?

If not, why not?

Leyla Shen wrote:Is knowing something is good and feeling good the same thing?

No, right and good are not always the same.
The ego can feel the goodness of rightness and the goodness of physical pleasures.
One can outweigh the other but a wise person gains their pleasure from the goodness of rightness.
The process of the ego that gives rise to wisdom is knowing what feels the most right.

I am asking you to detail that proess, not simply assert it exists.

Ok I will try.

Say for example you were dissatisfied with the state of the world maybe there were some people you really really hated and wanted to kill because they were acting in an evil manner. But then you thought that you could do far more to stop those kinds of people by getting into a position of power. So instead of just lopping off their heads you work for years to become a leader of some kind and along the way you have some realizations about the world because you want to be the very best like not one ever was. Then you use those realizations not to get revenge but to make the world a better place and rehabilitate those that would do harm to others.

I'm sorry if that's not what you were looking for.
Feel free to ask for specific details that you want because I'm not sure what details you would like.

Orenholt wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: It's more like seeing the ego as a controlling structure in psychological terms which is a key factor in keeping ignorance about itself alive. Some call it "false self".

As I've said before, I think the different definitions of ego are what's getting in the way here.

No, others have been saying that. Especially that your curious definition drives every conversaton off the cliff.

You're talking here about ignorance as the lack of knowing how to "find pleasure" or knowledge over how to disrupt the suffering. The knowledge of optimized opium distribution?

Well let's say that you find out that your wife is cheating on you. You might be mad at first, but knowing sooner than later will make you happier in the long run.

There's no way of knowing what will work out and what not in this example. The point is that the truth in this instance will not be rewarding, that's all what is known from the organic perspective. Why people still want the truth even if they know it hurts is something Kant broke his head over. It's simply because an attachment to truth (conscience) and perhaps a fear it will bite you later at a way worse time.

There is none if happiness is the goal. What would be better than happiness, what could be more "rewarding" than any reward?

That's pretty much my point. Happiness is always the end goal. It's just that the ends don't justify the means if you're a good person.

It's pretty much the viewpoint of a maniac who does not understand conscience. People do all kind of things without knowing if it ever will give them reward. In psychology ego is sometimes defined as giving the ability to delay gratification or even giving up because of other considerations. Apart from the conscience it can be principles like loyalty, self-control, training, fear, shame or some other emotional tie and so on. The end goal is sticking with something and re-affirming it. Someone caught in hurt will re-affirm the hurt. Someone stuck on death and deprivation will end up passing that around as "end goal".

What you call happiness is just a possible side-effect, a feeling which is part of a complex circle of affirmation. But there are many other ways to control and guide behavior. The addiction and focus on happiness is really a dumbing down, to present a really impoverished view on the human experience. It's like taking one bit of the mechanism and only want to talk about this bit. It just doesn't fly! But it tells me a lot about the one trying to pass it off as philosophy.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: No, others have been saying that. Especially that your curious definition drives every conversaton off the cliff.

Yes, both sides have said it.

the 3 definitions we have here are:
1.) the concept of self
2.) desire/pain/pleasure
3.) ignorance

I'm simply saying that 1 and 3 can be eliminated but not 2.

There's no way of knowing what will work out and what not in this example. The point is that the truth in this instance will not be rewarding, that's all what is known from the organic perspective. Why people still want the truth even if they know it hurts is something Kant broke his head over. It's simply because an attachment to truth (conscience) and perhaps a fear it will bite you later at a way worse time.

It's true that it might not always work in your favor but the perception that it potentially could makes people desire the truth.

People do all kind of things without knowing if it ever will give them reward.

True but they THINK they could get some kind of reward either in the end or by simply doing it.

What you call happiness is just a possible side-effect, a feeling which is part of a complex circle of affirmation. But there are many other ways to control and guide behavior. The addiction and focus on happiness is really a dumbing down, to present a really impoverished view on the human experience. It's like taking one bit of the mechanism and only want to talk about this bit. It just doesn't fly! But it tells me a lot about the one trying to pass it off as philosophy.

What does it tell you about me?
What if I get my happiness fix from something like justice or philanthropy or charity?
Am I supposed to deny that I do gain happiness from those things and say that they themselves are the goal?
I'm just honest enough to say that I'm selfish even if my selfishness is helpful to others.

Check out this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest

Orenholt wrote:

People do all kind of things without knowing if it ever will give them reward.

True but they THINK they will get some kind of reward either in the end or by simply doing it.

Not at all. What happens is that they are attached to a certain outcome for its own sake (e.g. truth). Or the reward is to diminish the chance on increased fear in the future in the most cynical view. But there's still not a positive reward in either case.

Perhaps YOU think that everyone always has a reward in mind. But it's the reward of doing what you think needs to be done. To explain that drive with rewards is stretching the term "reward" to include all of causality. But if you want a universal term then it's perhaps "attachment". Some people are attached to truth, like a belief. Just because they value it and would feel "wrong" that something goes against it, does not mean it's now suddenly a reward or happiness. And it's not a given that one even would feel "wrong" if truth is being ignored.

What you also ignore is how most behavior is just repetition, a groove to follow. How that groove was once made is a different story from why it's now being followed and even defended. Sometimes just for groove's sake. It's what can make human behavior seem so pointless and meaningless.

What if I get my happiness fix from something like justice or philanthropy or charity? Am I supposed to deny that I do gain happiness from those things and say that they themselves are the goal?

Well, why not call them selfish and egotistic acts? If that's what they are than lets not call it charity or compassion which provides a whole other impression.

Enlightened self-interest as the article describes it is a mechanical view which does not address ignorance. Yes even genes can be described as selfish and sacrifices are made because the individual gene does not count but the code does. So the individual genes are not selfish at all. It's the same with theories on self-interest with people. It only works when addressing groups and ideas, complete structures, especially group dynamics, social biology and so on. But just not with the individual scope, the idea just breaks down here in so many cases.

Orenholt, you simply aren't breaking it down far enough. Happiness can only be a goal of the ego. Happiness, rewards, heroes, desire, pain - all mean nothing in the face of causation. You're still stuck in giving things a reality in an ultimate sense, because it gives you a sense of purpose. Let it all go.

Russell wrote:Orenholt, you simply aren't breaking it down far enough. Happiness can only be a goal of the ego. Happiness, rewards, heroes, desire, pain - all mean nothing in the face of causation. You're still stuck in giving things a reality in an ultimate sense, because it gives you a sense of purpose. Let it all go.

Ha.. I have no sense of purpose. I lost that maybe 5 years ago.

I know that "ultimately" things aren't real but damn it Mario wants his friggin mushrooms!

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Not at all. What happens is that they are attached to a certain outcome for its own sake (e.g. truth). Or the reward is to diminish the chance on increased fear in the future in the most cynical view. But there's still not a positive reward in either case.

Sometimes "rewards" can be neutral.
Like if you're being tortured with salt in your wounds the "reward" is when it stops for a moment. Sure it's not MUCH of a reward but it's good in contrast.

Perhaps YOU think that everyone always has a reward in mind. But it's the reward of doing what you think needs to be done. To explain that drive with rewards is stretching the term "reward" to include all of causality. But if you want a universal term then it's perhaps "attachment". Some people are attached to truth, like a belief. Just because they value it and would feel "wrong" that something goes against it, does not mean it's now suddenly a reward or happiness. And it's not a given that one even would feel "wrong" if truth is being ignored.

Explain how it's possible to value anything without it giving a "reward" of some kind.

What you also ignore is how most behavior is just repetition, a groove to follow. How that groove was once made is a different story from why it's now being followed and even defended. Sometimes just for groove's sake. It's what can make human behavior seem so pointless and meaningless.

Yes, humans are creatures of habit. They do this because they feel what they are doing is working for them thus far so they continue to do it again and again.

Well, why not call them selfish and egotistic acts? If that's what they are than lets not call it charity or compassion which provides a whole other impression.

Compassion is selfish. If you have compassion for someone you feel bad for them and want to alleviate their suffering because you are suffering vicariously. If you see a little kid crying because he dropped his icecream cone you might buy him another one because you feel sad for him and (maybe unconsciously) you would become happy by making him happy.

Enlightened self-interest as the article describes it is a mechanical view which does not address ignorance.

Maybe that's because ego isn't always about ignorance.

Yes even genes can be described as selfish and sacrifices are made because the individual gene does not count but the code does. So the individual genes are not selfish at all. It's the same with theories on self-interest with people. It only works when addressing groups and ideas, complete structures, especially group dynamics, social biology and so on. But just not with the individual scope, the idea just breaks down here in so many cases.

If people were more concerned with long term happiness than short term the world would be a better place. The answer isn't to get rid of desires, it's to train them to be intelligent.