GENIUS FORUMS

Some at full capacity. Others beyond...

Logically there is no "beyond" full capacity. It's like saying there can be more than the Totality.

I see. How about this:

more than the Totality.

Extra.

"beyond" full capacity

Burst.

Extra? Burst? You talking about some new kind of gum?

Or metaphor -- Ego and the Totality are like Doublemint?

No comprende, mi amigo.

LOL

Mr. Wrigley? Is that you?

Definitions:

Ego - "the mistaken notion of "I", a separate self, from which all confusion and suffering arises."

Totality - "entirety; the state of being total and complete"

[quote="Mirage"]Ego - "the mistaken notion of "I", a separate self, from which all confusion and suffering arises."

if indifference and alienation and cruelty exists in the world and in individual minds, then there's surely a seperate self.

ego: that which suffers and seeks enlightenment

Do no harm,
clyde

The ego is part of the self that drives and strives to revive and deprive any doubt about...

The self, ultimately.

Faust13 wrote:if indifference and alienation and cruelty exists in the world and in individual minds, then there's surely a seperate self.

Indifference, alienation and cruelty are things that exist conventionally (nominally and relatively) but do not have any inherent existence.

DHodges wrote:

Faust13 wrote:if indifference and alienation and cruelty exists in the world and in individual minds, then there's surely a seperate self.

Indifference, alienation and cruelty are things that exist conventionally (nominally and relatively) but do not have any inherent existence.

what do you mean by conventionally (nominally and relatively)

then the seperate self also exists nominally and conventionally, however this nominalness and conventionalness occurs all the time. It is possible to be alienated your entire life, will you not have a seperate self then? So at this point it's useless to talk about inherent existence, it's useful to realize that the seperate self exists as long as other people and consequently indifference exists.

Faust13 wrote:

DHodges wrote:Indifference, alienation and cruelty are things that exist conventionally (nominally and relatively) but do not have any inherent existence.

what do you mean by conventionally (nominally and relatively)

I mean the way they exist is similar to the way the state of Utah exists. Utah is certainly something you can talk about - it's a real thing - but it only exists as the state of Utah because of some lines drawn arbitrarily on a map. There is nothing about a particular piece of land that makes it intrinsically Utah and not, say, Wyoming. Utah exists as a human convention: it exists conventionally. We give it the name Utah: it exists nominally. The borders of Utah are defined relative to other states (Utah ends where Wyoming begins) or relative to map co-ordinates or something. It does not exist on its own; it exists relative to a certain context and set of definitions.

Alienation is the same. There is no state that is objectively alienation. You feel alienated relative to a specific culture or group. It exists as you define states that you consider to be more or less alienated. You can talk about alienation because you have some mental conception of what it would be like to not be alienated (or at least less alienated).

then the seperate self also exists nominally and conventionally, however this nominalness and conventionalness occurs all the time.

Yes, exactly.

So at this point it's useless to talk about inherent existence, it's useful to realize that the seperate self exists as long as other people and consequently indifference exists.

The self exists in the same way - nominally, conventionally, relatively. There is a line you have drawn; on one side is "me", on the other side is "not me." But it's just a line you have drawn, like the line separating Utah from Wyoming.

So that is the sense in which there "is" a self, just as there "is" a state called Utah that is separate from Wyoming. It's just that what we call Utah and what we call Wyoming is, in the end, arbitrary. The distinction does not exists "out there" on its own (i.e., inherently).