GENIUS FORUMS

jupiviv wrote:Kelly: I think a plant, or a dead or asleep or comatose person, would by default have an ego, if there were sufficient consciousness, unless they [it] were definitely rational.

Jupta: But does a plant or a dead person have sufficient consciousness? Not to my knowledge.

If, by some chance, a plant or dead person were brought to a state of sufficient consciousness......

And what you said here doesn't tie in with what you said in the quote above. Ego(the sense of a self) only arises with consciousness.

With a certain level of consciousness. Plant consciousness is too low, but it still manifests the basics of the ego (the automatic immune response, for instance).

When this consciousness reaches its full, there is no self to be conscious of, since the self is fully conscious. Thus - the person is ego-less.

No, the egoless person still uses concepts of self. But how self exists is understood, so the deluded belief in intrinsic existence which forms the ego, is dropped.

In the case of an unconscious thing, there is no self to be conscious of, since there is no consciousness. It's quite simple to understand.

Yes. But if there were by some chance conditions whereby consciousness were increased, then, unless the consciousness were increased to the point of perfect reasoning about the nature of the self, there would be an ego.


.

cousinbasil wrote:

Kelly wrote:If self-mortification is not based in reason, then how can it reveal the true nature of self (and therefore lead to the abandoning of ego)?

Surely you must comprehend that self-mortification is a more visceral warfare. You need not know the character of your enemy to shell his ramparts or to besiege them and starve him to death.

All the worst warfare is based in a person's love of their irrational mind.

Your notion of abandoning the ego is faulty because your concept of what the ego is appears flawed. It cannot be abandoned - this too is a delusion. It would be like saying that if the besieging army decided to pack up and go home, the fortress it had been attacking would cease to exist.

The besieging army (all true thoughts) can indeed conquer the stronghold (all false thoughts), but it won't if it gives up before the battle is won. False thoughts are real; the false thoughts are the convictions that things exist intrinsically. Such thoughts aren't illusory. They are real. They exist like anything else. And they are conquered with true thoughts.

The ego is made up of all those thoughts, emotions, ideals, values, and perceptions based on a wrong core belief, namely, that things - particularly the self - exist intrinsically. So it is possible to abandon the ego, if one has a strong enough will to truth.


.

Kelly wrote:All the worst warfare is based in a person's love of their irrational mind.

I will bet you do not even know the derivation of the word rational.

Kelly Jones wrote:If, by some chance, a plant or dead person were brought to a state of sufficient consciousness......

But they don't have consciousness, to my knowledge, which is why I used them as examples of completely unconscious beings. The question of "if" they had sufficient consciousness is a whole different issue.

Plant consciousness is too low, but it still manifests the basics of the ego (the automatic immune response, for instance).

No, plants don't have any consciousness at all - at least, all the plants that I know of - so there is no ego. Automatic immune response is not an example of consciousness/ego.

No, the egoless person still uses concepts of self.

The concept of the self is that it is all concepts. But the self cannot be conscious of itself, for the same reason that an eye can't see itself.

cousinbasil wrote:

Kelly wrote:All the worst warfare is based in a person's love of their irrational mind.

I will bet you do not even know the derivation of the word rational.

Your argument isn't rational. Being a linguist or etymologist doesn't mean one is rational.

But as I'm interested in the evolution of language, I'll guess without checking a dictionary that it's present form is closest to the Latin "ratio", with meaning something like calculate or standard. It's possibly connected to the root word for radical (meaning, root).

jupiviv wrote:Kelly: If, by some chance, a plant or dead person were brought to a state of sufficient consciousness......

Jupta: But they don't have consciousness, to my knowledge, which is why I used them as examples of completely unconscious beings. The question of "if" they had sufficient consciousness is a whole different issue.

The point is really that egolessness requires the process of reasoning about the self. Therefore, any level of consciousness that has not had that process happen, would result in an ego (however softened). Simply being unconscious doesn't make one enlightened.

No, plants don't have any consciousness at all

Of course, it's something one can only guess at.

Automatic immune response is not an example of consciousness/ego.

I didn't say it is an example of consciousness, but it demonstrates ego by the instinctive need for the self to be unified against external threats.

The concept of the self is that it is all concepts. But the self cannot be conscious of itself, for the same reason that an eye can't see itself.

Well, if the concept of the self is all concepts, meaning, everything, and if one knows the Infinite is everything then one experiences the Infinite in all things one is conscious of.

But if one uses a concept of self abstractly to mean one's bodily organism and its unique thoughts, as a finite entity different from others, then the mind which is conscious of all concepts, including that one, can be conscious of it as a generalisation.


Are we getting off-topic, do you think? Or do you think this is assisting in clarifying what you meant by egotistical helping?


.

Kelly Jones wrote:But as I'm interested in the evolution of language, I'll guess without checking a dictionary that it's present form is closest to the Latin "ratio", with meaning something like calculate or standard. It's possibly connected to the root word for radical (meaning, root).

I was right, but not that it proves anything at all:

rational: late 14c., "pertaining to reason;" mid-15c., "endowed with reason," from L. rationalis "of or belonging to reason, reasonable," from ratio (gen. rationis) "reckoning, calculation, reason" (see ratio).

ratio 1636, "reason, rationale," from L. ratio "reckoning, calculation, business affair, procedure," also "reason," from rat-, pp. stem of reri "to reckon, calculate," also "think" (see reason). Mathematical sense is attested from 1660.

reason early 13c., "statement in an argument," also "intellectual faculty that adopts actions to ends," from Anglo-Fr. resoun, O.Fr. raison, from L. rationem (nom. ratio) "reckoning, understanding, motive, cause," from ratus, pp. of reri "to reckon, think," from PIE base *rei- "to reason, count" (cf. O.E. rædan "to advise; see read). Meaning "sanity" is recorded from, late 14c. The verb (c.1300) is from O.Fr. raisoner, from L.L. rationare "to discourse." Originally "to question (someone)," sense of "employ reasoning (with someone)" is from 1847, and that of "to think in a logical manner" is from 1590s. Phrase it stands to reason is from 1630s. Age of Reason "the Enlightenment" is first recorded 1794, as the title of Tom Paine's book.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=rational

But I was wrong about associating ratus with radix "root". I can't remember "reri" when I studied Latin at high school and university. Probably because none of our texts were about reason, only about gladiators, statesmanship, farming, women, and so forth.


.

cousinbasil wrote:

Kelly wrote:All the worst warfare is based in a person's love of their irrational mind.

I will bet you do not even know the derivation of the word rational.

Ratio= division?

Bobo wrote:Ratio= division?

Thanks, Bobo - now Kelly does not have to go look it up. Note that many of the most important numbers in mathematics are the irrational numbers. And some of the most powerful mathematics takes place with imaginary numbers as opposed to with just real numbers.

Kelly Jones wrote:The point is really that egolessness requires the process of reasoning about the self.

If ego is defined as the deluded concept of the self, then you need to be either unconscious or fully conscious to be ego-less, but for different reasons.

Simply being unconscious doesn't make one enlightened.

I never said it did. What was your argument again?

Automatic immune response is not an example of consciousness/ego.

I didn't say it is an example of consciousness, but it demonstrates ego by the instinctive need for the self to be unified against external threats.

If ego is defined as above, then an automatic immune response doesn't imply ego.

Are we getting off-topic, do you think?

Yes. You should make another topic to discuss the ego/self/consciousness issue.

cousinbasil wrote:

Bobo wrote:Ratio= division?

Thanks, Bobo - now Kelly does not have to go look it up. Note that many of the most important numbers in mathematics are the irrational numbers.

If I respond directly and simply as I usually do, will you get agitated again? Or will you let all that ad hominem rubbish drop, and gladly settle for some serious intellectual conversation?


.

jupiviv wrote:If ego is defined as the deluded concept of the self, then you need to be either unconscious or fully conscious to be ego-less, but for different reasons.

---

Kelly: Simply being unconscious doesn't make one enlightened.

Jupta: I never said it did.

Enlightenment's vital essence is the realisation that the ego is a mistake. Look above at your first sentence. Thus, the unconscious being (plant, etc.) cannot be egoless.

You should make another topic to discuss the ego/self/consciousness issue.

I think I'll leave it at the above.


.

cousinbasil wrote:

Bobo wrote:Ratio= division?

Thanks, Bobo - now Kelly does not have to go look it up. Note that many of the most important numbers in mathematics are the irrational numbers. And some of the most powerful mathematics takes place with imaginary numbers as opposed to with just real numbers.

I think she looked it up... But the second google link goes more to the core:

"Noun

ration (plural rations)

1. A portion designated to a person or group."

The core of rationality is ratio, not ration. But ratio in Latin doesn't mean what it means in English. Also, it has several meanings in Latin; moreover, it comes from ratus, the past participle of reri, so neither ration, ratio, nor ratus, are the root stem of "rationality". But the whole thing is a joke, because words are derived infinitely. The person who invented a word takes an idea from something else (other thoughts, environmental stimuli), so looking for the origin or root of anything is a fool's enterprise.

Kelly Jones wrote:The core of rationality is ratio, not ration.

It seems that I'm one step ahead.

Kelly Jones wrote:so looking for the origin or root of anything is a fool's enterprise.

Also to be "interested in the evolution of language"?



---
PS: Deriving doesn't necessarily means going to the origin or root of anything.

Bobo wrote:KJ: The core of rationality is ratio, not ration.

B: It seems that I'm one step ahead.

It seems not. You wrote about rations, an English word, rather than the more ancient "ratio" (the Latin word, not the English one).

KJ: so looking for the origin or root of anything is a fool's enterprise.

B: Also to be "interested in the evolution of language"?

The theory of evolution never looks for absolute origins.

PS: Deriving doesn't necessarily means going to the origin or root of anything.

Again, from etymonline.com --

derive late 14c., from O.Fr. deriver "to flow, pour out; derive, originate," from L. derivare "to lead or draw off (a stream of water) from its source" (in L.L. also "to derive"), from phrase de rivo (de "from" + rivus "stream;" see rivulet). Etymological sense is 1550s. Related: Derived; deriving.

I think the person who chose to use "derivare" in a more abstract sense was a genius.


.

Kelly Jones wrote:It seems not. You wrote about rations, an English word, rather than the more ancient "ratio" (the Latin word, not the English one).

That's why I was one step ahead.

Kelly Jones wrote: I think the person who chose to use "derivare" in a more abstract sense was a genius.

I think that I and 'assclubioni' were using derivare in a more abstract sense.

Kelly Jones wrote:Enlightenment's vital essence is the realisation that the ego is a mistake. Look above at your first sentence. Thus, the unconscious being (plant, etc.) cannot be egoless.

The ego is a delusion. You need to be conscious to have delusions. The plant is not conscious. Therefore it doesn't have delusions. Therefore it doesn't have an ego.

It's not true egolessness, is all I'm saying. It's absence of the conditions which would show the true state of affairs. For example, a light bulb doesn't stop being a light bulb when the electric circuit is broken. It's just a lightbulb switched off.

Egotism manifests as an instinctive, automatic impulse to form a self, function consistently to continue to maintain that form, and attack threats to the self. Returning to the three illustrations:

- A sleeping egotist doesn't become egoless. He still has an ego: when he awakes, this is apparent in his behaviour.
- Plants maintain and regrow a consistently patterned self, replicate the self in various forms of reproduction, release toxins to defend this self (e.g. the stem, leaves, and greening skin of sun-exposed potato tubers, are all poisonous to humans - so don't eat green potatoes), form certain chemicals to attract bacteria to provide them with metabolic processes to access soil nutrients, and even catch insects to feed on.
- The dead manifest it to some degree, since they'd remain intact if protected from the inroads of humidity, warmth, bacteria, insects, scavengers, etc.

To be truly egoless requires conscious dismantling of the delusion of the ego. It doesn't happen simply by switching the lights of consciousness off, or having no light.

The ego isn't a dynamic of Nature that was suddenly invented with consciousness. It is part of the congealing and disbanding fluctuations of Nature: the instinct of chaos, if you like. The ego is far more innate to all forms than wisdom, since the heightened state of enlightened consciousness requires so much energy and time to evolve. And only the latter knows and transcends the blind grouping play of Nature. Nature itself is a creative instinct to group and regroup, not ungroup.

Kelly Jones wrote:It's not true egolessness, is all I'm saying. It's absence of the conditions which would show the true state of affairs.

I don't know what you mean by "true egolessness". I could equally well say that an enlightened person is not "truly" egoless because there is an absence of the conditions which would show the true state of affairs - i.e, unconscious egolessness. As far as I can see, there is no conflict between fully conscious egolessness, and unconscious egolessness - they are simply different things.

Plants can't be said to have a self if they seem unconscious, and they do seem unconscious. The "self" that plants may be said to have is either purely poetic(referring to the actions of the plant), or a contradiction in terms.

jupiviv wrote:I don't know what you mean by "true egolessness". I could equally well say that an enlightened person is not "truly" egoless because there is an absence of the conditions which would show the true state of affairs - i.e, unconscious egolessness. As far as I can see, there is no conflict between fully conscious egolessness, and unconscious egolessness - they are simply different things.

In the eyes of causation, the unconsciousness of plants is the exact same thing as the false consciousness that ordinary people exhibit, only seemingly less complex. Ego can be said to be in play in both scenarios, as a "selfishness" can be observed. I can see that you prefer to use "ego" in a more practical sense (in regard to human consciousness), but from the ultimate perspective, it embodies much more than ordinary human unconsciousness.

Plants can't be said to have a self if they seem unconscious, and they do seem unconscious. The "self" that plants may be said to have is either purely poetic(referring to the actions of the plant), or a contradiction in terms.

Plants observe a "self" just as much as a person with a false conscious. Ego implies that they both perform selfishly as they are caused to do. Enlightenment is a sort of transcendent observation of causation.

bluerap wrote:Plants observe a "self" just as much as a person with a false conscious. Ego implies that they both perform selfishly as they are caused to do. Enlightenment is a sort of transcendent observation of causation.

This is clearly not true. First, you have not defined what a person "with a false conscious" actually is. You are using your comparison with a plant as your working definition. I can argue that no matter how removed from "enlightenment" any person is, that person is also removed from the state of being plantlike to some degree. A person with false consciousness has, if nothing else, potential for advancement that a plant cannot be said to possess.

jupiviv wrote:The "self" that plants may be said to have is either purely poetic(referring to the actions of the plant), or a contradiction in terms.

I have to agree with jupiviv here. It would seem that this view is more correct because it assumes nothing about plants that observation does not reveal.