Do all children prefer to have immortal egos?

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 12:51 am

It's the same thing. There is no lie.

I was remembering what you said and put what I thought you meant in my own words rather than go search for it.

The result was a slightly edited and simplified quote.

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:13 am

Here is the misquote:

cory's misquote of Kow: Consciousness is the the dawning of the sense of existing, and this is the birth of ego, the 'inner', the subjective state.

and here is kow's actual quote:

kow: Consciousness is the sense of existing. The dawning of that sense is the birth of ego, the 'inner', the subjective state.

There's really not any significant difference, is there?

Then why do you think that its an affront? It is superficial.

Kow, you've made special claims that you refuse to take the time to explain, (your wakefulfulness during the dawning of ego) and so that makes you seem like a vain, spoiled child to me.

And just because I don't understand your wakefull ego development, that means I don't understand something as simple as the observer is the observed. That's a basic thing, but some reason according to you I dont have direct perception of it!

Why dont I? Because I misintepret your gibberish?

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:36 am

If you would have stopped with the first post on this page, there would have been no response and the sleeping dog would have been left to lie. Talking about lies though: it is clear that you lied and to claim otherwise is to insult the intelligence of the general population of this forum.

As to your misunderstanding of posts; a classic example of your reading and comprehending ineptitude has already been given. You should have said that you haven't quite gotten through "See Spot Run", yet.

Steven Coyle · Post by **Steven Coyle** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:26 am

Kowaaia sees his benevolent nature in Cory, but his ego rebels by not embracing it - for fear of exposing itself.

Cory ain't no sleeping dog! He'll be your friend though.

(Cory, not me)

(I'll be your friend, too)

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:43 am

"In opposition lies true friendship."

William Blake.

The Buddha said the same thing in different words.

Steven Coyle · Post by **Steven Coyle** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:51 am

You should post with your real name.

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 6:30 am

Why? It wouldn't make any difference.

Steven Coyle · Post by **Steven Coyle** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 6:52 am

I think you'd be surprised.

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 12:40 pm

O. K., let's play. What difference do you think it would make?

Steven Coyle · Post by **Steven Coyle** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 12:50 pm

Less Kow, More Tao.

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 12:56 pm

Exception or rule?

Steven Coyle · Post by **Steven Coyle** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:02 pm

That would depend on you.

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:08 pm

In general; for everyone.

Steven Coyle · Post by **Steven Coyle** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:11 pm

Exception.

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:14 pm

In other words, it would make no difference. :)

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:37 pm

Steven Coyle wrote:Less Kow, More Tao.

Agreed. I have not been reading much of what's been going on here lately because so much of it has been kowstuff. I'd rather watch drunken bad typing than this drivel. It was kind of funny at first, but now it's just boring. Childish stuff can only be so entertaining for so long, then it's time to get back to serious thought.

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:58 pm

...and smaller minds look on.

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:12 pm

Steven,

The stats on all the people that post using their real names, would have destroyed your case, anyways. :)

sue hindmarsh · Post by **sue hindmarsh** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:32 pm

Cory wrote:

â€œIsnt it 'thought' that tells me that there is a heaven to go to when I die?â€
Sue: What do you mean by â€œâ€˜thoughtâ€™ that tellsâ€?
Well, if the individual knows he is going to heaven, to an afterlife, isnt it thought that informs?

For instance, I am an aglomeration of thoughts(among other things) and this bundle of thought informs itself. It all begins when I am an infant and am told that the outside agent is 'mommy' and the agent held by mother is 'me', 'cory'.

So the thought 'me' is dependant upon the thought of 'mommy' or 'daddy'.

As I grow up ("I" of which is essentially thought), thought tells itself many things: thought tells itself that Babies grow in mommy's belly when mommy's prays to god asking for one, thought tells itself that there are cookies in a certain cupboard, thought tells itself that the little apendage between Cory's legs is 'a bug' and boys have a bug and girls dont, thoughts tells itself that little cory is a male, thought tells itself that cory is 5years old, thought tells itself that the tooth fairy is coming, and thought tells itself that there is a heaven.

etc, etc.

The way you structured your sentence, â€œâ€˜thoughtâ€™ that tellsâ€, I wasnâ€™t sure what you were getting at. So, am I now correct in thinking that it means â€“ becoming conscious of a thing and identifying it, happens simultaneously?

-
Sue

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 9:44 am

Sue wrote,

The way you structured your sentence, â€œâ€˜thoughtâ€™ that tellsâ€, I wasnâ€™t sure what you were getting at.

So, am I now correct in thinking that it means â€“ becoming conscious of a thing and identifying it, happens simultaneously?

Well, it may imply that, but I think what I was originally driving at was this: thought tends to maintain unconsciousness as easily, or more easily and stubbornly than it fosters consciousness. Thought that maintains unconsciousness by becoming sensually addicted to its own projections, is doing so in order to give continuity to the state of primitive-consciousness (which is ultimately unconscious) that begins in the womb.

However, I do believe your comment about the simultaneity of being conscious and identifying is interesting and worthy of going further into.

Letâ€™s put ourselves in the shoes of a baby recently ejected from the womb (or even still in the womb)â€¦..

When does that baby establish its first distinction? Is there such thing as a â€˜first distinctionâ€™ or is there only a â€˜setâ€™ that arise simultaneously?

The â€˜setâ€™ Iâ€™m referring to is â€˜self and otherâ€™ & â€˜pleasureâ€™ and â€˜painâ€™. I can't imagine how all four of those thoughts, organized in two pairs can possibly be established in a baby in the womb.

However, if a conscious sense of self and other is established before the baby is receptive to language (before there is the actual word based thoughts: â€˜me and motherâ€™), then how can the baby experience the passage of time? It has been reported that babies can be seen scratching and playing with their genitals (probably non-sexually) in the womb. Does the baby choose the motor movements observed? Is it just involuntary unconscious compulsion? Can babies think without thought? Does a non-lingual thought exist innately in the womb based baby? Does the baby experience the passage of time? If not, when does he first start?

Surely any consciousness a baby has, must be the most primitive consciousness, one based almost entirely on the craving for the sensation of comfort and the aversion to discomfort.

Is there thought(time) happening in the baby who hasnâ€™t been exposed to language?

Kow, I welcome you to contribute to this exploration, as I am open minded to the possiblity that your ego actually has developed under exceptional circumstances - but please do with an awareness of the limitations of words.

Citing examples from scientific research might help.

sue hindmarsh · Post by **sue hindmarsh** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 3:24 pm

Cory,

Dan wrote:

Research would seem to suggest than in humans self-awareness develops around - roughly - 18 months (based on things like mirror responses etc). So, this is effectively when the ego, the self/other duality arises. The rest is a process of maturation and conditioning.

Children younger than 18 months are not aware of themselves as â€˜separateâ€™ entities. They are like dogs or cats â€“ responding to their environment â€“ but not conscious of their own existence. As children grow up, they develop a greater understanding of their place in the universe.

You wrote:

Thought that maintains unconsciousness

You and I, as fully grown adults, understand â€˜thoughtâ€™ from this perspective. The â€˜thoughtâ€™ that very young children, dogs and cats share is not what we experience. Young children, though self-aware, are only able to interact with the world through adult assistance. It is only when a child reaches around the age of puberty that they begin to truly see themselves as separate individuals.

It is interesting to note that this budding self-awareness in 18 month olds occurs at the same time they have grown more confident at running, jumping and climbing. Their language and listening skills have also developed. They interact more in family life, and show a greater interest in older children. This is also the age when they want to do things for themselves, and by themselves. And it is no coincidence that this stage signals the beginning of what parents call the â€œterrible twosâ€.
-
Sue