GENIUS FORUMS

This is just a line of thought that I had and I wanted to share it with you all. I'm open to comments and even criticism and I hope it doesn't sound too dumb. (lol)


Necessity is the Mother of Invention.

This is a commonly accepted phrase but what is a necessity? If we look to the dictionary under the world "necessity" we can find the following definitions:
"an imperative requirement or need for something"
"an unavoidable need or compulsion to do something"
Most people try to differentiate between wants and needs for practical purposes but there is little difference in reality. You only "need" something in order to attain something you "want". Example, you only "need" food IF you "want" to survive. No need is inherent.
What more is a want than a desire, drive or motive?
If we look at a thesaurus it can confirm that emotion, desire, drive and motive can all be synonymous. This is not a short coming of language. This is intentional. Motivation can be defined as the purpose for, or psychological cause of, an action. Motivation can be divided into two types: intrinsic (or internal) and extrinsic (or external). Intrinsic motivation refers to motivation that is caused by the interest or enjoyment in the task itself, and happens within the individual without relying on a desire for a reward. Extrinsic motivation refers to the performance of an activity in order to attain an outcome. So in both cases the ego is seeking satisfaction whether by the means or in the end.
Why would the ego seek satisfaction? Clearly because it feels dissatisfaction. In other words it believes that there is something wrong or thing could be better.... that things aren't ideal. This gives birth to idealism.
And what is an invention?
"A new useful process, machine or improvement, etc., that did not exist previously and that is recognized as the product of some unique intuition or genius, as distinguished from ordinary mechanical skill or craftsmanship. "
Interestingly this definition of "invention" mentions "improvement". What is an improvement? If we look at "improvement" then we are mostly redirected to the verb "improve" which means:
"to bring into a more desirable or excellent condition"
Wasn't that what our egos were trying to do all along when they were dissatisfied?
So can we not say instead that "Ego is the mother of Improvement"?
Or even go farther to say "Ego procures Excellence"?

The world is created by desire. When one stops desiring, one stops their world. Being stopped, it is like a statue or corpse, and thus no longer a threat. This world or other or outside can never kill or destroy the self or inside. Hence comes enlightened courage. Boredom, loneliness, and all suffering becomes very tolerable and is eventually no longer felt. Yet likewise excitement, pleasure, and happiness cease too, being seen as false and temporary. By not acting in this world, one may act in the higher world. Beware the barrenness of a busy life indeed!

It sounds simple. You need something so you invent it. I don't see the problem.

Getoriks wrote: all suffering becomes very tolerable and is eventually no longer felt.

What's the difference between no longer having an ego and passivity and complacency?

Getoriks wrote:By not acting in this world, one may act in the higher world.

What is the "higher world"?

Pincho Paxton wrote:It sounds simple. You need something so you invent it. I don't see the problem.

Does that mean that you agree with the end statement as well that "Ego procures Excellence"?

Orenholt wrote: Does that mean that you agree with the end statement as well that "Ego procures Excellence"?

I don't see what ego has to do with it. You need something to eat with, you invent a fork. I don't see where ego is involved. If you mean create something better than everyone else, then that is to do with achievement. Win a game for fun.

Orenholt wrote:What's the difference between no longer having an ego and passivity and complacency? What is the "higher world"? Does that mean that you agree with the end statement as well that "ego procures excellence"?

Well, passivity and complacency are ego states. Only an ego can be active or passive. Only an ego can be self-satisfied or dissatisfied.

As for the higher world, perhaps I am a bit too poetic (and yet perhaps I am not poetic enough!). It is really just this world right here. Or rather, it does not matter which world it is, where it is, or when it is. For it is in all worlds, in all places, and in all times. It applies to everything. The Kingdom of God is not here nor there. The afterlife is not later on, it is right now. You are not even alive to begin with, so you are already in the afterlife. You are always in it. The question is whether you see it.

The ego may procure many things, including mediocrity, not just excellence. So if your statement of "ego procures excellence" was meant to be an apology for, a justification for, a rationalization for the ego, then I disagree with it. Just because something is useful does not make it real. You are trapped within a scientific mindset that assumes something is real just by the fact that it works. I do agree, however, that when one is still stuck in ego, that one should pursue a life of excellence. Eventually, that will mean becoming as wise as possible, which, eventually, will mean no longer being stuck in ego. :)

An enlightened mind could still engage in science. They simply would not believe in the myth that it, along with technology and industry, will someday make the world a better place. Nor would they believe in the myth that science is about understanding reality. We would have far less science, but it would be better science, being grounded in philosophy, and never allowed to run wild and become yet another religion.

An enlightened mind knows it cannot reach some utopia through science or reach some heaven through religion, for it knows that everything is already perfect, that there is nothing to do. Or, rather, it knows that only its own self is imperfect, that only its own thoughts and attitudes are imperfect, and that if there is to be any science or religion, if there is to be any knowledge or faith, let it be knowledge of the nature of the self and faith in that knowledge, not inane knowledge of the world and dangerous faith of the otherworldly.

Orenholt wrote:If we look at a thesaurus it can confirm that emotion, desire, drive and motive can all be synonymous.

I think you are confusing words being related with being synonymous. although your arguments fall apart because of that you do raise a more general but interesting issue: how passion and motivation can lead to activities and the lack of passion and motivation might cause passivity. So there's a relation but how wise something is to initiate remains an open question. There's a case to be made that in many situations not doing anything is the best. And extreme demotivation or even depression might be in those cases a very good thing, as long as is needed.

One other critique (well you asked) is your statement "ego seeks satisfaction". I'm not sure if this is true. If I'm hungry and I eat then I'm "satisfied". There doesn't need to be any ignorance involved. So it appears that ego can attach itself to thoughts and feelings, making it about itself, or distort the whole process perhaps, letting it run out of bounds and reason. But what it seeks is only itself and its own delusion. It might involve pain and suffering but I don't think that matters in the end. It's true that pleasure is commonly associated with ego-centered behavior but I see it more as a result of some unbalanced situations which require a certain relief or just some groove the record player is hanging in.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: I think you are confusing words being related with being synonymous.

Well I did say "can be" synonymous rather than "are" synonymous and I went on to explain why it's not a short coming of language.

So there's a relation but how wise something is to initiate remains an open question. There's a case to be made that in many situations not doing anything is the best.

But even if you "don't do anything" you are still making a choice to not do anything, so in fact you are doing something.

One other critique (well you asked) is your statement "ego seeks satisfaction". I'm not sure if this is true. If I'm hungry and I eat then I'm "satisfied".

Can you think of anything the ego seeks that wouldn't subjectively qualify as "satisfaction" of the ego's desires?

There doesn't need to be any ignorance involved.

That's something to think about for sure.

So it appears that ego can attach itself to thoughts and feelings, making it about itself, or distort the whole process perhaps, letting it run out of bounds and reason.

Yes. I pose that the ego can be good OR evil.

Orenholt wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: I think you are confusing words being related with being synonymous.

Well I did say "can be" synonymous rather than "are" synonymous and I went on to explain why it's not a short coming of language.

You said the "thesaurus confirmed" they can be. But it only confirms some relation. I could say for example it confirms that emotion can be synonymous with anger, hate or agitation. But it's just not the case! You still have to make the case that they are which is very hard and you don't make any effort to.

Orenholt wrote:But even if you "don't do anything" you are still making a choice to not do anything, so in fact you are doing something.

This also depends on when you think a choice is being made or how it's made. The free will issue perhaps.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: You said the "thesaurus confirmed" they can be. But it only confirms some relation. I could say for example it confirms that emotion can be synonymous with anger, hate or agitation. But it's just not the case! You still have to make the case that they are which is very hard and you don't make any effort to.

Anger, hate, and agitation are kinds of emotions just like red, blue and green are ways of being colorful.
The sentence "he was filled with emotion" CAN mean "He was filled with anger/hate/agitation".
The sentence "The pinata was colorful" CAN mean "The pinata was red/green/blue".
Also, what about how I went in depth about explaining how motive is caused by dissatisfaction?
And you didn't answer the following question:
Can you think of anything the ego seeks that wouldn't subjectively qualify as "satisfaction" of the ego's desires?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:This also depends on when you think a choice is being made or how it's made. The free will issue perhaps.

No, I don't think it has to do with free will. Because if you believe that there is free will then you are acknowledging that it is a choice but if you do not believe that there is free will you are still acknowledging the illusion of choice.

Getoriks wrote: An enlightened mind knows it cannot reach some utopia through science or reach some heaven through religion, for it knows that everything is already perfect, that there is nothing to do. Or, rather, it knows that only its own self is imperfect, that only its own thoughts and attitudes are imperfect

A few questions arise with this line of thinking.
1.) If everything is already perfect and there is nothing to do, then why do anything?
2.) How can the self be imperfect if "everything is already perfect"?

The self that thinks everything is not already perfect is the imperfect self. "He who thinks the All deficient is completely deficient himself." There are deeper implications to this though. Try and think out the further logical conclusions, and then try and think about how they apply to you and your life personally. If it all seems a mundane and pointless contemplation exercise, just come back to it at a later time.

Also, to clarify my above post, I am by no means anti-science. In fact, I am very, very much pro-science, and agree that it is actually also a MORAL imperative of all modern nation-states to pursue science and technology so that we do not become stuck within a decadent oligarchy. That we have a higher quantity of science today than we had in the past is great, I was just saying that we cannot ignore the quality aspect of it, and must do it within its proper context: philosophy, spirituality, wisdom. "Seek first the Kingdom!"

Getoriks wrote:The self that thinks everything is not already perfect is the imperfect self. "He who thinks the All deficient is completely deficient himself." There are deeper implications to this though. Try and think out the further logical conclusions, and then try and think about how they apply to you and your life personally. If it all seems a mundane and pointless contemplation exercise, just come back to it at a later time.

"He who thinks the All is a banana is completely a banana himself."
I am not going to make your arguments for you.

Also, to clarify my above post, I am by no means anti-science. In fact, I am very, very much pro-science, and agree that it is actually also a MORAL imperative of all modern nation-states to pursue science and technology so that we do not become stuck within a decadent oligarchy. That we have a higher quantity of science today than we had in the past is great, I was just saying that we cannot ignore the quality aspect of it, and must do it within its proper context: philosophy, spirituality, wisdom. "Seek first the Kingdom!"

Well yes, science cannot exist without philosophy.

Orenholt wrote:"He who thinks the All is a banana is completely a banana himself."

Funny, but yes, you become what you think. Even more, you become what you love.

I am not going to make your arguments for you.

Ditto.

Well yes, science cannot exist without philosophy.

Oh, but it can and does... to deluded minds.

If everything is already perfect and there is nothing to do, then why do anything?

Why not?

Diogenes was asked, "What is the difference between life and death?"
"No difference."
"Then why do you remain alive, Diogenes?"
"Because there is no difference."

Also, how could one do anything, if everything is already done?

Getoriks wrote: Funny, but yes, you become what you think. Even more, you become what you love.

I meant literally. Explain how thinking the universe is a banana makes one a banana.

I am not going to make your arguments for you.

Ditto.

I have made my argument though. You're the one who's saying that ego isn't necessary for doing things and that the self can be "imperfect" while at the same time "perfect".
I'm asking you to support your side.
This is a DUEL!

If everything is already perfect and there is nothing to do, then why do anything?

Why not?

Because ego is the SOURCE of motive.
And motive is the SOURCE of action.

Also, how could one do anything, if everything is already done?

I don't know. That's your logic not mine.

Orenholt wrote: Anger, hate, and agitation are kinds of emotions just like red, blue and green are ways of being colorful.
The sentence "he was filled with emotion" CAN mean "He was filled with anger/hate/agitation".

But there's no equivalence and you don't even have any logical argument since there doesn't have to be any causal effect. Like "he's emotional, therefore he has drive". Or "he seems driven, therefore he has some emotion". The link is missing but instead you offer an external source (the thesaurus) to "conclude" a relation based only on proximity. You need to study some logic before you try to reason this stuff out. Otherwise it's just blunt opinion but how useful is it to exchange just wild opinions on this topic?

Also, what about how I went in depth about explaining how motive is caused by dissatisfaction?

Well, first things first. But do you mean to say all motive has some dissatisfaction attached to it? Or just some motives? But I think it's better to go first over the methods you are using to build an argument. Otherwise I've to comment on each line of your initial post.

Can you think of anything the ego seeks that wouldn't subjectively qualify as "satisfaction" of the ego's desires?

The seeking itself in the form of clinging is what would be called ego. Since its very base is deception there is no satisfaction either. Recently there was a long discussion about ego you might want to read a bit from: How to Build a Stronger Ego

if you do not believe that there is free will you are still acknowledging the illusion of choice.

Well do you acknowledge the action itself? And what about any responsibility for any action?

PS. it helps if we focus on one topic first but I reply on every bit since the last time someone said I was "ignoring" important points later on.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: But there's no equivalence and you don't even have any logical argument since there doesn't have to be any causal effect. Like "he's emotional, therefore he has drive". Or "he seems driven, therefore he has some emotion". The link is missing but instead you offer an external source (the thesaurus) to "conclude" a relation based only on proximity.

But if we look at the definition of "synonym" it means: "a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the language" not "exactly the same word". It's all about the meaning. What would be an example of a true synonym in your mind?
What's wrong with using a thesaurus? Isn't using some "external source" for my argument better than just pulling it out of my ass?

You need to study some logic before you try to reason this stuff out. Otherwise it's just blunt opinion but how useful is it to exchange just wild opinions on this topic?

Show me the error of my ways instead of just telling me.

Well, first things first. But do you mean to say all motive has some dissatisfaction attached to it? Or just some motives? But I think it's better to go first over the methods you are using to build an argument. Otherwise I've to comment on each line of your initial post.

ALL motive.
If you feel that you must go through each line to show me my error I encourage you to do so.

The seeking itself in the form of clinging is what would be called ego. Since its very base is deception there is no satisfaction either.

Why would the ego do it if not for satisfaction?
Is it still not subjectively satisfying in the way that a smoker is satisfied by having a cigarette?

Recently there was a long discussion about ego you might want to read a bit from: How to Build a Stronger Ego

Thank you. I will read over that and give my assessment when I am finished.

Well do you acknowledge the action itself? And what about any responsibility for any action?

Of course I acknowledge the action itself. Responsibility doesn't matter in this case. The process is still the same.

PS. it helps if we focus on one topic first but I reply on every bit since the last time someone said I was "ignoring" important points later on.

I appreciate your cooperation with not ignoring the points. I feel that every question I ask is of importance.

Orenholt wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: But there's no equivalence and you don't even have any logical argument since there doesn't have to be any causal effect. Like "he's emotional, therefore he has drive". Or "he seems driven, therefore he has some emotion". The link is missing but instead you offer an external source (the thesaurus) to "conclude" a relation based only on proximity.

But if we look at the definition of "synonym" it means: "a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the language" not "exactly the same word".

Perhaps you should look closer to the thesaurus you have been using. They often do not just contain synonyms but also related words. Hey, if this is where you are with debating and reading, I might have to pass on this. There are other places to get the basics with more patient people around. I hope you don't mind me saying this but sometimes you have to realize your limits.

Hello, Diebert! :)

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Perhaps you should look closer to the thesaurus you have been using. They often do not just contain synonyms but also related words. Hey, if this is where you are with debating and reading, I might have to pass on this. There are other places to get the basics with more patient people around. I hope you don't mind me saying this but sometimes you have to realize your limits.

Yes I realize that sometimes the words are merely related (for example if I use "colorful" in the thesaurus it says both "multicolored" and "vivid" but those do not mean the same thing as each other) but that is why I went on to have a supporting argument that all motive comes from dissatisfaction. I explained that there are various types of motives and that they are all in the pursuit of satisfaction of some kind whether that satisfaction is in the journey or the destination.
I do not see how there is a "link missing" in my theory.

Ego->dissatisfaction/motive->action->satisfaction/excellence


I'm pretty sure the point still stands regardless of that one sentence.

Orenholt wrote:I do not see how there is a "link missing" in my theory : Ego->dissatisfaction/motive->action->satisfaction/excellence.

The thing is that apart from the (now abandoned) idea that emotion, desire, drive and motive "can all be synonymous", you still have some work to do with linking "all motive" to dissatisfaction and to link ego or "all ego" to it as well. For example one could bring out many drivers for action like reflexes, instinctual behavior, conscience, boredom, random impulses which are very hard to link to any generic feeling of dissatisfaction and satisfaction. And we're just talking about conscious actions while many people would also act without much thought, seemingly being driven by forces beyond control or direct awareness or feeling.

Perhaps it's easier if you just would use the more generic term "reward". Certain behavior is rewarded and therefore affirmed. Other behavior is diminished by punishment or pain and therefore avoided. Lots of natural processes use this feedback principle and while sometimes a feeling of satisfaction can be experienced with the reward, it's uncertain how this ties in with the whole ego thing. Actually ego cannot just be assumed to be the "thing being dissatisfied". Another variety on this is the pleasure and pain principle.

Personally -- and I might be the only one at this forum, I don't know -- I'd define all base emotion as well as ego as something happening in the social settings and derivatives. And since also negative emotions are "rewarded" and continued by many who engage in them, it's very hard to apply the simple plain-pleasure principle on this. For this reason deeper running ideas like "ignorance" and "attachment" has been thought up. They cover way more instances and are functioning in a way more generic manner. It also solves the issue of "how to function without ego" which is hard to answer because surely nobody is suggesting a human being can live without boundaries, without basic feedback loops to guide his behavior in all practical situations.

Leyla Shen wrote:Hello, Diebert! :)

Wow did I conjure you out of thin air? Like some Aladdin!

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: The thing is that apart from the (now abandoned) idea that emotion, desire, drive and motive "can all be synonymous",

If it helps for you to not think about my use of a thesaurus by all means forget about it but isn't dissatisfaction an emotional state?

you still have some work to do with linking "all motive" to dissatisfaction and to link ego or "all ego" to it as well. For example one could bring out many drivers for action like reflexes, instinctual behavior, conscience, boredom, random impulses which are very hard to link to any generic feeling of dissatisfaction and satisfaction. And we're just talking about conscious actions while many people would also act without much thought, seemingly being driven by forces beyond control or direct awareness or feeling.

Well you could still have reflexes of the body without the ego but what would be an example of "instinctual behavior"? Are you talking about something like eating when you're hungry? Because I mentioned that one would only eat if they wanted to, if they desired to and the only reason someone would desire to eat is because they're feeling discomfort of some kind that they think eating will fix. Conscience is also the ego because it is based on expected outcomes. If you think "I shouldn't steal" it's either because you think something like A.) I'll get caught or B.) it would make me feel bad to go against my principles. Boredom is a state of suffering cause by the ego because it is not satisfied with what stimulation it has. Random impulses, first there is no such thing as true "randomness" it only appears so because we do not know the cause. If you have the "random impulse" to buy a candy bar it is probably because of something on a subconscious level of mild suffering. If you are in the check out line of the grocery store you have to actually think "I am going to buy this item" and you do it because you WANT it. The Buddha was onto something when he said that desire is the cause of all suffering. The people who do not know themselves just may not have "emotional intelligence" and need to practice introspection, either that or they are flat out lying about it.

Perhaps it's easier if you just would use the more generic term "reward". Certain behavior is rewarded and therefore affirmed. Other behavior is diminished by punishment or pain and therefore avoided. Lots of natural processes use this feedback principle and while sometimes a feeling of satisfaction can be experienced with the reward, it's uncertain how this ties in with the whole ego thing. Actually ego cannot just be assumed to be the "thing being dissatisfied". Another variety on this is the pleasure and pain principle.

Ok we can use "reward" rather than "satisfaction" if you prefer. Yes, feelings of satisfaction can come with "rewards".
If a child enjoys playing baseball then the game is the reward by itself.
If a child just wants to win then the victory is the reward.
And yes, pain can be a deter actions.
If a child just wants to win the baseball game but continually loses he may be deterred from playing again because of the emotions involved with losing such as sadness and humiliation.

Why can we not define the ego as "the thing being dissatisfied"? Sure there is more to it than that because it can be the thing that is satisfied as well but I still see no reason not to say it is "the thing being dissatisfied".

Personally -- and I might be the only one at this forum, I don't know -- I'd define all base emotion as well as ego as something happening in the social settings and derivatives.

I would disagree. If for example you're all alone in your house and you stub your toe on your coffee table 6 times in a row you might become angry or distressed about it emotionally. No one else has to be around. The ego reacts to it's environment in general, not just sentient or sapient beings.

And since also negative emotions are "rewarded" and continued by many who engage in them, it's very hard to apply the simple plain-pleasure principle on this.

Explain how a negative emotion is "rewarded" or causes "pleasure" or "satisfaction" (without taking action to change the situation) because I am not aware of how that could happen.

For this reason deeper running ideas like "ignorance" and "attachment" has been thought up. They cover way more instances and are functioning in a way more generic manner.

Ignorance is simply the state of not knowing.
Attachment can be negative (like hating something) or positive (like loving something) but hating something isn't always bad, and loving something isn't always good. Negative and positive only describe how the attachment FEELS to us on a subjective level. The ego is what's responsible for emotions.

It also solves the issue of "how to function without ego" which is hard to answer if we somehow are applying a human being can live without boundaries, without feedback loops to guide his behavior in practical situations.

I don't see how it solves it.

Orenholt wrote: If for example you're all alone in your house and you stub your toe on your coffee table 6 times in a row you might become angry or distressed about it emotionally. No one else has to be around. The ego reacts to it's environment in general, not just sentient or sapient beings.

Well I did mention derivates and I should have expanded that term right away. I believe the anger there comes from blaming briefly the momentary personalized object, the room, some other or oneself. Or some distress because of feeling sorry for oneself. I don't think there's a physical reason here for the anger at all. This is easiest to see when an angry, impatient mood is already in place and then a toe is stubbed and again. It will become an amplified anger, each pain just fans the flames. But they can be defused with a simple thought. It's then not the environment or the pain which keeps the anger going. Otherwise it couldn't be dissolved that easily.

More about your post later. You seem to be quite active and I don't know exactly when I will post again.

Getoriks wrote:The world is created by desire. When one stops desiring, one stops their world. Being stopped, it is like a statue or corpse, and thus no longer a threat. This world or other or outside can never kill or destroy the self or inside. Hence comes enlightened courage. Boredom, loneliness, and all suffering becomes very tolerable and is eventually no longer felt. Yet likewise excitement, pleasure, and happiness cease too, being seen as false and temporary. By not acting in this world, one may act in the higher world. Beware the barrenness of a busy life indeed!

This is so simple.

Attachment rather than desire, but it occurs 'naturally' and isn't created. It and the manifestations are clung to, ignorance/delusion. Imagine a maniac worrying about the events of his dream.

"higher world"

“As a lotus flower is born in water, grows in water and rises out of water to stand above it unsoiled, so I, born in the world, raised in the world having overcome the world, live unsoiled by the world”