Do you believe a 'you' exists?

18AD

Ms.Odgeynist wrote: »

Whether it is concrete, definitive or transparent, it is there.

No. when I say transparent, I mean it is not there. There is simply activity.

Once you have to define it you have brought in the concept of self. And you can't do without it. But we are not always defining things and this is where there is no self.

Everytime you mention someone you have to talk about themselves. But you are not always talking about people like this. The person you walk past in the street, you don't engage with them as a self until you start trying to conceptualise them.

wylo

Ms.Odgeynist wrote: »

OK - just so I get you - the 'self' doesn't exist, but the enjoyment of a fish does!!! That fish is in a constant state of enjoyment?...or does it's mood swing from time to time?

I dont know, maybe the moods do swing, I would imagine its brain isnt quite advanced enough for complex emotions, so yes I actually believe that a fish is in a constant state of enjoyment/piece/content unless its hungry, cold, or fearing for its life.

Ms.Odgeynist wrote: »

What you're talking about is social constructionism - and I'm fascinated by the idea. But stating that the self is an illusion, and then discussing 'reality' on the other hand is short sighted. What you are saying is that the self is n illusion - fair enough - so is enjoyment, not to mention time, distance, love, happiness, and ...well....everything really. If these things are illusions to you because they exist in the mind, then fair enough. But you don't get to choose the 'self' and nothing else.

I see the point your making , and I suppose you could argue that NOTHNG exists with my argument, but personally I dont agree, im into physics, ojects are real, they can be experienced, you can hold them up. Distance is real, its the length from one point to another. Reality is real,Enjoyment is the body experiencing enjoyment, there are actually physical occurences in the nerves and brain that create enjoyment.
Whereas the self is something we created ourselves, its a thought that triggers other things.

You have to go back to the animals example, do you think animals are naturally content unless there is a danger of their life?(including cold, hungry, everything), personally I do think they are, but this is subjective based on the intelligence of the animal.

Like I was saying in another post in this thread, if you walk around the room or even move your arm, is there honestly a 'you' or a controller doing that? Was it not just the brain triggering the movement, a self or a "you"/higher controller is not needed. If you look at reality , look at everything real around you, you will see how real it is compare to this self.

Is there a self needed for you to breath, do you consciously decide on every single breath you are taking?

Ms.Odgeynist

18AD wrote: »

No. when I say transparent, I mean it is not there. There is simply activity.

Once you have to define it you have brought in the concept of self. And you can't do without it. But we are not always defining things and this is where there is no self.

Everytime you mention someone you have to talk about themselves. But you are not always talking about people like this. The person you walk past in the street, you don't engage with them as a self until you start trying to conceptualise them.

We don't try to conceptualise them - we have already conceptualised them.
We have conceptualised everything we encounter, otherwise things would get very confusing altogether.
When we experience the world we do it via a set of pre-defined schema that allow us to take short-cuts. We don't look at someone on the street and ponder their legs, then their torso, then their head and think 'eureka' its a person, we just get it. We just get the world.
There are those who do not - who have lost their sense of 'self', these people we call schizophrenic.

Ms.Odgeynist

wylo wrote: »

I dont know, maybe the moods do swing, I would imagine its brain isnt quite advanced enough for complex emotions, so yes I actually believe that a fish is in a constant state of enjoyment/piece/content unless its hungry, cold, or fearing for its life.




I see the point your making , and I suppose you could argue that NOTHNG exists with my argument, but personally I dont agree, im into physics, ojects are real, they can be experienced, you can hold them up. Distance is real, its the length from one point to another. Reality is real,Enjoyment is the body experiencing enjoyment, there are actually physical occurences in the nerves and brain that create enjoyment.
Whereas the self is something we created ourselves, its a thought that triggers other things.

You have to go back to the animals example, do you think animals are naturally content unless there is a danger of their life?(including cold, hungry, everything), personally I do think they are.

Like I was saying in another post in this thread, if you walk around the room or even move your arm, is there honestly a 'you' or a controller doing that? Was it not just the brain triggering the movement, a self or a "you"/higher controller is not needed. If you look at reality , look at everything real around you, you will see how real it is compare to this self.

Why the self? Where are these words you are writing coming from? Do you believe in a mind? Do you believe in will?

18AD

Ms.Odgeynist wrote: »

We don't try to conceptualise them - we have already conceptualised them.
We have conceptualised everything we encounter, otherwise things would get very confusing altogether.
When we experience the world we do it via a set of pre-defined schema that allow us to take short-cuts.

Yes. But all these are pre-conscious assumptions. They are not always active. We are not always conscious of a self. To this end, at times, there is no self. Of course, when you look for it, you find it, because you have to mediate through concepts.

When you are going about many tasks you are not always actively thinking about yourself doing the task. There is simply doing the task without thought of a 'who' is doing the task.

But when you think about it, you have to think of the who and you can't escape it. You could say it's always there, but it is not always there in experience.

wylo

Ms.Odgeynist wrote: »

Why the self? Where are these words you are writing coming from? Do you believe in a mind? Do you believe in will?

Yes I believe in the mind, the brain, nerves,etc I believe in anything real, why the self? cause its something we created ourselves through language,that can be gotten rid of. Maybe you are right , maybe all thoughts are just illusions, but loads of animals have thoughts and they didnt do anything to create them so for now, im accepting thoughts, but maybe later down the line as things get deeper I will see thoughts as illusions as well.

Now im trying to answer your questions directly, its only fair you answer mine.
Ill quote them again...

You have to go back to the animals example, do you think animals are naturally content unless there is a danger of their life?(including cold, hungry, everything), personally I do think they are, but this is subjective based on the intelligence of the animal.

Like I was saying in another post in this thread, if you walk around the room or even move your arm, is there honestly a 'you' or a controller doing that? Was it not just the brain triggering the movement, a self or a "you"/higher controller is not needed.

Is there a self needed for you to breath, do you consciously decide on every single breath you are taking?

Where is this self? You say it is there. Where exactly?

You sound close and very interested, I think you should try answer them as honestly as you can. Im only so good at asking the right questions, and making the right statements, if you are pushed id recommend that long post with the links etc , cause the guys on that forum are better at it than me, im only presenting the logic.
Maybe your not but you sound a bit like you are.:)

Ms.Odgeynist

Quote:
You have to go back to the animals example, do you think animals are naturally content unless there is a danger of their life?(including cold, hungry, everything), personally I do think they are, but this is subjective based on the intelligence of the animal.

Content is a construction we invented, nothing natural about it - D'ya follow?

Quote:
Like I was saying in another post in this thread, if you walk around the room or even move your arm, is there honestly a 'you' or a controller doing that? Was it not just the brain triggering the movement, a self or a "you"/higher controller is not needed.
You're talking about free will! Yes, I do think there was a controller. The alternative is determinism - hard to disprove, but I like to think of it like Carl Rogers did - '"to have free will is to freely will that which is absolutely determined."

Quote:
Is there a self needed for you to breath, do you consciously decide on every single breath you are taking?

Seriously? Breathing is involuntary, like sneezing and blinking - biology 101 - and I never did biology 101. Sweating is involuntary too. And farting! Considering the 'self', thinking, pondering - you need a self to do that! You think about things in relation to yourself - not in a vacuum. To try to convince us of what you're thinking, you need a self.

Quote:
Where is this self? You say it is there. Where exactly?

You believe in the mind! Do you know where that is? Well, you go to the mind, swing a right, 100 yards up and it's just to your left!

CL7

Can anyone please explain to me why some people here are engaging with the op then switching to mocking him and back and forth? First time I've read the philosophy forum so just wondering if this is the norm here or if I am missing something?

To answer the op. I think the ego is an necessary imaginary contruct (nothing new there). I think it's possible to gain a better understanding of it but not overcome it completely, not without some kind of psychological break anyway.

I'm not fully sure if the site you posted a link for is serious or if this is some joke that I haven't got. I am not trolling btw, I am genuinely confused here.

18AD

SnoogyDoogy wrote: »

Can anyone please explain to me why some people here are engaging with the op then switching to mocking him and back and forth? First time I've read the philosophy forum so just wondering if this is the norm here or if I am missing something?

Frustration perhaps? I don't know.
I'm pretty sure the OP is legit.

I don't think it's the norm here. Have a look through some of the other threads. This one has been quite active, as it's a topic that hits close to the bone I imagine.

I think it's possible to gain a better understanding of it but not overcome it completely, not without some kind of psychological break anyway.

Of course to get rid of it permanently would be a bad idea, as people have mentioned schizophrenia and other illnesses.

But I think that we hugely over emphasise the presence of the ego. I have argued that it is not actually there throughout most of your daily activity. That we function more like animals in that regard and just get on with things, totally immersed in activity.

wylo

18AD wrote: »

Frustration perhaps? I don't know.
I'm pretty sure the OP is legit.

I don't think it's the norm here. Have a look through some of the other threads. This one has been quite active, as it's a topic that hits close to the bone I imagine.

^^this!, I am basically coming along to a forum with the cheek of telling people that everything they believed their whole life may not be true, this really really pisses people off.
Some people dont really care as much, its the people that dont care too much are the people that are more open minded and give it a shot, its the people that do care that get really frustrated and insulted by it. But then theres people that do care that are really interested too.
I wont lie , its disheartening, but when you get one positive response from someone thats willing to have a look theres a genuine feeling of joy!

wylo

SnoogyDoogy wrote: »

To answer the op. I think the ego is an necessary imaginary contruct (nothing new there). I think it's possible to gain a better understanding of it but not overcome it completely, not without some kind of psychological break anyway.

But do you think this psychological break is impossible?

You do have a point , like 18AD said, I dont walk around randomly like an animal just absorbing existence , there must be a role of an ego there so you can engage in life. The liberating feeling is the feeling that you know its a role, and that whatever your dealing with is not THAT important. Also like I said in an older post , its possible that there is a natural born ego, the one that makes me 'self aware' (that whole mirror test thing), but I dont think thats what we're talking about here.
Friends, Family, enjoying life, being happy, doing fun things, exercising, improving the life. They are the things that become important. You still carry on in your job but you know that its not the be all and end all of life.
Most people know this anyway, but still struggle to truly believe it and see it.

onlyrocknroll

Does who believe I exist?

wylo

The funny thing about it is, its no big deal, i was accused of trying to 'sell' that website in another thread , as if I was recruiting for a cult or something (someone even referred to it as a cult),.

The comical part is it would actually take them longer to argue with me on this forum than it does to just say "ah feck go on sure , ill have a look, ill sign up , if its nonsense its nonsense, what have I to lose??"

People dont like when I use the word 'scared' but that kind of is what it is to an extent, its the fear of questioning something you've believed your whole life.

wylo

onlyrocknroll wrote: »

Does who believe I exist?

good question actually, so you already even half know the answer!!

But heres the question more literally, what I mean is: , Does the being that is reading the title of thread believe that there is an "I" controlling this brain and body?

onlyrocknroll

wylo wrote: »

good question actually, so you already even half know the answer!!

But heres the question more literally, what I mean is: , Does the being that is reading the title of thread believe that there is an "I" controlling this brain and body?

Certainly, I was only making a joke about how the conventions of everyday language makes philosophical discussion more difficult. Or being a big nerd as you might like to call it.

18AD

As a point of interest, the word persona in latin meant 'actor's mask, character in a play'. Where the word 'person' comes from.

Also, Sartre talks about this a good bit. I'm not too savvy on his writing but this wiki quote seems apt:
Sartre cites a café waiter, whose movements and conversation are a little too "waiter-esque". His voice oozes with an eagerness to please; he carries food rigidly and ostentatiously. His exaggerated behaviour illustrates that he is play acting as a waiter, as an object in the world: an automaton whose essence is to be a waiter. But that he is obviously acting belies that he is aware that he is not (merely) a waiter, but is rather consciously deceiving himself.

18AD

Here's a beautiful extract from:
Alan Watts - The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are.

“There was never a time when the world began, because it goes round and round like a circle, and there is no place on a circle where it begins. Look at my watch, which tells the time; it goes round, and so the world repeats itself again and again. But just as the hour-hand of the watch goes up to twelve and down to six, so, too, there is day and night,waking and sleeping, living and dying, summer and winter. You can’t have any one of these without the other, because you wouldn’t be able to know what black is unless you had seen it side-by-side with white, or white unless side-by-side with black.

“In the same way, there are times when the world is, and times when it isn’t, for if the world went on and on without rest for ever and ever, it would get horribly tired of itself. It comes and it goes. Now you see it; now you don’t. So because it doesn’t get tired of itself, it always comes back again after it disappears. It’s like your breath: it goes in and out, in and out, and if you try to hold it in all the time you feel terrible. It’s also like the game of hide-and-seek, because it’s always fun to find new ways of hiding, and to seek for someone who doesn’t always hide in the same place.

“God also likes to play hide-and-seek, but because there is nothing outside God, he has no one but himself to play with. But he gets over this difficulty by pretending that he is not himself. This is his way of hiding from himself. He pretends that he is you and I and all the people in the world, all the animals, all the plants, all the rocks, and all the stars. In this way he has strange and wonderful adventures, some of which are terrible and frightening. But these are just like bad dreams,for when he wakes up they will disappear.

“Now when God plays hide and pretends that he is you and I, he does it so well that it takes him a long time to remember where and how he hid himself. But that’s the whole fun of it—just what he wanted to do.He doesn’t want to find himself too quickly, for that would spoil the game. That is why it is so difficult for you and me to find out that we are God in disguise, pretending not to be himself. But when the game has gone on long enough, all of us will wake up, stop pretending, and remember that we are all one single Self—the God who is all that there is and who lives for ever and ever.

“Of course, you must remember that God isn’t shaped like a person. People have skins and there is always something outside our skins. If there weren’t, we wouldn’t know the difference between what is inside and outside our bodies. But God has no skin and no shape because there isn’t any outside to him. [With a sufficiently intelligent child, I illustrate this with a Möbius strip—a ring of paper tape twisted once in such away that it has only one side and one edge.] The inside and the outside of God are the same. And though I have been talking about God as ‘he’ and not ‘she,’ God isn’t a man or a woman. I didn’t say ‘it’ because we usually say ‘it’ for things that aren’t alive.

“God is the Self of the world, but you can’t see God for the same reason that, without a mirror, you can’t see your own eyes, and you certainly can’t bite your own teeth or look inside your head. Your self is that cleverly hidden because it is God hiding.

“You may ask why God sometimes hides in the form of horrible people, or pretends to be people who suffer great disease and pain. Remember, first, that he isn’t really doing this to anyone but himself.Remember, too, that in almost all the stories you enjoy there have to be bad people as well as good people, for the thrill of the tale is to find out how the good people will get the better of the bad. It’s the same as when we play cards. At the beginning of the game we shuffle them all into a mess, which is like the bad things in the world, but the point of the game is to put the mess into good order, and the one who does it best is the winner. Then we shuffle the cards once more and play again, and so it goes with the world.”

CL7

wylo wrote: »

But do you think this psychological break is impossible

I think it's possible but as a result of schizophrenia or some other serious mental illness.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think you are mentally ill becuase I don't think you have lost your ego. Maybe you have a new understanding of the it that you didn't before but it's clear to me from your posts that your ego is alive and well.

wylo

fair enough, I guess it depends what ego we are talking about exactly, on another note, I think need to take my own advice, I wrote this today in my blog...

Another observation I made was that when you lose the ego, you stop caring whether you come across as egotistical or not, so this in turn makes you seem egotistical even though it is the complete opposite, it is simply just not caring what you write and only being interested in writing the truth. So I think its important to acknowledge to yourself this fact when talking to people on different forums, and write things carefully, otherwise they'll think you are arrogant and cocky.

onlyrocknroll

Hey wylo
Normally I feel very opposed to contradicting what someone reports about themselves, so I hate saying this. But respectively I'm quite sceptical about your claim to have broken from a psychological sense of self. I understand that many Buddhists report doing this as you've mentioned but that's after many years of meditation which much have a deep and profound psychological effect on a person.

Putting aside the philosophical arguments for and against the existence of a self or ego, I believe that the sense of self is analogous to other concepts like causality, or time and space, or belief in the external world. These concepts may be challenged philosophically, but I dispute that anybody (under normal conditions, i.e. besides mental illness, or years of Buddhist training) can function without them.


I think that evidence of this is found in the joke that I made earlier in the thread about the thread title. You've continued to refer to yourself in the first person, and address other posters in the third person, dispute your claim that your self doesn't exist. Now I'm sure you would claim that this is just grammatical convention, but I would argue that it's evidence that you're linguistically and conceptually dependent on the concept of the self. What would be a better why to express fear for example. Instead of "I'm afraid" you'd say what?

I'm quite sure (open to correction) that all human languages have a grammatical subject and a first person pronoun used to identify the self.

Again I hate contradicting what you've said about yourself, I mean no disrespect.

CL7

wylo wrote: »

Another observation I made was that when you lose the ego, you stop caring whether you come across as egotistical or not, so this in turn makes you seem egotistical even though it is the complete opposite

I don't think you've come across as particularly egotistical. That's not what I meant when I said your ego was alive and well. You come across as very eager to share your experience and convert other people. This is a very human trait and is almost entirely driven by ego IMO.

wylo

Hi onlyrocknroll, firstly cheers for the way you respectfully worded your post, as opposed to having a banner at the top like 'nonsense' (even if thats what you believe )
Secondly, no need to hate contradicting me in any way ,you see I love this debate, this debate is needed, I love testing this whole thing, I love doubting it, questioning it, double checking it ,everything, because every time I do it reconfirms out, it adds more clarity, it knocks down other beliefs and doubts I may have had.
I thought I was trying to show 18AD that there was no self, but it the complete opposite, 18AD was testing me (well maybe you were just debating me for the laugh, but afterwards it felt like a test), and I do NOT mean that negatively, I loved it, I was delighted, every test challenges it even more, it confirms things you were doubtful about yourself. And when I leave this thread and walk out of the house the clarity and the feeling of emptiness is stronger every time!

But I may dig into your arguments if thats cool,

onlyrocknroll wrote: »

Hey wylo
Normally I feel very opposed to contradicting what someone reports about themselves, so I hate saying this. But respectively I'm quite sceptical about your claim to have broken from a psychological sense of self. I understand that many Buddhists report doing this as you've mentioned but that's after many years of meditation which much have a deep and profound psychological effect on a person.

Ok so you believe that years of meditation is required for this, and that maybe I am experiencing some placebo or something, or im just kind of seeing things a little different?
Well as I said in an earlier post , as someone pointed out to me recently, I believe I went about it the 'wrong' way, (or in my case the right way), I attained realization, but have many months ahead to defuse a lifetime of beliefs, I was informed that these beliefs do not take long to drift away though. Whereas a buddhist spends years defusing the beliefs and then eventually attains instant realisation.
When I meditate now , (i tried recently just to see), I can empty my mind in 20/30 seconds to a minute, completely empty,no thoughts, complete blank. I tried meditating once or twice in the past and it must have taken me 20/30 minutes to get that far.
But I take your point, but will have to respectfully disagree.

onlyrocknroll wrote: »

Putting aside the philosophical arguments for and against the existence of a self or ego, I believe that the sense of self is analogous to other concepts like causality, or time and space, or belief in the external world. These concepts may be challenged philosophically, but I dispute that anybody (under normal conditions, i.e. besides mental illness, or years of Buddhist training) can function without them.

Ok I disagree as you know but as you say, we'll put that debate aside for now.

onlyrocknroll wrote: »

I think that evidence of this is found in the joke that I made earlier in the thread about the thread title. You've continued to refer to yourself in the first person, and address other posters in the third person, dispute your claim that your self doesn't exist. Now I'm sure you would claim that this is just grammatical convention, but I would argue that it's evidence that you're linguistically and conceptually dependent on the concept of the self. What would be a better why to express fear for example. Instead of "I'm afraid" you'd say what?
I'm quite sure (open to correction) that all human languages have a grammatical subject and a first person pronoun used to identify the self.

Now I must completely stress to you I do not think this body is the same as someone elses body, these thoughts are the thoughts of this body/brain, my friends thoughts are the thoughts of his body/brain. This is possibly what I mean by that deeper lower ego, I look in the mirror and see this body, that is the mirror test,but I believe I have shaken the self that WE form ourselves upon growing up.
Now I know you wont like my argument that I need to use language to refer to this body, but you have to admit, its a valid point. People keep forgetting that a self is not required to be a human. I still speak English, I still do everything the same. Its just the self is gone, there is no inner deep chatter, just plain thoughts and observations of the world around, sometimes there is so much clarity that I genuinely forget there is any me at all(and im even referring to this body here). Its like a feeling that all existence is outside of this head, not inside.

onlyrocknroll wrote: »

Again I hate contradicting what you've said about yourself, I mean no disrespect.

Cheers, im not offended in the least, every argument gives me the opportunity to offer my point back.

Maybe, just maybe, I have gone nuts, maybe that day was me convincing myself so badly to lose the ego that I pretended to myself I lost it, maybe its just giant placebo and I will snap out of this tomorrow. I honestly , truthfully promise any of you that I will come back and eat humble pie if I lose this clarity or realization.
The only reason I started the thread was in the hope other people would try do the same, I hope they are trying cause there really is nothing to lose whatsoever. You could even just 'ah ill do it for the craic, just to see is he talking sh1te!!!'

wylo

SnoogyDoogy wrote: »

I don't think you've come across as particularly egotistical. That's not what I meant when I said your ego was alive and well. You come across as very eager to share your experience and convert other people. This is a very human trait and is almost entirely driven by ego IMO.

But why does wanting to share this with other people have to be driven by ego?
My theory is that because Im a human Im capable of intelligent thoughts, this brain is experiencing existence and reality for what it really is as oppose to seeing through the lens of the self. I believe this brain has a desire to share this with everyone.
Ok, Maybe that is ego driven, i honestly dont know , I dont see how wanting to do that is even related to the self.
It goes back to my point, I do not think this body is the same as everything else in existence, I acknowledge this body is different. Its this brain that feels like sharing this.
Like others, Eckhart Tolle, Buddha, but more importantly alot of people on the website where I learned this.
Dont get me wrong, people get lazy, not everyone wants to share it, I may even lose heart after a while when I realise its too difficult to explain but for now Ill keep fighting!!!

davej

That forum looks interesting enough but I don't think it is a substitute for methodical study.

Reading Hume, Kant, Schopenhauer and Wittgenstein is a good start

For a modern neurophilosophical viewpoint on the non existance of the self, try reading The Ego Tunnel by Thomas Metzinger

There is also a decent All in the Mind interview with him here

davej

CL7

wylo wrote: »

But why does wanting to share this with other people have to be driven by ego?
My theory is that because Im a human Im capable of intelligent thoughts, this brain is experiencing existence and reality for what it really is as oppose to seeing through the lens of the self. I believe this brain has a desire to share this with everyone.

Why would the brain desire to share it? Without an ego, where would this desire come from?

The people on the forum you linked to seem to think that the brain is only interested in truth once the ego has been removed. Why would it only be interested in truth? Without an ego getting in the way your brain would make the most logical decision given the information it had. While that would involve seeking the truth, surely it wouldn't always involve telling the truth.

Also, (this question is directed at anyone who would like to answer really) why would one be more compassionate once they have lost their ego? Maybe humans would be less compassionate in certain situations, why not?

wylo

davej wrote: »

That forum looks interesting enough but I don't think it is a substitute for methodical study.

Reading Hume, Kant, Schopenhauer and Wittgenstein is a good start

For a modern neurophilosophical viewpoint on the non existance of the self, try reading The Ego Tunnel by Thomas Metzinger

There is also a decent All in the Mind interview with him here

davej

Cool I'll check that stuff out!

Yea the forum is by no means meant to be a substitute, its not a discussion board really you see. Its basically for people that still see the self but believe that perhaps it doesnt exist.
But some people go on convinced they are right and end up getting caught out.
Even the mod admitted that he only went on the board just to get a rise out of everyone because he thought they were just a bunch of spoofers, but they kept hammering home the message properly and asking him questions and then one day it clicked it for him.:D

wylo

SnoogyDoogy wrote: »

Why would the brain desire to share it? Without an ego, where would this desire come from?

this goes back to the presumption that a self is required for someone to be human.
Desires that involve escapes from the self go away I admit (like material goods). E.G. I have always done the lotto, every week, always , I couldnt bare the idea of my mates doing it and not me being a part of it in case they won , now I dont care.
I would not accept 1 Billion euro to go back to the self, does that mean this is constant bliss and perfection ? Absolutely not in a million years, hell , sometimes I feel like exactly like I did before (thats getting rarer though) but its the feeling of seeing reality more clearly for the first time that you cant really put a price on.

SnoogyDoogy wrote: »

The people on the forum you linked to seem to think that the brain is only interested in truth once the ego has been removed. Why would it only be interested in truth? Without an ego getting in the way your brain would make the most logical decision given the information it had. While that would involve seeking the truth, surely it wouldn't always involve telling the truth.

Why not, its basically someone wanting others to see the truth, why is there a self needed for that? Yes its a desire. Alot of people choose to turn their backs on people and zen out on a mountain top and let this whole thing get as deep as possible, but conscious decisions can still be made and some people make the conscious decision to share it with others.
re: the forum, the general ethos is always question everything (not in an 9/11 inside job type way),but question your beliefs, its why humans have pushed themselves to the point we are , we have always questioned beliefs. Even question this 'enlightenment', doubt it , test it, try to see if there is even more after this.

SnoogyDoogy wrote: »

Also, (this question is directed at anyone who would like to answer really) why would one be more compassionate once they have lost their ego? Maybe humans would be less compassionate in certain situations, why not?

I dont think anyone is more or less compassionate ,sorry if I implied that in an older post, if I did , what I meant was when stupid things become unimportant , the important things become a bit more a priority, e.g. family , friends ,etc. This does not mean I am all of the sudden doing all these great things for them, they dont even notice the change in me, well maybe a bit actually. But its little things, e.g. I was visiting my sister recently but had stuff to do that day, as I was leaving my nephew asked did i wanna play soccer for a few minutes, I usually would have said sorry I really have lots to do. But I weighed it up in an instant and had a game of soccer. And yes I still got all that stuff done.

Forget about the forum, the forum seems to put people off, if people on the forum had their way there would be no forum , it would just be every one enlightened, forget about all those links I put up, forget everything and just do this much: Constantly question when exactly is a self needed? If you are walking down the street and talking, is the self actually controlling the legs, is there an actual 'you' saying 'move this leg this way, move this leg that way', no the legs are moving, ok the brain is involved but no self, big difference. The reason I use that example is because its the easiest one to understand, its the first one I understood. Seeing if there was a self needed for thoughts was much more difficult admittedly.
BUT, there is no self needed for thoughts, because there is no self, its just thoughts.

Ms.Odgeynist

wylo wrote: »

Hi onlyrocknroll, firstly cheers for the way you respectfully worded your post, as opposed to having a banner at the top like 'nonsense' (even if thats what you believe )
Secondly, no need to hate contradicting me in any way ,you see I love this debate, this debate is needed, I love testing this whole thing, I love doubting it, questioning it, double checking it ,everything, because every time I do it reconfirms out, it adds more clarity, it knocks down other beliefs and doubts I may have had.
I thought I was trying to show 18AD that there was no self, but it the complete opposite, 18AD was testing me (well maybe you were just debating me for the laugh, but afterwards it felt like a test), and I do NOT mean that negatively, I loved it, I was delighted, every test challenges it even more, it confirms things you were doubtful about yourself. And when I leave this thread and walk out of the house the clarity and the feeling of emptiness is stronger every time!

But I may dig into your arguments if thats cool,




Ok so you believe that years of meditation is required for this, and that maybe I am experiencing some placebo or something, or im just kind of seeing things a little different?
Well as I said in an earlier post , as someone pointed out to me recently, I believe I went about it the 'wrong' way, (or in my case the right way), I attained realization, but have many months ahead to defuse a lifetime of beliefs, I was informed that these beliefs do not take long to drift away though. Whereas a buddhist spends years defusing the beliefs and then eventually attains instant realisation.
When I meditate now , (i tried recently just to see), I can empty my mind in 20/30 seconds to a minute, completely empty,no thoughts, complete blank. I tried meditating once or twice in the past and it must have taken me 20/30 minutes to get that far.
But I take your point, but will have to respectfully disagree.


Ok I disagree as you know but as you say, we'll put that debate aside for now.



Now I must completely stress to you I do not think this body is the same as someone elses body, these thoughts are the thoughts of this body/brain, my friends thoughts are the thoughts of his body/brain. This is possibly what I mean by that deeper lower ego, I look in the mirror and see this body, that is the mirror test,but I believe I have shaken the self that WE form ourselves upon growing up.
Now I know you wont like my argument that I need to use language to refer to this body, but you have to admit, its a valid point. People keep forgetting that a self is not required to be a human. I still speak English, I still do everything the same. Its just the self is gone, there is no inner deep chatter, just plain thoughts and observations of the world around, sometimes there is so much clarity that I genuinely forget there is any me at all(and im even referring to this body here). Its like a feeling that all existence is outside of this head, not inside.



Cheers, im not offended in the least, every argument gives me the opportunity to offer my point back.

Maybe, just maybe, I have gone nuts, maybe that day was me convincing myself so badly to lose the ego that I pretended to myself I lost it, maybe its just giant placebo and I will snap out of this tomorrow. I honestly , truthfully promise any of you that I will come back and eat humble pie if I lose this clarity or realization.
The only reason I started the thread was in the hope other people would try do the same, I hope they are trying cause there really is nothing to lose whatsoever. You could even just 'ah ill do it for the craic, just to see is he talking sh1te!!!'

Wylo,
I think all you have described sounds lovely - genuinely - and I apologise if the tome of some of my earlier posts were not as respectful as they should have been.
But when I read your posts I'm struck by the fact that what you write does not make sense (to me).
You claim to have reached what many would call Nirvana - a complete escape from the dread that accompanies existence.
Without a self, presumably you have no fear of death? Am I right? Nothing to lose in death without a self!
Also, I have to return to the point that your engagement with posters here, your attempts to convince them of the merits of your endeavour is driven solely by ego, there can be no other part of you at work.
Perhaps the confusion is semantic and we are talking about different things.
But the notion that anyone can escape the ego, or the self, and continue to function is ludicrous (to me). And I genuinely mean that respectfully.
At about three months, a baby begins to realise that they exist separately from their primary care giver. They realise that they are an individual with agency that can influence the world. If you are aware that you exist, then you have self-awareness! Whether you consider it a linguistic trap or not, it is an inescapable fact. Even buddhist monks don't escape the self - I'm sorry but they don't! I have no doubt that they reach extreme states of calm, which resemble metaphysical transcendence, but we are inextricably linked to this concept through which we experience everything.
It is why we cry out before we die, be it a whimper or a roar. It is our sense that our self is approaching non-existence.
Now perhaps you also have no fear of death??? If you have escaped that as well I salute you! But I am trapped in my skepticism I'm afraid.

wylo

Hey no problem on the tone whatsoever, it was only that the last post was going off topic and I was worried that it would lead the conversation astray.
You mentioned us inventing content, I disagree but Id be delighted to debate that in another thread, I like this forum so ill probably just hang around for general debate. I just dont want to go off topic here.

You also compared the mind to the belief of self, my mind exists, its a means of pattern recognition in the brain, I think the self is a belief.

You also believed that with my argument you could say that nothing exists, not even distance or time. I am not deep that, I believe everything exists, including thoughts, but where I differ is that I believe that the belief of the thought of self, one of the most powerful beliefs is untrue.
Kids believe in Santa but thats not that powerful a thought, it eventually becomes untrue.
When someone is hypnotised they temporarily believe something, but again its not that powerful and doesnt last long. The self is hammered into your brain your whole life so you need one giant wedge to get rid of it.
Most thoughts are based on real things, some arent, the concept of a you isnt. If we never spoke in the words I, you , myself, etc, and didnt hammer home the feeling of indivuality, I dont think that thought would ever have been as strong or engrained.




Now to address your last post...

You claim to have reached what many would call Nirvana - a complete escape from the dread that accompanies existence.
Without a self, presumably you have no fear of death? Am I right? Nothing to lose in death without a self!
Also, I have to return to the point that your engagement with posters here, your attempts to convince them of the merits of your endeavour is driven solely by ego, there can be no other part of you at work.
Perhaps the confusion is semantic and we are talking about different things.
But the notion that anyone can escape the ego, or the self, and continue to function is ludicrous (to me). And I genuinely mean that respectfully.
At about three months, a baby begins to realise that they exist separately from their primary care giver. They realise that they are an individual with agency that can influence the world. If you are aware that you exist, then you have self-awareness! Whether you consider it a linguistic trap or not, it is an inescapable fact. Even buddhist monks don't escape the self - I'm sorry but they don't! I have no doubt that they reach extreme states of calm, which resemble metaphysical transcendence, but we are inextricably linked to this concept through which we experience everything.
It is why we cry out before we die, be it a whimper or a roar. It is our sense that our self is approaching non-existence.
Now perhaps you also have no fear of death??? If you have escaped that as well I salute you! But I am trapped in my skepticism I'm afraid.

I dont know what nirvana means, or the 'dread that accompanies existence', honestly.

Now you are very correct on something, we ARE talking about different things. Ive said it once or twice in this thread but I better say it again.
When I look in this mirror, there is acknowledgement that THIS body is the body that contains this brain that contains these thoughts, these thoughts are seperate from someone elses thoughts. THAT I believe is the mirror test, so yes there is some sort of acknowledgement deep down that I am separate. Just like a baby or an elephant or dolphin.

This body has EVERY reason to fear death, this life wants to survive. A fly or an Ant or even bacteria want to survive. There is no 'me' that 'owns' this want to survive, its just this life wanting to survive.
When Im hungry, there is no extra entity that owns this hunger, its just this body wanting to eat cause its hungry.
When I move my legs there is no me owning the want to move the legs, its the brain signalling the leg movement.

I agree that it would actually require a psychological break or mental illness to actually get to a point where I cant even acknowledge my own existence and thoughts as being different to something else, but thats not what Im talking. So I am aware I exist, but that is just awareness that this body exists, if you want to call that self awareness fine, but its not the self im talking about, there is no I or self needed to own this awareness.
Its just awareness.

You believe there is a 'you' that owns and controls everything your body does, as if its an extra entity or controller. That 'you' is a belief , or illusion, its not actually real, you know its not because you cant find it, you cant find a thought either, its just a thought, but the big difference is a regular thought is founded on real things.
You could go very deep and say maybe none of this is real, but im not going down that road here, thats another debate.
So I imagine my car outside. That car exists but I didnt actually create a real car in my head, just the illusion of one.
The you is an illusion in the same way. Its a feeling of a controller inside you that makes all the decisions, its a belief, an untrue one, but still a belief.

There is no me typing these words, just the thought creating signals, to move my fingers, to type whatever words come to mind, no one is owning those thoughts, they are just thoughts.

wylo

My definitions, im sure buddhists or whatever would disagree.
Enlightenment: You become enlightened on the fact that there is no you/controller, you see this for the first time.
Realization: You realize and see for the first time that the self was an illusion.

Both the same thing ^^^

I think its worth noting that im not too great at explaining this stuff, others are better. Some people are so good that they crack peoples beliefs. I only try and present the logic in as best a way I can. Im sure over time ill improve.