But my whole point is that defining the ego cannot be anything but disparate. Everybody argues about what it is. The last two defintions in this thread I mremebr reading are 'the me' and 'self cherishing ideals'. Your one liner post stating I do not understand the word was actually a mastery of trollaggery and the epitome of arrogance. You are king of the word!



Waiting for description of how it is possible.


Drugs do not count. Meditation is actually the reverse. Again we get to problems of defining what constitutes as the 'self' - if you are egocentric and you meditate on your surroundings then maybe it can fit but its all bull**** I solved years ago so not going there. You are on the stoic bandwagon right? Denying, or refusing to give consent to emotion also does not count, to deny or refuse means you acknowledge its existence.

I know you don't get it, but maybe you get it a little and in some years time you will get it a little more. Your purposeful method of dissociation is only hiding like an ostrich. Actual dissociation requires input to reverse. Ok this is just my opinion but it is supported by daily experience and I'm willing to change my view once something refutes it but I have worked with plenty of truly detached from reality persons, as may you have, and maybe you try force your stoic ideology on them as sometimes it works, without you actually knowing why it just happened to be better than medication or ECT that time.

OP gave it meaning. Stop taking the damn authority on semantics. If you could learn to understand what people are trying to express instead of what it means to you, instead of the socially constructed ****ing memes in your mind maybe you would not be so naive.


Great, but we are talking in your language, with the irony that all this philosophy in this journal is mixing up results because no one ****ing understands each others experience so they throw them all in the same basket and we get these generic ideas that apply to some people in the same way people think depression is the same from psyche to psyche. Blindly following law of averages like lemmings. (Nah it's probably interesting though, I will look)


I never said it was in the subject of science or math - these things I rarely comment on except for occasionally when I try to talk about abstract ideas I get sometimes which I hope math boffins can understand and translate. Of course talking about the ego is philosophy! (Is it **** ever science)

No they wouldn't , knowledge requires relativity.

BRIAN I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT MR PHYSIC'S DEFINITION OF RELATIVITY HERE OK (even though it still fits dammit as knowledge = bloody mechanics = tao/logos/God damn random way it is mind process)

Maybe I should write, 'No they wouldn't, knowledge requires distinct separation/contrast between ideas to have individual meaning'

MUCH LIKE SOMETHING CANNOT MOVE UNLESS THERE IS SOMETHING ELSE TO IT. SOMETHING CANNOT HAVE ANY KIND OF TIME/ENERGY VALUE WITHOUT A RELATIVE COMPONENT

WHY DO I HAVE TO GO TO SUCH EFFORTS WHENEVER THERE IS A MEME

also thankyou for telling me to relax, it worked. But I think a nice biff is better than following rage inducing ignorance. Ciao

I am not exactly sure what point you are trying to get across.

My main point is when people talk about the whole eastern esoteric "ego" this is not necessarily what people understand "ego" to mean, according to a modern definition.

If self-cherishing is diminished .. the individual still has an ego, no worries. Cause and effect is still around, the relative still exists... so, there is that.

Good luck.

No.

You are bringing up several completely different things.

One is the ability to just do without a running dialogue going through your head. That isn't the same thing as ending all thought. It just means that in some tasks, such as martial arts, you need to practice until you aren't thinking in words about what to do. I'm going to guess that you don't think "left, right, left" when walking - it is that sort of thing. It doesn't work with other tasks of daily living.

Another is dissociation. It makes pain not hurt. Just watching what is happening to you without feeling emotional about it. "Ah, yes, my arm fell off" without the yearning for it to have it not cut off.

The third is not having unhelpful thoughts and having a sense of perspective. The "ZOMG, this is so horrible" thoughts add to suffering when something is only mildly irritating, like your steak was made medium rare when you asked for rare.

So, with the "no" that I started with, it is a certain type of thought. It isn't not thinking at all.

It is the result of the methods, not the methods.

Separating your watching from your emotional response to what you see. "Yes, that root canal is quite painful, but I don't find it troubling." Making the sensation of pain just a sensation. Kāmacchando or nindāroso would be the equivalent.

Sakkāya-diṭṭhi is what I think newguy might be trying to suggest. I'm not sure of the best way of describing it in English. Maybe, "feeling that your unique perspective is of special importance, feeling that your personality is stable/permanent, feeling that your personality is something other than something that is happening, feeling that you are of special importance."

I'm not sure where he is getting the "thinking is bad" part from. Bad thinking is bad. Thinking when you should just be doing is bad. Thinking about what to get your girlfriend for her birthday isn't bad. Thinking about how to do a new task isn't bad. Thinking about how to make a nuclear bomb isn't bad.

There are lots of words available to make it clear what you are talking about.

Meditate, particularly using Shamatha and/or Vipassana meditation techniques. It is easier than telling someone to exercise their insular, prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortex.

Meditation leads to being nonjudgmental about the stuff going on. "Hmmm, I sense that there is pain" instead of "zomg, that hurts!"

And if you get the same result, you get the same result. Some may argue that it is fake and that somehow matters.

Dissociation isn't (except for when it is of the unhealthy type, which would be a dissociative disorder) becoming detached from reality. I should have been clear that I wasn't talking about dissociative disorders.

He is confusing several definitions and it is making his thoughts unclear to himself.

This ego-death thing that he brought up at the beginning is a very specific thing, and I know what he means. I know (from knowing what he means) that the rest of what he was writing was using different and contradictory definitions. What he was talking about (at the beginning of the thread) happens to only be possible with drugs or severe mental disorder.

You are probably looking at the wrong journal. The Journal of Clinical Mindfulness and Meditation was the right one. The ones on dissociative disorders are talking about a different phenomena.

As far as depression goes, it is probably several different disorders. Science doesn't really care about your personal experience of having a bad sore throat. We care whether it is caused by streptococcus or a cold virus and how to treat it, not how you personally experience a given sore throat differently than other people do.

Personality, neuroscience and such are the realm of science.

What do we call this type of action without thinking? Or is it thinking but a different kind of thought?


This would be like the picture of the monk burning himself. As far as I know that really happened? What is it that brings that ability about, is it learnable? And I guess a crude way of questioning but did the man use thought for this or negation of thought?

Right so this is how meditation would help in a superficial way although we might want it to eventually help us with your first example.
I couldn't find a good explanation of the word/phrase so i don't know what it points too.

I don't disagree with this. If so, or if we were to do something about this, there is the obvious danger of bringing in more thought or more thought based constructs, so while bringing them in might be ok, if we were to denounce thought and its construct we become hypocritical in that sense. I suspect you did or meant to point that out.

As for thought we want to put it in its place the difference between the first two you pointed out, and investigate for ourselves the ramification of stretching the automatic type actions to be our entire being. To investigate the ramifications. That is not to say to end thought, but rather to bring the question about of what happens when one ends thought. This is the difference between me saying "you need to never think again" and "what happens when we end thought forever?" In the automatic state (im not sure yet if you feel there is thought when the martial artist punches automatically), where does the self go, and what is our relation to time?

Thought has its place like you point out, but (obviously?) there is more to learning to punch without thought (or automatically perhaps you say WITH thought), than just punching without thought.

If we follow together on this, then punching becomes a tool to undstanding this state, and like Lee says for JKD (his art), it is an art where kicks and punches are aimed at one's own ego to attain liberation. So Jeet Kune do was meant as a tool to kill the ego. The ego is the thing that is the difference between thinking and the automatic state (punching example). And we don't kill it with an action, or a thought. We understand it by observing the difference between the two. And we note there is more to the explanation and caveats.

We might suggest all martial arts address this, and they do (should), but many have watered down instructors that teach merely technique and blah blah we know how it goes, just like religion. And the proper application/understand of this leads to an wholistic view of the divisions of 'martial art'.

Since Dec. 2009, there have been125 cases of self immolation by Tibetan monks.

I would, I guess, call it automation. It is a type of thought as your brain is doing something. You are doing it right now as you read this. You just read. You aren't looking at the letter y and thinking about its shape (same thing for o and u) and then adding the various sounds each one can denote and then adding all those possibilities together to come up with how to likely pronounce the word "you" and so on.

Such things happen all the time. It isn't negation of thought; it is a negation of valuing. It is just doing enough mindful meditation and becoming good at it.

If the monks were super good at only that, they'd not bother self-immolation.

No. Not being irritated by small things is the important and more difficult thing.

Automation of thinking-tasks is a separate thing and just happens without any effort other than practice of the task. It is highly specific to the task.

I gave what I think is an ok explanation.

That is where you are stuck. There is nothing wrong (at all) with thinking. You do know that thought is just a noun version of the verb thinking, right?

The self is there the entire time. It changes, which makes it more of a process than a thing. There is no need to end thought. To desire ending thinking/thought is to crave incorrectly for permanence in something that is not permanent.

You will note, I hope, that I am suggesting that you are barking up the wrong tree. The skilled martial artist thinks things as a sequence of events, and lets the various muscles and joints do their thing. The novice one must think about where his feet are in order to become skilled.

Such things take time. Other than that, it has nothing to do with time. I'm not sure why you are obsessed with it. Those that understand that it is all a process aren't bothered by the fact that it is a process. First you learn how to walk, then you learn how to run, then... At each point you aren't quite the same as you were the day before.

Practice suffices and automation just happens without any effort to automate. Without any thought, there is no reason for the martial artist to punch at all. With sufficient practice, he just has the out-loud thought of "do martial artisty thing now" but that is still a thought. Without that thought, there is no reason for him to not just go through the motions of having a nice bowl of soup during a match.

Oh wait, so you saying now you do understand? (as you can indeed relate what i'm saying to many other ideas/words) ... this will not bode well.



Shamatha

This is done by practicing single-pointed meditation most commonly through mindfullness of breathing


Done this loads with poker. ALthough I have not met one of these master gurus who claim you need them to achieve certain levels. That is just pure irony because of the 'megalomania-esque' trait. Back away from something but you hit wall behind you and they don't see it they just keep trying to walk into the wall. Ostrich/head in sand.

Focusing on one thing is not dissociation, the others are >0 and will return instantly. I have to think real clearly to articulate how you would understand but currently my mind is slow as ****. Changing magnification of certain things in front of mind/present is useful but we are using context from OP which again (I believe) is on same spectrum of self:environment but is not dissociation. It is using a shifting of, rather than a reducing of, the raw 'motor' output. Which the majority believe is impossible or extremely difficult/requiring a natural talent. It can work as a slow process to suppress the strength of certain cognitive stimuli but just focusing on one thing (still the self).

Meh, these are in different platforms and it's not the meditative platform which does this. But pain is awesome example of what I was just trying to say. Is it meditation that reduces the 'judgmental' (this is bad word but I naturally work with it unlike thou!) effect of pain? 'Shrugging it off'? Physical pain was one of the first things that gave me a bit of epiphany. I remember once wanting pain, LOVING IT. Manually inducing that is so much more powerful than trying to balance it on 0. Balancing on 0 is impoosible in all meditative respects. That's why to the OP I say to think more about ego mastery than death (or suppression to Brian)

Today in 2014, the science is totally random and pathetic past common sense. I do keep in to date but it is just regurgitation. WHen you have played poker with likely millions of different individuals you should get a sense of how these studies are useless past the common averages we already know largely from experience of ourselves/socially.


Dissociation

an experience of having one's attention and emotions detached from the environment


The environment/reality same thing (from the observers perspective > mean average).

The question of if it is in the direction of 'disorder' is generally down to your own belief or that of your surrounding culture.




You don't know what he means, I have established this so many times he is not talking about dissociation. He was talking about laughing his head off at one point in the OP and that is dissociation to you?

Thx for journal. There are so bloody many of them I can't choose which to read. Any books? How old are you btw because you come across as 50 and out of shape and this would mean your book recommendations can be trusted.

This perfectly confirms that you don't understand how much experience is involved in the cause of mental issues, and the meta differences between people in how they tilt. Yes there is a physical side of it but at least you understand that depression is probably several disorders. People can have multiple co morbidity of different depressions but everyone misses that blatant logic.

neuroscience of course to an extent. I can ask if the perfectly analogue nature of massless light in the brain causes in random effects or an ability to operate inbetween intervals, turnovers of a process (i,e an action potential) and then we get into philosophy (note ealier when I talking about blaancing on 0 being impossible maybe there is connection to random quantum ****). All science starts as philosophy and as I explain due to the nature of experience most areas of psychology will be philosophy for at least a zillion years and those areas which are observable should be clarified why they are observable and categorized separately.

How insane do I come across...?

One - No you haven't.

Two - a legit guru wouldn't say you "achieve" levels. You seem to have some preconceptions. Lucky for you - the real deal is far from what you seem to think it is.

Good luck.

What makes you say I lie about this? This is the basic most known meditative technique and I have practiced it very much. I left it behind and daily utilize a different technique(s) of my own preference/learning as apathy is not on my agenda currently and they allow cognitive function to remain (improve). More chi focused.

There are no legit gurus. Believing so gets your finger chopped off.

This doesn't work btw, so I can't thank you. It's like you are saying 'I will pray for you'. You have some of this megalomania-esque trait perhaps?

I don't think you lied... However, if you think poker is samatha practice, you are incorrect. Such statements as, "I practice samatha because I play poker" demonstrates a lack of understanding of the samatha practice. You are not telling a fib, you are just ignorant as to samatha.

There are legit teachers. Thinking that there is no one out there that can teach you anything, well that's somewhat arrogant.

Anyways, it's just a turn of phrase. Has nothing to do with praying, all that is just your own baggage.

Good luck.

Ok automation.
What are the kinds of things that are being valued? What needs to be negated to calmly burn oneself to death?

Ok but it doesn't clear it up to say this of course. What is meditation in this sense? What is this type of meditation in relation to thought?
I haven't understood why?


I suspect it is equally difficult for the 'master'.
And this brings up a complex as to what is the specific task.

I understood it but its better for me if i get it from multiple definition sources.
Yes thinking has its place. I just point out that for the general person, thinking does not do everything we believe it to do. It can only do some of the things we think it can. It also does some things we don't realize it does. I'm less of a proponent of changing the process, and more of a proponent of the intellectual realization of its limits and the limits it implies.

So I don't know if you know, but K, different than all other mystics or 'guru' i have read of, claims an intellectual shift. I mean an intellectual realization, where as all others seem to be pointing to a spiritual shift that effects the intellect.
Yes its agreed. So we've started to show that if you were in discussion with K, he would agree, and then we would separate out a certain aspect of thought. He would say "no sir, I don't want to get rid of it, I want to examine it, together...."

Bohm is always quick to point out what you point out here, but he knows that K means a specific type of thought. It obviously seems like moving goal posts, but there is quite a specific purpose if you've seen the entire talks.

It depends on what view you take on how the mind works and what are its parts. So to finally point at a certain aspect of the minds workings, you have to find out all the terms a person uses, put them in their place, and finally point at the aspect you want to discuss.

Some peoples 'terms' are overlapping with the thing we want to point at, so we have to show that, and show the new boundaries we want to talk about. Then decide what word to apply to the thing, that best suits the person we are talking with.
Yes but this loses context once we leave the vacuum of 'martial artist'. If we have a new vacuum it gets easy, but when we open the vacuum completely, its not so cut and dry.
Well we wish to explain one day that process has manifested from thought, and bridge this ideal with the intellect.


Is this really different from a discussion on valid utilities? So the martial artist says "do martial artisty thing now", and doesn't the life artist say "do life artist thing now"? And then that life thing might happen to be a martial arts thing, activated by a broader thought? Or it activates the "do martial artisty thing" thought, making 2 thoughts only instead of 100s.

So might point out that mastery of the martial art means to expand automation to our entire lives. Which may have unforseen ramifications. And one might point out, it might, if properly explored, bring us back to the simple sole study and application of the specific art.

Or we might go the other way and investigate more and more specific aspects of one art, and create the same insights.

This isn't new or revolutionary, I'm just getting it out of the way.

You do not get poker it seems. Things like dopamine surges/dips and tilt and self control and directing your attention are huge parts of the game aswell as conventional meditation/samatha. I am not ignorant towards it it is very simple and anybody who looks will find out about this pretty much initially, which probably damages your pride as you are apparently so proud of it for some reason...

Fortunately, I did not make such statement. Meditating before and after sessions? Consider what is the reverse of this samatha also.

We are talking about gurus (spiritual) and by legit you mean this master/disciple business or what? I say there are no legit gurus due to stereotype of the term and the 'legit' extension being void/redundant in my mind. I never said 'No one can teach me anything' or 'there are no teachers'. Guru is more associated with Eastern schools of thought using the word 'teacher' can apply anywhere are most people who would call themselves a teacher would not use the term 'legit guru' to describe themselves.

Not really my baggage as I am not forced by habit into doing something meaningless... (oh wait *face palm*)

It's OK if you want to clarify things ...

Before or after poker is significantly different than saying you have, "Done this loads with poker."

You can find a ton of good information in books about samatha, true and also develop some stability in the practice - anyone can do it. Yet, its a different story when getting actual instructions from someone who lives it, and you can actually talk and discuss the practice with that person.

Get out of the books and find a good meditation instructor you connect with ...

Too bad you can't get past stereotypes. Legit gurus are out there - if you reject the idea because of your preconceived notion, you are missing out. At least you are missing out if you have any interest. There are also charlatans out there, you should be careful.

Good luck ...

I kind of assume you would have just figured it out. Still it is not unreasonable to practice it whilst doing some kind of activity, just won't be able to go as deep into it but still can go a little deep - that cognitive meditative platform can be utilized alongside other platforms. I am against the notion that one reaches some kind of defined state or plateau and see it as an analogous process.

I don't need help with it, it is very simple/easy. Like I said these skills are (potentially) developed with poker or say before running a big race. People are doing it without realizing often times and it is very easy to learn. DOn't mkae out like there is some kind of master level in terms of skill, it is just about who is willing to be the most patient as to who can go into it for the longest period of time. Again, apathy is not on my agenda and I don't want it to be encouraged. There are loads of ways of achieving differing mental states. I have in my mind a database of many mental states which I use for different tasks. Samatha is no good in the real world to dedicate to, once you know the basics you should move on due to opportunity cost. I am more interested in the techniques I am currently using but haven't really talked about or read about them, just learning it on my own (but of course this is mostly founded on the ideas of others) (others cannot know my motive or desire so they cannot really be involved in my progression unless I am willing to share their motivation/desire).



Still not explained what a legit guru is. Stereotype/opinion is all that is available to me. Things like 'fills with joy without reason' I believe are generally considered a trait of a 'legit guru'. I don't want that nor do I respect it. I am master of myself already, so there are no legit gurus in that sense as no man can be my master. Unless of course I'm starving and they have food (metaphorically speaking) (They will try to make out like you are starving and they have food in their supreme arrogance, you are doing this unwittingly).

Every time I read good luck it is tilting me. I am already lucky enough dammit don't wish me more please as I do not deserve it.

I'm going to assume that is rhetorical. It nearly has to be.

Answer to first question: Look up the meditation methods I brought up and learn about them.

Answer to second question: There is no relationship in the way you would like there to be.

Answer to third question: You should be able to figure that out on your own. I'll ask you a question to get you started. Why would they bother?

No. You are probably a master of walking and chewing gum at the same time. It is just something that happens with sufficient practice. There is nothing mystical about it.

Some tasks are not conducive to it. Science, math and philosophy, to name a few. Having a genuine conversation, problem solving.

"Thinking" is the reason you have that big lump atop your neck. If you want to learn about thinking on a deeper level, read "Experienced Cognition" by Richard Carlson.

The conversation would mostly be him asking me to stop hitting him every time he said something stupid. His ideas are just not in line with the reality of how the brain works. I'd end the conversation with the gift of a few books on sensation, perception and cognition.

Bohm's ideas on the nature of how the brain works were simply wrong.

"How the mind works" is not the type of subject that leads to having "points of view." It works is completely contrary to what the people you like to read and listen to think it does.

No. It is how you learn all new tasks that can become automated.

That made absolutely no sense. Not even a little bit.

Utility is just a fancy word for useful. So, it is completely different than a discussion of valid utilities.

I'm not sure how to explain the difference to you. "Is a cheeseburger really different from a discussion of Mark Twain's left nipple?"

No. Mostly because it doesn't make any sense in relationship to the way the world and the brain works. It is great to not have to sound out each word, but horrible to read a new book or figure out a complex physics problem that has been written down for you without thought.

That part too. Doesn't make any sense. You practice stuff and it becomes easy and automatic if it is of the sort of stuff that can become easy and automatic. Nothing mystical about the process, nothing to learn here, no insights to be gained that any child learning his multiplication tables or who has practiced reading sufficiently to allow for fluent reading already hasn't figured out.

I can't begin to tell you why you are wrong without clarifying. You just have some sort of nebulous ego belief thing.

Well, since you said this:

"Reason: Psychology is best when it is case by case and I see this as most uesful "

I'd say schizoaffective disorder.*

I was a psychologist. Not sure what you thought you were going to teach me. Clinical psychologists doing therapy talk about the person's specific symptoms to make it more personal. What you tell the patient differs slightly based on whether they think they are Napoleon or a hedgehog, or whether they are most concerned about their sadness or their lack of energy.

*I don't diagnose people here.

^^ This makes no sense to me, I looked up the word nebulous to try and guess but I failed. 'A large gaseous ego belief' ? O-o . You are either capable of comprehension when I express (honestly) or you aren't.

Schizoaffective lol.... More confirmation of your naive/stigmatized viewpoint. Somewhat worrying but it's the constructed trend so it's not like I should persecute you for it. One day abstraction will be just a thing of myth.

In the West, most people going to yoga classes aren’t practicing Yoga, just as most going to tai chi classes aren’t practicing Tai Chi Chuan. What most people are doing are parts and pieces of those systems for physical fitness or some other utility. I think the same goes for most that practice meditation. They’re after the psychological or performance benefits meditation offers, not liberation, nirvana or whatnot. So for them it’s probably true that it is easy, just requires practice and they don’t need a teacher. But just practicing samatha isn’t practicing Buddhism. I’m not a Buddhist, I do Yoga, but there’s a similarity between Buddhism’s Noble Eightfold Path and the Eight Limbs of Yoga. So at least in regard to the latter, it’s not easy and you’re not going to get far without a teacher. There are just too many sticking points, nuances and potentially wrong tangents to deal with… if one’s goal is to get to a higher state. But as I alluded to, I don’t think most are after that.

No, you must have accidentally looked up the word nebula. Nebulous means hazy, vague, indistinct or confused.

You said that ego means whatever it means to the specific person. That would make it a complete garbage word. I do know specifically that newguy thinks it means "a yucky sense of self thing that gets in the way of you becoming one with the universe" or something like that. Then he started adding in things that are absolutely contrary to that.

Your understanding of "ego" so far that I've been able to pick up is that it is a word you like using and that you believe everyone means something different when they use the word. That makes it a requirement for discussion that you use additional words to communicate effectively. I'll give you a few starter phrases: "Sense of self," "self-identification," "soul," "one part of Freud's structural model of the mind," "that sense that you are a stable unchanging person that Buddhists say is false," "the imagined homunculus required to make brain-mind duality make sense."

I put a smiley face. Then I put a footnote in to clarify (on the off-chance that I accidentally hit the right diagnosis, which would be disturbing to someone with that diagnosis*) that I wasn't diagnosing you. Not sure how that leads to the rest of what you said.

Actually, not sure what you are talking about on a constructed trend on abstraction. Did you get that out of a madlib?

Or you don't see the link to make it synonymous. 'Gaseous' basically means 'less formed' and it meets those terms semantically. And I am no closer to understanding.

Replace 'garbage' with abstract or irrational and it sounds a little more interesting to talk about. You do know specifically or something like that..

You just keep on claiming authority. That is all this is about to you. My understanding of ''ego'' is different to your starter phrases. although constructed from them partially, and they were already anticipated... so this is meh backwards. Replacements for the word are not solutions for understanding the word or describing how it means to someone else. The last phrase was something useful though in understanding a perspective. Depending on what it is leads to differing solutions when trying to manipulate it.

You take it for granted in its modelization (new word soon) without realizing it is as complex as the grand sum of everything you have prior experienced.



Just some irony. 'I wasn't diagnosing you'. So funny it truly is. TY. But worrying as it shows the deeper thing in the cultural entity how you liberally associate these terms.

You really don't want to go head to head with me on etymology. I told you exactly what I meant quite clearly and succinctly.

Abstract and irrational don't go together. I've seen them around town and they don't even hold hands.

If you are going to try to go head to head with me on Wittgenstein, I expect you to at least make an effort. If you just had to wiki "Wittgenstein" just pretend I didn't mention him and move on.

I wasn't claiming authority over what you think. I was simply claiming with authority that you are talking out your ass.

It is a fine difference.

Back to the subject; tell me what you mean when you say "ego." I can add to the earlier possibilities "the thing you would type if you weren't good at spelling if someone said "leggo my ..."

New words are good! I've even invented a few parts of speech that are catching on.

You don't want to go head to head with me on Wittgenstein or Chomski.

You could take it ("I'm not diagnosing you"), in its deepest meaning of "I'm not describing you." You brought up the subject of you being potentially being a bit short on having a full deck. I just extended the joke.

It would be excellent if you, at the end of this conversation, said "good call on the schizoaffective disorder thing."

I'd be horrified. Nearly everyone else but me would be amused.

More authority. Let's see now.

Diagnosis in it's deepest meaning has a mandatory medical element to it's description. I can see you covering up your slight twinge of guilt/regret after realizing your folly by walking into the trap of further ironic admittance... and this;



The separation from that cultural entity you just attached yourself too and claim to be unaware of. Real good lol's honestly thankyou.

Notice how you believe in another authority causes you to believe that you share that authority by agreement (*cough*slavery*cough*). I believe my individualised comments regarding defining ego involved it being the lens opposed to the image, and it being the grand sum of prior experience. You know there is 'ego' as in the word we use to talk about the self- and then there is actually 'what is this ego'. Through abstraction we know know what the ego symbolizes but we don't know actually what it is for it is irrational. Just like Pi. (''Abstract and irrational don't go together''