for you in your own practice, how do you answer this question, essence of what you are

[Nungali]

19 hours ago, Salvijus said:

 

There is some truth in your way of seeing things. In a sense that the great spirit indeed can manifest in various diverse forms, each unique in its expression. But you're trying to insert ignorance as one of truthful qualities in there aswell which but your sneaky ego at play. 

 

Where did I insert  ignorance ?     YOU inserted , claimed , finger pointed and declared ignorance .... not me . 

 

But I suppose , as you have been , you will see this as another of my animal ego outbursts . 

 

 

[Nungali]

19 hours ago, Salvijus said:

 

It depends what you mean by "animal".

 

I already explained that ; we ARE an animal  , a  mammal, a primate ....    we have body hair, suckle young , have fingernails , teeth to chew food ....I mean my goodness! What are you not getting here .  WE are a human animal  . . .  ' Homo sapiens ' . 

 

JEEEEEEZE !  

 

Is the denial of nature so strong in you ...  is this a serious question ?   Or are you suffering from an extreme dose of 'spiritual ego ' ? 

 

19 hours ago, Salvijus said:

If you're saying everyone is a unique creation with unique attributes of the Great Spirit, then yes.

 

I didn't say that either ... but I will agree with it .  And not just 'everyone' .... 'every thing . " 

 

19 hours ago, Salvijus said:

 

Humans are God's creatures like everything else. But if you mean animal nature - the ego.

 

 

No I don't mean  ;  ' animal nature - the ego '  . I don't even know what this little phrase YOU made up means .  And it   isn't relating to anything I bought up . 

 

19 hours ago, Salvijus said:

Then no. Ego is just a hallucination born of ignorance.

 

 

YOU were the one that inserted ego into this , not me ; you started this  high and spiritual finger pointing at me declaring how egotistical  I am  .... and got your support from that little row of similar ignorant 'cheerer oners '     

 

So I am wondering who has 'the ego' here . 

 

And I will also absolutely deny and oppose your above declaration... its ridiculous !   I suggest you go and find out what functions ego plays in YOUR OWN make up to make everyday life and awareness possible !  

 

And again, to be clear, I am NOT saying ego should be 'running the show' / directing the psyche or be the conductor of the orchestra of the self  . 

 

And no I am not denying any spiritual content of things either .    

 

19 hours ago, Salvijus said:

 

It's not your nature.

 

Do NOT tell me what is my nature and what is not, I know my own nature very well , and you, it seems, do not have a clue about my nature ... and especially do not try this on in a thread where we  were asked to describe how we see something in our own practices . 

 

 

19 hours ago, Salvijus said:

 

Same word can be used to point to different things. If the distinction is made not carefully, you can end up validating a delusion. 

 

 

And so I urge you to go back and read what I have written carefully to dispel this reactive illusion that arose in yourself .  

 

YOU were the one that  got triggered and added your own baggage to the  'distinction' 

[kakapo]

23 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

This comment seems to relate to something other than what I was referring to  .  I was commenting on your idea about no internal 'self' or regulator or controller , more of an internal construction . Here you seem to have started talking about how we ( whatever 'we' is ) perceive and  judge  the outside world '   or   reality . 

 

I really cant fathom this one :  " Whatever reality is it looks nothing like the experience we are having of it. " 

 

You seem to suggest you don't know what it is , yet    it doesn't look like  the experience we have with it   . 

 

So to get back to the no you discussion. 

 

Starlings fly in patterns that no individual member decides on, I posted a video previously. 

 

Imagine that this collective made up of birds developed an ego,  an identity, and could communicate with you.  

 

When you looked at the individual birds themselves they would have no clue about higher level concepts and language,  they are just birds. 

 

Imagine collectively such an intelligence emerged from their communication and interaction though. 

 

In this scenario, there is no I anywhere in that flock of dumb birds.  

 

It is just an emergent property of the flock communicating.  

 

As to what reality really looks like.  

 

Color doesn't exist,  light has a frequency, but not color.  

 

Color is something our brain attributes to the frequency of light.  

 

In reality nothing has a smell, or a taste.  

 

Those are attributes our mind gives to chemicals we interact with.  

 

We aren't looking at reality, we are looking at an abstraction of it.  

 

Edited Monday at 11:17 PM by kakapo

[Nungali]

48 minutes ago, kakapo said:

 

So to get back to the no you discussion. 

 

Starlings fly in patterns that no individual member decides on, I posted a video previously. 

 

Imagine that this collective made up of birds developed an ego,  an identity, and could communicate with you.  

 

When you looked at the individual birds themselves they would have no clue about higher level concepts and language,  they are just birds. 

 

Imagine collectively such an intelligence emerged from their communication and interaction though. 

 

In this scenario, there is no I anywhere in that flock of dumb birds.  

 

It is just an emergent property of the flock communicating.  

 

Do you realize what you just did there  ...... on a philosophical level  ?   

 

You projected invented qualities   into a natural example , that doesn't exist  (  proof; you asked me to 'imagine ' it  ,  to imagine the bird  flock had some quality )  and then tried to use that as the natural example of the phenomena  . 

 

That's a philosophical and rational no-no . 

 

In other words ,   it   don't make sense . 

 

 

48 minutes ago, kakapo said:

 

As to what reality really looks like.  

 

Color doesn't exist,  light has a frequency, but not color.  

 

Color is something our brain attributes to the frequency of light.  

 

In reality nothing has a smell, or a taste.  

 

Those are attributes our mind gives to chemicals we interact with.  

 

We aren't looking at reality, we are looking at an abstraction of it.  

 

 

This is a different subject now  ^  . 

 

There is the 'ideal world '     ( color doesn't exist )  in the ideal world of color there are only three primaries . In the real world, there is no such thing as a primary color . 

 

In the 'real world ' ... color  '  exists '  via 'consensual reality '    and agreement .  I can say ,  my  shirt is blue , and you might agree . In the real world there are  4  'natural colors , now green is included .  

 

'Reality' is a slippery salamander       

[kakapo]

8 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

Do you realize what you just did there  ...... on a philosophical level  ?   

 

You projected invented qualities   into a natural example , that doesn't exist  (  proof; you asked me to 'imagine ' it  ,  to imagine the bird  flock had some quality )  and then tried to use that as the natural example of the phenomena  . 

 

That's a philosophical and rational no-no . 

 

In other words ,   it   don't make sense . 

 

 

 

This is a different subject now  ^  . 

 

There is the 'ideal world '     ( color doesn't exist )  in the ideal world of color there are only three primaries . In the real world, there is no such thing as a primary color . 

 

In the 'real world ' ... color  '  exists '  via 'consensual reality '    and agreement .  I can say ,  my  shirt is blue , and you might agree . In the real world there are  4  'natural colors , now green is included .  

 

'Reality' is a slippery salamander       

 

Analogies are rarely perfect. 

 

 

[Nungali]

True , but I think this one can be improved and have the  contradictory stuff removed ... and see what we have :

 

We don't have to imagine there is some force controlling the bird movement ... we know what it is and what causes those patterns in the sky   . 

 

But what causes bird migrating behavior , that makes all these 'flighty flitty birds '   ( ;  the  forces, drives and energies making up the human psyche , via   'imperfect analogy    )   know how and where to migrate in the first place ?  It isn't  lead or chief bird , its a force or energy related to physical remembered experience and evolution  .  This creates an 'overall bird experience'  or an 'archetype' , if you will .  This ruling archetype seems a better analogy to me, for the  'idea of self'  .... meaning , its an answer to the question of  what drives human behavior and what drives the bird flock to initially act that way  ( which is different from what causes the bird 'murmering '  ... its similar to how fish school and move  ... the process, that is , not the cause . 

 

 

 

[Salvijus]

@Nungali

🤝

[Salvijus]

12 hours ago, Nungali said:

and got your support from that little row of similar ignorant 'cheerer oners ' 

 

I know how it feels to be on the other side of it, haha. The "like, dislike" feature can be really annoying on this forum. That's one thing I'd remove if it was up to me. This game of taking sides is mostly egotistical and only adds fuel to the inflammation of conflicts. Rarely do people use the "like" feature to show that something touched their heart without the agenda to side against a somebody. When it happens it's nice. I don't think he tried to side against you or with me tho. That's a good use of a "like" button.

Besides, I don't think it's possible to side with me on a personal level, I'd be the first one to turn against all such plays, haha. 

 

"Truth is perfectly comfortable standing alone, lies need lots of aliences to constantly feel reassurance."

 

It's a nice topic you've touched on, Nungali. Ties really nicely into the importance of sovergnity... Perhaps a discussion for another day 

Tcare, Nungali, it's always fun talking to you. 🤝

Amen

Edited yesterday at 11:48 AM by Salvijus

[Nungali]

Like  I  used to say to people at work   " As long as it was fun .... good !  " 

 

(and what makes good 'fun'  ?   The extremes of human experience   -  apparently .) 

[kakapo]

23 hours ago, Nungali said:

True , but I think this one can be improved and have the  contradictory stuff removed ... and see what we have :

 

We don't have to imagine there is some force controlling the bird movement ... we know what it is and what causes those patterns in the sky   . 

 

But what causes bird migrating behavior , that makes all these 'flighty flitty birds '   ( ;  the  forces, drives and energies making up the human psyche , via   'imperfect analogy    )   know how and where to migrate in the first place ?  It isn't  lead or chief bird , its a force or energy related to physical remembered experience and evolution  .  This creates an 'overall bird experience'  or an 'archetype' , if you will .  This ruling archetype seems a better analogy to me, for the  'idea of self'  .... meaning , its an answer to the question of  what drives human behavior and what drives the bird flock to initially act that way  ( which is different from what causes the bird 'murmering '  ... its similar to how fish school and move  ... the process, that is , not the cause . 

 

 

 

 

If you asked an individual neuron to solve a partial differential equation, it would have no clue. 

 

If you put a bunch of neurons together, and let them act collectively,  they can indeed learn together how to  solve a problem as a group that none of them understand individually. 

 

The understanding exists in their relationship to one another, but not with any single individual.  

 

"you", "I"  ego, identity is like that also. 

 

 

 

Edited 16 hours ago by kakapo

[Nungali]

5 hours ago, kakapo said:

 

If you asked an individual neuron to solve a partial differential equation, it would have no clue. 

 

If you put a bunch of neurons together, and let them act collectively,  they can indeed learn together how to  solve a problem as a group that none of them understand individually. 

 

The understanding exists in their relationship to one another, but not with any single individual.  

 

"you", "I"  ego, identity is like that also. 

 

 

 

 

 

And that is what gives the brain  its ability too .    Its the relationships between  'parts' (on may different levels  - some beyond the brain - in other body locations )   .   More so with the development and function of 'mind '  .  

 

I see this as a supporting fact  to what I said , not a contradiction .  

 

As far as 'you' ego  ,  'I ' ,   etc   I totally agree ; the psyche is a collection of   ( here we go ; )  'entities' , drives , 'personalities'  ,  'spirits'  ? 

 

But something organized and directs it  ; either an 'inbuilt programs'  running concurrently and in relative harmony (or not ! )  or 'it' is being used / directed by a 'master controller ' .   In Exo-psychology  these 'forces'  are mostly in two classes  ; the written program we come with  that are pretty much written for us ,  and another set that are developing  in our evolution  (and to an extent , in each persons development )   and when established have the ability to rewrite the other programs , if need be .  One of these higher 'programs' is considered to be the controller  ; the ' Neuro-electric '  circuit  ,  which is located throughout the nervous system including the brain , but it needs to also interact with the neuro- genetic circuit (cellular consciousness , located in the cells ) and the 'top' circuit , where consciousness is defined as 'non-local' .  

 

There are a few 'maps of consciousness' which suggest similar arrangements .