Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

Big ego = poor service = low quality of work = poor economy...


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 51-75 of 129 posts in this discussion
Posted on 1 Mar 2013 13:06:58 GMT
Doesn't 'sense of self' presuppose the ego rather than explain it? since the self is the ego? And we might just as well say 'sense of ego?'

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Mar 2013 13:10:03 GMT
Dear Mr Wilde...

Research your own experience rather than looking for simple answers.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Mar 2013 13:15:46 GMT
Spin says:
MR Anthony: "Self" is no more than the totality of an experience of sensations and perceptions. In the absence of such experience, there is no "Self". The term is employed simply to distinguish one set of experiences from another. But "uniqueness" or "diffeentiation" of experience does not entail "Selfhood". Consciousness is an empty bowl filled with input from the body and the outer environment. To be conscious is not to be possess a "Self".

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Mar 2013 13:17:38 GMT
You mean I'm not allowed to ask you questions about what you mean when you say something vague or obscure? I must just accept it because you say it?

What makes you think I want a simple answer? I just want an honest one.

It is not possible for me to know what YOU mean by researching my own experience, but this is what I am presently interested in.

Perhaps you don't know what you mean? In which case there is no point in any of us taking the words very seriously.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Mar 2013 13:19:27 GMT
I asked what the OP meant by 'ego' spin. But thanks for the recap on David Hume ;)

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Mar 2013 13:37:57 GMT
I think you are simply using words that you think sound good and have given no thought to what you mean.

That's ok. Each to his own. Personally I was hoping for a philosophy forum.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Mar 2013 13:45:47 GMT
Spin says:
MR Anthony: I was expressing buddhist philosophy, not a Humean argument. The triumvirate of "Ud, Ego and Supergo" are mere fantasies. They do not exist except as aesthetic concepts applied to a reality, consciousness, that cannot explain or describe itself since it needs input to to do so. Consciousness cannot describe itself except in terms of "what it is not".

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Mar 2013 13:47:11 GMT
So there is no ego?

Posted on 1 Mar 2013 13:52:51 GMT
Last edited by the author on 1 Mar 2013 13:53:28 GMT
I mean, if I undersatnd Buddhist philosophy correctly the self is an illusion (In this it, of course, resembles Hume's philosophy. If in no other way).

If that is the case then I don't really exist, if I indentify self with I. Now I take it that however we take 'ego' it is identified either with I or self. Is this correct?

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Mar 2013 13:53:07 GMT
Spin says:
MR Anthony: Not that any psychologist, neurologist or evolutionary biologist can find, no. As Freud himself asserted; "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar..." =)

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Mar 2013 13:55:28 GMT
So we are to dissolve something that doesn't exist.
That sounds a little easy.
We can hand out the cigars already.

Posted on 1 Mar 2013 13:58:17 GMT
How can something that does not exist be 'big' 'never feel shame or guilt'?
How is it possible to say of a non-existent that 'It is everywhere'?

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Mar 2013 14:04:55 GMT
Spin says:
MR A; When someone says that one should dissolve the ego, or words to that effect, what they mean is that one should rid oneself of ones sense of "uniqueness". Just as academics like to stratify everything from social classes to species, so they like to stratify the mind, to label it in a convenient, but unjustified way. Life and the mind are not that simple and do not conform to human taxonomies.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Mar 2013 14:08:33 GMT
I agree entirely.
Are we not each of us unique then?

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Mar 2013 14:14:25 GMT
Whe I rid myself (sorry: the self doesn't exist does it) when I am rid of a sense of uniqueness about this one that I identify with, will I then be unable to tell the difference (have a sense of the difference) between me and you or anyone else?

Posted on 1 Mar 2013 14:23:09 GMT
I am now very confused:

I am told enigmatically to 'research' my 'own experience' and yet I am told that this 'own' is not really my own, that it's apparent uniqueness is something I (I say 'I' for convenience) should (the force of this 'should' is unclear) rid myself of my sense of.

You might be able to see why I feel that this is perhaps not thought through very well.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Mar 2013 14:40:31 GMT
Spin says:
MR: It is easy to research or analyse ones experiences. "You" are composed of experiences, bith past and present. It is, though, impossible to research or analyse ones "Self", since there is no such thing. "Self" is simply a term you apply to your unique experential spatio-temporal position. What you call "I" is somply a label you apply to your collection of sensations, perceptions and memories. The fact that these experiences conflict at times leads a person to consider such a conflicts effect on "Self", as if there was a "thing" independent of ones body and mind, experiencing everything brought to it. Not so. The term "Self" is no more coherent than the term "Soul".

Posted on 1 Mar 2013 18:52:31 GMT
'"Self" is simply a term you apply to your unique experential spatio-temporal position. What you call "I" is somply a label you apply to your collection of sensations, perceptions and memories.'

What does the word 'you,' which is used three times in this statement, and 'your,' which is used twice, refer to? The sentences would not make sense without them yet they seem to refer to a self.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Mar 2013 19:00:20 GMT
Spin says:
MR; I have used the word "You" and "I" in terms indicating that I am quoting you. If you cannpot tell the difference between the statement"I" and I, that is your problem, not mine. That which constitutes the appelation "I" suggests that what constitutes the appellation "You" reads up on literary forms of communication. =)

Posted on 1 Mar 2013 19:26:18 GMT
'MR; I have used the word "You" and "I" in terms indicating that I am quoting you.'

You are not quoting me at all. The sentences are entirely your own.
Besides there is no I to quote me and no me to be quoted is there?

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Mar 2013 19:28:20 GMT
Spin says:
MR A: Ok. I am sure you are right.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Mar 2013 19:29:24 GMT
No you arn't. There is no I to be sure and no you to be right. Right?

Posted on 1 Mar 2013 19:35:09 GMT
It is the words 'I' and 'Self' that you quote, not 'you' and 'your.' I can tell the difference you see, can you? My point is that you could not say what you try and say without them.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Mar 2013 19:35:15 GMT
Spin says:
MR; I study what the west calls "buddhism". I am not favourable, agreeable or amenable to the societal conditioning you consider to be "Truth".

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Mar 2013 19:53:16 GMT
Ian says:
"Are we not each of us unique then?"

I'm not!
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  19
Total posts:  129
Initial post:  20 Feb 2013
Latest post:  23 Jun 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions