0
   

The Ego and the Right to Self

 
 
Reply Sat 2 Oct, 2010 12:46 pm
Simply speaking the ego is the faculty used to express a certain and specific nature about self this is specifically saying that ego utilizes and effects the subject as such under its own conditions. The ego principles are made known by those apodeictic necessities which bind and hold the ego to its own boundaries when it thinks, acts, and speaks.

It is necessary to keep the ego regulated under certain measures or these apodeictic measures would not be needed and the ego would become simply about filling itself and its own happiness and pleasure by those things it defines to make it so.

The definition is not a natural given as it relates to the subjective force of the ego which is not able to correspond its desires with those moral laws which in essence give the subset of the structure of those desires. Perhaps its easier to know the Subject as it corresponds to its ego because it is the very life giving force of ego.

Should we not think it determines all the principles that every individual has to subside by to exist. It is then possible to work our way from the principles to the apodeictic mode of thought in order to understand those principles which the apodeictic principles measure themselves and in doing so come to an understanding that the ego exist under certain measures free from their apodeictic measures. In principle it is the only way to freely analyze the ego as such in reference to what is Ego. The very question results in a solution which should satisfy those things which result in determining those laws of the ego.

It is necessary to divide the measures from those measures that reflect the ego's to be limited to an ego. In order to give a definite understanding of the ego as principle with action, voice, sense, and reason. Without these principles as such being claimed by the ego and thus limited to an ego the pursuit for freedom, happiness, and pleasure would be non existent and would be refined to the total control of alien Will that imposes itself cruelly on its subjects so as to effect itself and produce the very thing we call ego.

Is it Not enough to say that this generation has determined the ego to be the very thing upon which to determine those laws which stand directly opposed to the ego in order to fulfill the pleasure and growth of its ego at the expense of others. What can we do must we suffer this torment of having a foreign will continue to dominate us must we break its laws in order to define anything at all and in the process determining a specific apodeictic ego to determine all that it is. I Say No Why replace corrupt egos and their laws with other corrupt ones. The Next Age will come around when we are willing to bury the laws with their corrupt agents so as to put to sleep any possibility of a foreign will intruding in our personal space.

Let the Laws not be submerged by the ego those apodeictic laws which determine our existence as such and are the groundworks for our autonomy that is Authorized by Morals and the Will to them. Does this Apodeictic laws distinguish itself from other ones or does it formulate the basis of those principles on which all other Apodeictic principles are found in the multitude of egos. The Moral Law is the focal point of the ego but never the general desire because it can never lay the measures down in which to obey these laws nor does it wish to follow because to follow something as an absurd as a Moral Law under the determination of an ego is make both null in their practical application.

For at the point an ego determines a moral law to be its own course of action it has destroyed all sufficient principles which make the law a choice or that which is limited to a sequence of actions. Now all sequences of this Apodeictic law are destroyed and so thus the Law itself which guides us to the standard of freedom which all men in their own right desire because it is intuitive to them to be free. In the very essence of the ego as it is entangled itself is to be free of the animal instincts that the brute man so often expresses.

It is thus to free ourselves from the slavery of the State and thus to free ourselves to those apodeitic laws which we have critiqued to a point in so far as it relates to the ego that is simply for the ego. Here we have cut a fine line between the interest of the ego and its other the Apodeitic structure set outside itself as a principle which gives our ego the practical rights to be free to determine ourselves rationally.

If we seek to refuse those laws which determine all the possible means we have refuted the proper measures that our reason has supplied us to lay the principles to claim our liberty to be free and happy. It is by being happy that we come to learn the necessary rules which apply to those means which have made us happy but we should not determine these means to be the only possible way to be happy.

It is thus sufficient to say that happiness is a basic right of man and thus inherent to his nature but without the sufficient means and utility of his freedom to lay a claim to this independent being of happiness is to neglect the possibility of being happy and replacing happiness with a domination of state which currently is the measure in which our society is defined.

We must be careful to not give these measures and limits which are imposed upon each ego in his right as the sole principle upon which those apiodetic measures define themselves to be free. It is thus necessary to say that in order to come to an understanding of that which can't be defined it must be necessary that principles and basic understandings of how to reach freedom and happiness by principles grounded in reason.

It is now a focal point of mine to point to the self interest of today's society which is purely centered around big business and big government it is necessary to define these specific points to give the following points a more specific task that is to arrange the happiness of an age to the individuals spoken of as being defined by those laws which are supposed to determine and protect those rights.

The government has chosen to determine the means upon which we can be free and choose to produce those Ideas which it says its protects and has been given in the constitution. Must it be necessary to say that this Supreme Law of the here said USA has been defied and ignored by those laws which men have given to control other lives in order to negate the very principles of the constitution for the rights of the people. What People do these rights protect but the rights of those people who wish to take away the rights from us to determine their own law to have a measure of being right.

This measure on which all measures are defined are just simply egotistical because they are nothing but measures themselves defined by Apodectic measures defined outside their boundaries. This is why the Concept of God is so important to keep the integrity of the constitution because it is the existence of God that protects those rights of man which the state chooses that it will not do. The state is only another agent of God and when we reduce those rights of man to the State we extinguish all rights together and reduce the law to corruption this is the very purpose of the State to annihilate those people who will not abide by their laws these people they call violent are transgressing the very sacrilege of the State which it calls right over any given individual. This right they call freedom and the right to rebel against such blasphemous parasitic invasion of our natural rights they call violence when their own laws are violence in their most brutal and subtle form. They give us the freedom to vote to silence us on our freedom to determine anything. This is the Supreme nature of the Ego and it is necessary for change to keep the ego refined to a principle that does not altogether negate those Moral Laws and the Will to them altogether by a foreign Will imposed to the personal will of the ego.

The only possible means for a change and to overthrow these laws which determine themselves as Apodictic laws must be overthrown so those basic rights and freedoms are overthrown. For what is more blasphemous to rebel against those forces which wish to steal those rights under the name of an ordered court and law or to let those individuals in the government to overthrow those basic rights of man that is only to be found free in religion by determining those things which seek to make themselves right by abolishing all rights. Must those people who possess just as equally what the State claims to be its own overthrow this blasphemous force which wishes to overthrow the very rights it bases its principles on only to do so in order to exclude these rights from our individual rights.

I say the age and the individual who leads the great rebellion over the State will find a constitution and lay down those principles which the constitution holds to be its own in so far as it is free to exist in all those individuals it determines to be free. This age will be an axial age in which Faith will reign supreme over the Laws of the State and it is not necessary to restore those laws to the state but seek to hide them from the state that is to give them to each person to determine for himself instead of being intervened by the State.

It is this Age which will come to know Freedom when the State is down away with and all its laws and all laws are restored to their primordial nature where we return to the original state of man it is necessary for us to first die for that law in order to make it a not just a principle of necessity but an act of freedom which will liberate a people from greedy politicians and corrupt laws. It is only then when a rebellion is started that those laws which protect our rights will be freed from the slavery of those laws which proclaim they do so. It is in this age when the ego will be free to return to its true self.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 977 • Replies: 0
No top replies

 
 

Related Topics

The Illusion Of The Self - Maya. - Question by mark noble
Why does God need to be praised? - Question by Alan McDougall
Inflate or destroy self? - Question by Cyracuz
Is the atheist more angry - Question by dalehileman
What happens to ambition as you get older? - Question by The Pentacle Queen
The Dispicable "Me Generation" - Question by boomerang
Egoism(ego-ism) - Discussion by Proxima
Ego - Discussion by Homomorph
Fear of Ego - Discussion by sometime sun
After the Merger: A Mirror - Discussion by failures art
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Ego and the Right to Self
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/24/2021 at 02:20:40