@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:It's far more important that I understand why some A2K followers of Heidegger use the idea of be-ing as an invitation to indulge in the sensation of ego.
"Ego" is a combination of characteristics accumulated by Sigmund Freud that are identified by the concept "ego". "Ego" doesn't exist. Like I said, it's just a collection of characteristics. However, "ego" is what I call a power word. Because of it's overwhelming acceptance as reality, it is used to have 'power' over others. I have noticed that it can be used tactically to 'fend somebody off' by accusing them of having an ego. It can also be used to "educate" someone of the differences between "identifying your 'self' with the world" (identity) and what you may call "true self". Ultimately, the only thing the concept "ego" gives us is more confusion. All there is is 'you', living alongside of the 'world'. Either you are identifying 'you' with your 'self', or you are identifying 'you' with the world's criteria.
JLNobody wrote:Ultimately I get (actually "I" don't get) an intuition (not a sensation) of a Self that's on a very different scale, a Self that's "witnessing" this entire process.
Which is it? Do you get an intuition or not? If you do, that 'intuition' is you calling 'you' back to 'Be'-ing-there (Dasein). That's who you should be listening to.
JLNobody wrote:I cannot refer to It in its "emptiness" since the grammar of language is committed to a tacit dualism (i.e., a "me" inside and "all else" outside). In a word, grammar is dualistic, and a realistic view of the World is monistic.
Words, words, and more words. There is no such thing as "grammar is dualistic". You are dualistic. You are the 'self' (above) living alongside of the world and identifying your 'self' with the world's concepts (combinations of characteristics) and sometimes knowing that you are not a 'thing' of this world you live alongside of.
JLNobody wrote:There is no "ownership" of experience, just experience. Atman--which is not small me; it is large "no-me"--is the owner. And Atman is the same as Brahma (something like a Universal Consciousness) which is also Dasein.
"Atman", "Brahma", "Universal Consciousness", and "Dasein" are all concepts that indicate 'Be'-ing-there. All religion attempts to get you to "be there now". Christianity attempts to accomplish this feat one day a week and in 1 hour. Other religions like Hinduism and Buddhism hold open the promise that you can "be there now" through meditation. Ultimately, religion is calling you back to 'Be'-ing-there, however, they are trying to accomplish it by using the world's criteria (concepts). It ain't never gonna happen that way.
JLNobody wrote:All language consists of "indicators", but some of what it indicates are fictions, some useful some not.
Just because what 'indicators' indicate don't fall within the parameters of length, width, depth, and mass and are not provable according to the world's criteria doesn't mean they are a 'thing' called fiction.
JLNobody wrote:Just because I use the terms "my", "I", "you", and "our", that doesn't mean that such objects exist; they are culturally shared conveniences.
What you just said is brilliantly accurate. "My", "I", "you", and "our" don't exist as provable 'objects'. "God", "spirit", "soul" and "self" don't exist as provable objects either.
JLNobody wrote:They enable us to share orientations, as fictitious as they are. In reality there are no subjects, and for that reason no objects, but we can't talk without using the distinction.
Your 'orientation' is not fictitious.
JLNobody wrote:Idealists say there is only subject, and materialistic objectivists say there is only a world of objects. Both are half-wrong (or half-right).
They are both wrong! The subject/object world doesn't exist unless you say so. You don't need to keep referring to an "opposite force" to attempt to prove that which is un-provable, 'Be'-ing.
JLNobody wrote:Culture, consisting as it does largely of our world of non-existent things, IS , as such, mostly a "fantastical illusion", but on the whole viable: we have survived so far because of its utility.
There is only 'you' living alongside of the 'world'. Sometimes you represent 'you' with the world's criteria and sometimes you are 'Be'-ing your 'self'. If you represent your 'self' by using the world's criteria of length, width, depth, and mass, then all of it is a "fantastical illusion".
JLNobody wrote:But let me be preachy and suggest that if you can come to a place, most likely in meditation, where you sense a one-ness with "all else" (where you ARE and don't just HAVE experiences) you'll wonder why you took pleasure with the ego sensation of be-ing.
First off let me say that there is no "place" to come to, no "right" you have to earn, and no cross for you to bear. You and I are already there and we have been there since the moment of our birth. We just periodically lie about it and create "fantastical illusions". Currently, I walk around this world 'Be'-ing-there and not "having experiences".
Sometimes I chuckle in these dialogs because what I am attempting to do is let you know that you are already where you want to get to through meditation (otherwise there would be no “there” to get to) and what I get back from you is but, but, but.
If you look closely you will see that meditation works because during meditation you disentangle your 'self' from the labyrinth of the world. You can only "meditate" for short periods of time unless you go and live in an Ashram. If you have chosen to participate in the world, you can't live in an Ashram.
What I am attempting to "let you in on" here is that it is possible to disentangle your 'self' from the labyrinth of the world and live alongside of the world 99.999% of the time and I'm not talking about an event to be 'looked forward to" or something to be scheduled on Sunday. I HAVE disentangled my 'self' from the labyrinth of the world and I take my "Ash"-ram with me everywhere I go.
One last thing. You will “skitter off” for the rest of your life, the question is how soon you notice it and put in the needed correction.