6
   

Inflate or destroy self?

 
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jun, 2013 07:09 am
@Frank Apisa,
No guessing required. I'll repeat the instructions for you since one of the Franks seems to have its fingers in your ears.
Quote:
Next time it (the brain) engages in an internal dialogue, see if it can identify the participants.

Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jun, 2013 07:16 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

No guessing required. I'll repeat the instructions for you since one of the Franks seems to have its fingers in your ears.
Quote:
Next time it (the brain) engages in an internal dialogue, see if it can identify the participants.




And if I am not able to do so...I must assume there is no such thing as a "self?"

Are you going to start making sense soon?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jun, 2013 07:17 am
@Frank Apisa,
By the way...you ARE guessing.

(Be careful with this one...it is tricky!)
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jun, 2013 07:25 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Or then again, perhaps you can, because perhaps the "self" is not imaginary.

I really do not know. I supect nobody else does either.


You mean no self knows whether selves exist?

Sounds contradictory. If selves do not exist, whom am I talking to now? Non-selves?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jun, 2013 07:34 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
Or then again, perhaps you can, because perhaps the "self" is not imaginary.

I really do not know. I supect nobody else does either.


You mean no self knows whether selves exist?

Sounds contradictory. If selves do not exist, whom am I talking to now? Non-selves?


You gotta ask igm or Fresco. They are sure no "self" exists...or some form of that.

ME: I have no idea of the REALITY. Maybe there is a self; maybe there is a series of selves; maybe it ain't nuthin' like any of that.

Ask the people who are sure...and who claim they are not guessing.

I gotta take the aunts shopping now. Be back in a couple of hours.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jun, 2013 07:35 am
@Cyracuz,
Quote:
What does it mean to be self-destructive?


That could mean many things, from smoking to being too shy for your own good to being downright suicidal...

My 2cts: the ego can become a monster. It's good mental hygiene to tame it, at least if one wants to be free. But don't make it some constant masochistic self-flagellation either. There's a difference between pruning one's ego to keep it healthy, and turning it into a bonsai.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jun, 2013 07:44 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
You gotta ask igm or Fresco. They are sure no "self" exists...or some form of that.


LOL... For someone who does not truly exist, igm was quite pissed at me lately.
igm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jun, 2013 07:49 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm, Fresco...

...you both seem very happy with your religion. Stick with the guesses.

f.

How do you know that?


How do I know what?


What you wrote... see blue text... above.
igm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jun, 2013 07:57 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
You gotta ask igm or Fresco. They are sure no "self" exists...or some form of that.


LOL... For someone who does not truly exist, igm was quite pissed at me lately.


It's possible for reality to construct a sentence with personal pronouns without there being a self i.e. with there only being an imaginary self. It's deep.... maybe too deep for you.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jun, 2013 09:23 am
@Razzleg,
Yes.
One though I had when posting was that we normally refer to teenagers who cut themselves, for instance, as self-destructive.
Simultaneously, many people hold that destruction of the self is one of the highest ambitions of buddhism. Personally I think that is a misinterpretation of buddhism.

The first form of self-destruction is generally thought of as negative, while the second form is associated with more positive motivations.

But then there is the consideration that those teenagers who go through self-destructive periods, often end up as more reflected adults than those who merely surfed through without ever questioning or doubting themselves.

These are all impressions. The OP is vague because I haven't really defined the subject all that well.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jun, 2013 09:25 am
@JLNobody,
Yes, it does depend on what we mean by "self".
I am thinking of identity. The ideas I have about who I am is my self, or at least the part of it I can tear down or augment, as I see it.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jun, 2013 09:28 am
@igm,
Quote:
It's possible for reality to construct a sentence with personal pronouns without there being a self i.e. with there only being an imaginary self. It's deep.... maybe too deep for you.


Even deeper: ask yourself -- or whatever postures as it -- who is doing the imagining...
igm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jun, 2013 09:30 am
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

many people hold that destruction of the self is one of the highest ambitions of buddhism...

...Personally I think that is a misinterpretation of buddhism.


You are correct (the passage in blue) but what you 'mean' by that may be incorrect i.e. your interpretation of what is being misinterpreted.
0 Replies
 
igm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jun, 2013 09:33 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
It's possible for reality to construct a sentence with personal pronouns without there being a self i.e. with there only being an imaginary self. It's deep.... maybe too deep for you.


Even deeper: ask yourself -- or whatever postures as it -- who is doing the imagining...

No one it's all the play of reality... a non-dual reality.... that can appear as dualistic. Eventually the term non-dual is itself discarded as a boat is discarded once it has made its final river crossing.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jun, 2013 09:44 am
@igm,
Quote:
No one it's all the play of reality... a non-dual reality...

Reality is in fact quintuple. At least that's what she said last night before passing out.
0 Replies
 
mikeymojo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jun, 2013 09:56 am
@Cyracuz,
To me, self destruction means indulging in the moment without a care of what the future brings. I've seen it with drug addicts who only want their fix, not caring about if they live or die down the line. Destroying one's self during the now, leads to a shorter or no future (suicide). That's about the easiest way I can think of defining it. Is it good? Depends on the person I guess. (Yes, I know the word GUESS has many different meanings for some people here)
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jun, 2013 09:56 am
@igm,
Quote:
It's possible for reality to construct a sentence with personal pronouns without there being a self i.e. with there only being an imaginary self.


If i'm wrong, this may be very rude, but are you Fil?
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jun, 2013 10:00 am
@Cyracuz,
Quote:
If i'm wrong, this may be very rude, but are you Fil?

Very rude to Fil indeed. Fil exists, while igm does not.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jun, 2013 10:33 am
@igm,
igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm, Fresco...

...you both seem very happy with your religion. Stick with the guesses.

f.

How do you know that?


How do I know what?


What you wrote... see blue text... above.


How do I know that you both seem very happy with your religion?

Because you both do seem very happy with your religion.

"Stick with your guesses" is a suggestion.

How do I know it is a suggestion?

Because I made the suggestion.

You really couldn't figure all that out?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jun, 2013 10:34 am
@igm,
igm wrote:

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
You gotta ask igm or Fresco. They are sure no "self" exists...or some form of that.


LOL... For someone who does not truly exist, igm was quite pissed at me lately.


It's possible for reality to construct a sentence with personal pronouns without there being a self i.e. with there only being an imaginary self. It's deep.... maybe too deep for you.


I certainly is POSSIBLE.

Are you suggesting it is POSSIBLE...because I would never disagree with that?

I respectfully suggest that you are suggesting that it is so...that there is no self.

That is an interesting guess, igm...but it is just a guess.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 09/26/2021 at 10:52:22