Page 43 of 65

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 3:33 am
by Greta
Belinda wrote: Sun Mar 24, 2019 5:35 pmGreta wrote:
Most of our lives' most enjoyable moments and best achievements come while our internal focus is dwarfed by our external focus.
Except for sensual moments ? Sensual moments however aren't achievements, or are they?
They fit under the "enjoyable" banner, hopefully!

Ego has a role as a driver and motivator but, once it has pulled one off one's derriere, our best moments are those when we release some measure of the controls of self awareness and allow ourselves to fall into flow. Mine are, anyway :)

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 3:42 am
by Greta
Logik wrote: Sun Mar 24, 2019 2:34 pm
Greta wrote: Sun Mar 24, 2019 12:44 pm Yes, I personally find reason and science to be grounding. Even as a young adult I was nervous about ghosts and whatnot.

The issue with ego is keeping it under control. The trouble with being proud is that, in a way the puffed up person taking the credit was not the same person who did those things to be proud of. Most of our lives' most enjoyable moments and best achievements come while our internal focus is dwarfed by our external focus.
Crazy idea ran through my head yesterday.

I am a social constructivist thorugh and through. To the degree that I claim that all logic/mathematics is INVENTED not discovered.
Logic is language. It's man-made.

And yet, I have worked my way to a moral position despite my Pyrrhonic ultra-skepticism, despite my Protagorean ultra-relativism, and despite my scientific nihilism.

I have worked myself to a perspective as to why the concept of God (just like the concept of Truth) is absolute fucking horseshit, yet a total pragmatic necessity for humanity.

It is SO that men like me, ultra-egoists/ultra-moralists, sanctimonious pricks, power-driven Nietzschean übermensch find an authority to subject ourselves to. A power greater than us to humble us.
So THAT we aren't a law unto ourselves. So that we find some symbol which represents the Greatest Good Love and Affection For Mankind.
You could go on and say "Mother Nature" is a better authority, but naaah - fuck nature. It's trying to kill us.

We CHOOSE to invent God in order to keep ourselves in check! Because the only authority I recognize is morality.

It's the only line/distinction that I am capable of drawing between myself and a violent psychopath. I am capable of the exact same violence. But I choose the righteous path instead.
I wonder if you are as capable of the same violence, or might you feel shattered afterwards because you could feel empathy with the victim/s?

Mother nature is an origin, not a destination. Nature is something we are hoping to transcend - "nature, red in tooth and claw" etc. However, we are evolved to remain connected to nature; there are probably parts of our bodies that interpret our usual surroundings as desert. We are water beings and obligate parts of the planet's hydrological cycles. So we are drawn to nature - that is trying to kill us. Meanwhile, we are also drawn to protecting ourselves from nature by aggregating in impregnable large groups that greatly increase the complexity of people's lives to the point of misery.

I don't know if there are currently any larger consciousnesses that contain our own or not. I think it's possible. If that was the case, how would we possibly know, given that larger entities tend to operate on slower and longer time scales?

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 7:07 am
by surreptitious57
Logic wrote:
I have worked myself to a perspective as to why the concept of God ( just like the concept of Truth ) is absolute fucking horseshit yet a total
pragmatic necessity for humanity

It is SO that men like me ultra egoists / ultra moralists sanctimonious pricks power driven Nietzschean ubermensch find an authority to
subject ourselves to. A power greater than us to humble us

So THAT we arent a law unto ourselves So that we find some symbol which represents the Greatest Good Love and Affection For Mankind
You could go on and say Mother Nature is a better authority but naaah - fuck nature. Its trying to kill us

We CHOOSE to invent God in order to keep ourselves in check! Because the only authority I recognize is morality
I find it ironic that your mind had to create God because why he is necessary when you can simply use your mind on its own ?
For would you be any less of an ultra moralist if you had not created God ? If the answer to that is yes can you explain why ?
As you can not be lacking in moral rigour to the point that you had to create an ego just to keep yourself in check can you ?

Nietzsche incidentally got it wrong and spectacularly so too
He thought abandonment of God would lead to apocalypse but belief in God has actually created the most suffering over time
The horrors of the twentieth century that he predicted would have happened anyway and so his argument was actually invalid

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:09 am
by Logik
Greta wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 3:42 am I wonder if you are as capable of the same violence, or might you feel shattered afterwards because you could feel empathy with the victim/s?
Clarity: I mean "same" as in "I have no reservations with taking life". So from an empirical/consequentialist perspective it's same same but different.
In retrospective - once a deed is done, it's done. Naturally the emotional realm is far more complex. If I were to ever take an innocent life I probably wouldn't come back from that darkness.

Truly, a fine line.
Greta wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 3:42 am Mother nature is an origin, not a destination.
It's both if you just relax and enjoy the movie. The bus is going wherever it's going unless you take the wheel.
Greta wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 3:42 am Nature is something we are hoping to transcend - "nature, red in tooth and claw" etc. However, we are evolved to remain connected to nature; there are probably parts of our bodies that interpret our usual surroundings as desert. We are water beings and obligate parts of the planet's hydrological cycles. So we are drawn to nature - that is trying to kill us. Meanwhile, we are also drawn to protecting ourselves from nature by aggregating in impregnable large groups that greatly increase the complexity of people's lives to the point of misery.
It's yet another thing to balance. We have so many competing/opposing variables balancing a pencil on its tip is probably far easier.
Greta wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 3:42 am I don't know if there are currently any larger consciousnesses that contain our own or not. I think it's possible. If that was the case, how would we possibly know, given that larger entities tend to operate on slower and longer time scales?
Such entities would clearly be far less fragile forms that we are. Good for them - they are where we are trying to get.

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:16 pm
by Belinda
Ego has a role as a driver and motivator but, once it has pulled one off one's derriere, our best moments are those when we release some measure of the controls of self awareness and allow ourselves to fall into flow. Mine are, anyway :)
That pretty well sums it up, Greta. Happily too :)

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:29 pm
by Logik
Greta wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 3:33 am Ego has a role as a driver and motivator but, once it has pulled one off one's derriere, our best moments are those when we release some measure of the controls of self awareness and allow ourselves to fall into flow. Mine are, anyway :)
Belinda wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:16 pm That pretty well sums it up, Greta. Happily too :)
Post causes mixed bag of emotion. Emotion translates into music.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_l4Ab5FRwM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3wKzyIN1yk

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 1:23 pm
by Age
AlexW wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:15 am
Age wrote: Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:00 am Thought is what is expressed through and from this human body.
Sounds like a belief.
If anything "sounds" like a belief, or anything else, that has NO bearing on what that "thing" actually IS.

Here is a concept. Can this be understood? Absolutely anything can be expressed through a human body as just being a view only, which may or may not be right, without that view having to be a belief.

Now, if that can be understood, then accept that this I does NOT have a belief.

If that can NOT be understood, then WHY NOT?
AlexW wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:15 amHow do you know that?
Because I KNOW ALL, which is meaningful.
AlexW wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:15 amDoes thought tell you that?
No.
AlexW wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:15 amDoes the "body"?
No
AlexW wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:15 amHow do you experience something being "expressed through this human body"?
Who/what is the 'you'?

Was it already agreed that there is no actual, real "you", but only the one and only True I? Or, that 'you' are just thought, which is NOT the True Self?


AlexW wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:15 amIf a thought arises - does it really arise "from a body"?
If a human thought arises and it arises not because of a human body nor from a human body, then where does a thought arise?
AlexW wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:15 am
Age wrote: Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:00 am Either the "ouch" word was already grasped and retained, as thought, within that body from which that word was expressed, or the "ouch" words was not. So, to "you" which one is it?
There is nothing that is anything to "you/me". "you/me" is a thought/concept - a concept has no knowledge - it is known.
Agreed.

A thought/concept is known by who or what?

Who/What is that thing that KNOWS ALL things?
AlexW wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:15 am
Age wrote: Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:00 am Although the small self, which is just the 'you', THINKS it knows things
The small self doesn't think.
Agree, in a sense.
AlexW wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:15 amThe "small self" IS only an idea.
Agree, in that an idea is only a thought.
AlexW wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:15 amCan ideas think?
No.
AlexW wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:15 am
Age wrote: Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:00 am However, if and when the True (big) Self informs the small self of what Is True and Right
Again, there is NO small self. Thus it can not be "informed" by anything (e.g. the True Self).
The small self is only an idea.
How is this KNOWN?
AlexW wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:15 amCan an idea be informed by anything?
Is an 'idea' a thought?
AlexW wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:15 am
Age wrote: Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:00 am then in a sense the small self would be far more AWARE/Conscious, and then in that sense the small sense might be able to recognize things as well as the Real Self can.
Again: No, the small self is an idea/belief - it can NOT be "more aware", it can NOT "recognize things".
Okay. Who/What then CAN be 'aware' and 'recognize'?

Are there actual things called human beings?
AlexW wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:15 am
Age wrote: Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:00 am Physical pain, obviously, comes from the physical parts of the body, from the nerve endings to particular parts of body
How do you know you have a body?
The writings under the label "alexw" just wrote that the 'you' is a thought/concept, and that a concept has no knowledge, but now the writings under the label "alexw" is asking the "you", a concept, how it knows things?
AlexW wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:15 amWhat tells you that a certain sensation comes "from a part of the body"?
The writings under the label "alexw" is now asking the "you" another question.
AlexW wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:15 amDoes the sensation itself contain this information?
What information? There is NO 'you' that has a body.

Why are the writings under the label "alexw" going down this line of wondering, questioning, and assuming?
AlexW wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:15 am Or is there simply a thought offering up this information?
There is NO thing, in this body anyway, offering up any such nonsensical information, as the thoughts innthat body are assuming.
AlexW wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:15 am
Age wrote: Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:00 am EVERY thing does NOT, in a sense, come from any thing, as there is only the infinite HERE eternally NOW
Agree - this also implies that "there are no things" - there is only I - right?
That all depends on the definition of 'things' and on 'I'.

'I' could be made up many differently labeled parts (or things).
AlexW wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:15 am
Age wrote: Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:00 am Emotional pain, however, comes from the "hurt" done to the personal small self
Can an idea be hurt?
If the Truth wants to be LOOKED AT and UNDERSTOOD, then are the words "human beings" used in and trough language?

If no, then there is NO use discussing anymore.

If yes, then define what 'human beings' are.
And answer if they can feel pain and/or hurt sometimes?

I will wait.
AlexW wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:15 am
Age wrote: Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:00 am Until "you" can explain, in VERY SIMPLE and EASY terms
A "you" will never be able to explain anything - "you" is only an idea - can an idea explain anything?
If a far more detailed explanation can be given under the label "alexw", then give it.

What is meant by "you" is only an idea?

The absolute contradiction here is sparkling clear, to I
AlexW wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:15 am
Age wrote: Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:00 am what "you" said here really does NOT make much sense at all
There still seems to be a belief at work that a "you"/small self could say something or explain something. Is this the case?
No

Does anything say something?

If yes, then who or what is it?

AlexW wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:15 am
Age wrote: Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:00 am If that is what the "me" BELIEVES, then so be it.
Again: A "me" doesn't believe anything.
Who or what does believe things then?
AlexW wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:15 am
Age wrote: Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:00 am Now, if "me" can explain in great detail, without being contradictory, without be clumsy, without being cumbersome, without being confusing, without being complex, then great, let US hear
But "me" cant explain anything.
I can SEE that
AlexW wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:15 am
Age wrote: Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:00 am WHAT EXACTLY sounds like a belief?
You said: "Whatever is SAID does NOT appear without first coming from a thought."
This sounds like a belief.
Who cares what it "sounds" like to the 'you' thought/idea/concept in that body?

Can "you" actually hear things?

Where is the noise coming from?
AlexW wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:15 amA belief is everything that is thought of and considered to be true.
Is this a belief?

Is it a truth?

Is it the truth?

Is it the absolute truth?

Or, is it something else?

What is the difference between what is 'considered to be true' from 'what is believed to be true'?
AlexW wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:15 amOr are there some thoughts that are truer than others?
Are there?
AlexW wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:15 amIf there seem to be some, then what decides about the level of truth (of a thought)?
What 'considers something is true', and then 'decudes to BELIEVE what is true'?

I could provide answers to the questions written under the label "alexw", but what I say would NOT be accepted nor believed.

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 1:55 pm
by Age
AlexW wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 2:10 am
Age wrote: Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:00 am If "it" does NOT exist, then WHY is that the "alexw" 'I' is talking about "it" as though "it" does exist?
"alexw" is not 'I'
Only I can talk.
Okay, now talk, and explain who AND what 'I' am exactly.

AlexW wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 2:10 amI (normally) talk as if "alexw" exists to accomodate the idea that there is such an entity - it is how language works - its a convention, not truth.
That just means "I" am just "bending" to human being convention, which the 'I', under the "alexw", banners says does not even exist anyway. So, WHY do that?

WHY NOT just say thee Truth instead of bowing to human convention?
AlexW wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 2:10 am
Age wrote: Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:00 am But 'I' CAN. Why can the "you" labeled under "alexw" NOT be able to do what 'I' CAN?
Yes, 'I' can.
But the "you" labeled under "alexw" can NOT do what 'I' CAN because only I can "do" anything (even doing is somehow misleading - as I don't actually do anything, at least not in the sense of the word)
If 'I' can explain "WHAT is actually occurring here/now" under the label "age", then why can the "I", labelled under "alexw", NOT explain the same?

What is actually occurring here when the 'I' under one label can say one thing but the "I" under another label can NOT?
AlexW wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 2:10 am
Age wrote: Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:00 am 'I' CAN. But "you" obviously CAN NOT.
Agree.
So, can the "alexw" I explain WHY this is happening?
AlexW wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 2:10 am
Age wrote: Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:00 am But I ALREADY KNOW ALL there is to KNOW.
Agree
The writings under the "age" label KNOWS different things than the writings under the "alexw" KNOWS. For example the writings under the "age" label can explain HOW and WHY ALL of this happens, very easily and simply also. Whereas, the writings under the "alexw" label has NO 'idea' how to explain any of this?
AlexW wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 2:10 am
Age wrote: Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:00 am The difference between the 'I' writing under the label of "age" and the 'I' writing under the label "alexw" IS:
There are no different "I"'s
The label is a label, it cant write.
WHY can the writings under the "age" label explain things when the writings under the "alexw" can NOT?
AlexW wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 2:10 am
Age wrote: Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:00 am 'I' ("age") say that I KNOW how and why EVERY thing is the way It IS
Which one says that? "I" or "age"?
Can "age" know or say anything at all?
The writings under the "alexw" label contradict other writings under the "alexw" label.

The reason for this is very clear and obvious to I
AlexW wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 2:10 am
Age wrote: Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:00 am 'I' ("alexw"), however, says that I KNOW there is NO how nor why to any thing. Full stop. That way there is nothing to question nor challenge in relation to that "I".
"alexw", the label, doesn't ever say anything.
Whats wrong with "there is NO how nor why to any thing"? What benefit do "I" have from an explanation of anything? Does it make "anything" clearer? Or does it actually complicate it?
By explaining my Self, I complicate my Self.
This is very clear to I.

The more writings under the "alexw" label, which is TRYING TO explain things and make things clearer are only contradicting themself and creating more confusion, for to itself.

The writings under the "alexw" label is at a point that it can NOT even explain anything whatsoever any more. Those writings are now so confused that it even questions what is the point of explaining things.
AlexW wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 2:10 am
Age wrote: Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:00 am One 'I' is OPEN to be challenged, questioned, ridiculed, and SHOWN to be WRONG. Whereas, the "other" "i" is showing nothing but fear and its unknown. This "i" shows its BELIEFS and is closed to any thing other.
Again: There are no different "I"'s.
That I can be "challenged, questioned, ridiculed, and SHOWN to be WRONG" is a belief that should be investigated.
Who or what has that belief.

I certainly do NOT.

So, WHY do the writings under the "alexw" say such a WRONG thing?

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 11:35 pm
by Greta
Logik wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:09 am
Greta wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 3:42 am I wonder if you are as capable of the same violence, or might you feel shattered afterwards because you could feel empathy with the victim/s?
Clarity: I mean "same" as in "I have no reservations with taking life". So from an empirical/consequentialist perspective it's same same but different.
In retrospective - once a deed is done, it's done. Naturally the emotional realm is far more complex. If I were to ever take an innocent life I probably wouldn't come back from that darkness.
That's the point - the emotional aspect.

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2019 9:33 am
by AlexW
Age wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 1:55 pm If 'I' can explain "WHAT is actually occurring here/now" under the label "age", then why can the "I", labelled under "alexw", NOT explain the same?

What is actually occurring here when the 'I' under one label can say one thing but the "I" under another label can NOT?
I have many perspectives. I look at Myself through one perspective and then through another - different explanations are simply different perspectives of Me.
To Me one perspective is as good as any other - they are all equal and I am not affected by any.
So what good are they to Me? They do not explain Me - an aspect can not explain the Whole. So why ask for explanations if they do not define Me?

Do I care if one aspect of Me can ride a bike and another can not? Do I care if one aspect can solve great mathematical equations and the other can not?
If "you", the perspective called age, is conditioned to explain something the way it is assumed to be right and true (according to this perspective) then please do so - I do not.

So go ahead - enlighten Me with an explanation so I will know Myself better :-)

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Posted: Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:19 pm
by Age
AlexW wrote: Tue Mar 26, 2019 9:33 am
Age wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 1:55 pm If 'I' can explain "WHAT is actually occurring here/now" under the label "age", then why can the "I", labelled under "alexw", NOT explain the same?

What is actually occurring here when the 'I' under one label can say one thing but the "I" under another label can NOT?
I have many perspectives.
But I do NOT have many perspectives. I only have one perspective. And just to take this on another path; I, unlike human beings, am One Being Who has the RIGHT to be Egotistical, which is part of the reason WHY it is so hard for human beings to get rid of their egos. But once they do, and then SEE the Truth of things, then they will be so happy that they did.
AlexW wrote: Tue Mar 26, 2019 9:33 amI look at Myself through one perspective and then through another - different explanations are simply different perspectives of Me.
But where do these so called "different perspectives, which are different explanations" coming from exactly? And how are these "difference explanations" expressed? And through what exactly are these "difference explanations" expressed
AlexW wrote: Tue Mar 26, 2019 9:33 amTo Me one perspective is as good as any other - they are all equal and I am not affected by any.
So the perspective, which is held by many, to use and abuse children and their home is as good as any of the other different perspectives, to that perspective under the label "alexw". Well I, for One, certainly do NOT have that same perspective. To Me one perspective is NOT as good as any other. The only good perspective is the one that thee True Self has.
AlexW wrote: Tue Mar 26, 2019 9:33 amSo what good are they to Me?
To Me KNOWING more of the different human being perspectives and how they originated helps Me to formulate a way to communicate HOW all of those "different perspectives" can get rid of their separate different egos, and live a way that is more conducive to Me, thee True Self's way.
AlexW wrote: Tue Mar 26, 2019 9:33 am They do not explain Me - an aspect can not explain the Whole.
But the Whole is fully understood from ALL aspects, NOT just some aspects. Especially like that little aspect being expressed here under the label "alexw". An aspect such as that one will NOT explain much at all. As evidenced here.
AlexW wrote: Tue Mar 26, 2019 9:33 am So why ask for explanations if they do not define Me?
To see if I, under the label "alexw" is able to explain Who/What I truly am. That has already been SHOWN NOT to be the case.

I only ask for explanations to expose how much, or how little, each labelled little "one" knows in regards to what they are talking about. I also ask to explain in order to gauge how much of what each labelled "one" expresses is from their own discoveries or just from what they have obtained from "other" little "one's" ideas and views. What is being expressed under the label "alexw", obviously, the major part of, comes from "others".
AlexW wrote: Tue Mar 26, 2019 9:33 amDo I care if one aspect of Me can ride a bike and another can not?
I certainly do NOT care. Riding a bike or not is certainly NOT an issue to be cared about at all.
AlexW wrote: Tue Mar 26, 2019 9:33 am Do I care if one aspect can solve great mathematical equations and the other can not?
I certainly do NOT. Solving mathematical equations, or even HOW to solve and create world peace for absolutely EVERY one forever more, or not is also NOT an issue to be cared about at all.

However, communicating in a way that ends up where ALL people understand HOW to be able to live in peace with EVERY one FOREVER MORE I do care about.
AlexW wrote: Tue Mar 26, 2019 9:33 amIf "you", the perspective called age, is conditioned to explain something the way it is assumed to be right and true (according to this perspective) then please do so - I do not.

But the perspective under the label "age" tries NOT assume anything, because of the obvious flaw ASSUMING creates.

I have already explained HOW, WHAT is actually True and Right is discovered.
AlexW wrote: Tue Mar 26, 2019 9:33 amSo go ahead - enlighten Me with an explanation so I will know Myself better :-)
Where do you want I to begin.

I have already explained that to understood Who/What 'I' am FULLY, then what is needed is absolute Honesty, complete Openness, and a serious Want to change, for the better. If the "you", from the perspective of that self with the label "alexw" is prepared to do that, then "We" can begin.

If "you" "alexw" Truly does want to KNOW thy-self better, and even FULLY, then "you" will do all that it takes.

By the way, since the perspectives under the label "alexw" are NOW using the term "you", then is it okay that I can use that term also?

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Posted: Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:34 am
by AlexW
Age wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:19 pm I only have one perspective
You/Self actually have none. A perspective is a conceptual layer wrapped over reality. Reality is simply itself.
Age wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:19 pm I, unlike human beings, am One Being Who has the RIGHT to be Egotistical
You seem to mistake "age" with Self - I/Self cannot be a certain way - e.g. "Egotistical" - I/Self also don't have any "rights"
Age wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:19 pm But where do these so called "different perspectives, which are different explanations" coming from exactly?
Ultimately everything comes from Me.

You could say, perspectives grow like trees - the natural thing for a tree to do is grow towards the sun - if it is refused light its growth will be stunted, it will be ugly, an abomination. This is what happens to "perspectives" as well (to "egos" - in case you prefer this word).
Age wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:19 pm And through what exactly are these "difference explanations" expressed
Through Me (you call it the ONE).
Age wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:19 pm So the perspective, which is held by many, to use and abuse children and their home is as good as any of the other different perspectives, to that perspective under the label "alexw".
No, to the "perspective under the label alexw" they are not as good as any other. A perspective consists of judgements, of likes and dislikes. To this perspective ("alexw") these activities are judged as bad/horrible.

BUT: To the ONE they are all the same - the ONE doesn't judge, it doesn't identify with any perspective (in fact it doesn't have a perspective that defines it).
As I said before: To the ONE they are all the same.

Here is a Koan for you:
There’s an old Zen koan about two monks, washing their bowls in the creek, who see two birds fighting over a frog, tearing it apart. One monk asks the other, “Why does it have to be like this?”
And the master monk replies, “It’s all for your benefit.” (or as it’s sometimes translated, "it’s only for your benefit").

So tell me, why do bad things happen?
Age wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:19 pm Well I, for One, certainly do NOT have that same perspective. To Me one perspective is NOT as good as any other
Then you have mistaken the ONE with the perspective labelled "age".
Only a perspective (e.g. "age") can contain preferences.
Age wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:19 pm The only good perspective is the one that thee True Self has.
Self doesn't have its own perspective. It IS all perspectives.
Age wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:19 pm But the Whole is fully understood from ALL aspects, NOT just some aspects
The Whole cannot be "understood" at all. It can be directly known, but not "fully understood" from a certain aspect/perspective.
Age wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:19 pm To see if I, under the label "alexw" is able to explain Who/What I truly am. That has already been SHOWN NOT to be the case.
Has it?
Maybe because you ("age") mistake your individual perspective to be the only ONE true perspective... and you don't actually see that this is exactly where you are wrong.
Age wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:19 pm But the perspective under the label "age" tries NOT assume anything, because of the obvious flaw ASSUMING creates.
Its always good to try - are you succeeding?
Age wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:19 pm Where do you want I to begin.

I have already explained that to understood Who/What 'I' am FULLY, then what is needed is absolute Honesty, complete Openness, and a serious Want to change, for the better. If the "you", from the perspective of that self with the label "alexw" is prepared to do that, then "We" can begin.
Sure - lets do it.

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Posted: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am
by Age
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:34 am
Age wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:19 pm I only have one perspective
You actually have none. A perspective is a conceptual layer wrapped over reality. Reality is simply itself.
But I only SEE and KNOW reality. There is NO, so called, "perspective" nor "conceptual layer" wrapped over reality, from Me, thee True Self.

Only human beings TRY TO "wrap" layers of perspective over what IS.

Remove the "egos" or "individual perspectives" and what is left IS what IS, which can be clearly SEEN and KNOWN.
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:34 am
Age wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:19 pm I, unlike human beings, am One Being Who has the RIGHT to be Egotistical
You seem to mistake "age" with Self - I/Self cannot be a certain way - e.g. "Egotistical" - I/Self also don't have any "rights"
Well the perspective from the label "alexw" very QUICKLY misinterpreted what was said, and took that out of context just as quickly. WHY was this?

Can this be explained from the perspective from the label "alexw"?

I certainly KNOW HOW and WHY the perspective from the label "alexw" very quickly JUMPED to such a WRONG conclusion.

Maybe asking for bit of clarification first, BEFORE making assumptions, which led you to such a WRONG interpretation, will NOT lead you so far away from the Truth next time.
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:34 am
Age wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:19 pm But where do these so called "different perspectives, which are different explanations" coming from exactly?
Ultimately everything comes from Me.
So WHY does this One I come up with and provide so many different, conflicting, and confusing perspectives, which are expressed THROUGH human beings?

What is the point of doing this?

Can this be explained from the perspective from the label "alexw"?

I certainly KNOW HOW and WHY for ALL these things.
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:34 amYou could say, perspectives grow like trees - the natural thing for a tree to do is grow towards the sun - if it is refused light its growth will be stunted, it will be ugly, an abomination. This is what happens to "perspectives" as well (to "egos" - in case you prefer this word).
I do NOT prefer any word over another. I just KNOW that clarity of words, and of their definition/s, FIRST, helps tremendously in communicating and UNDERSTANDING.

Can the perspective from the label "alexw" explain HOW and WHY a "tree" is "refused light", which causes "its growth to be stunted" and become so called "ugly", and "an abomination"?

I certainly KNOW HOW and WHY this happens. I also SEE clearly HOW and WHY only a perspective from a label like "alexw" would de/grade things to such a degree. The OBVIOUS dislike of and for "others", who do NOT have the EXACT SAME perspective as the one from the label "alexw" has, is clearly SEEN here. The judgmental form, which always obviously appear from perspectives with labels, becomes more and more obvious, the better Who thy Self really IS, becomes KNOWN.
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:34 am
Age wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:19 pm And through what exactly are these "difference explanations" expressed
Through Me (you call it the ONE).
No, It is the One.

Now, is the perspective from the label "alexw" at all able to clear up Who/What this 'Me' (or One) is EXACTLY?

I KNOW I can. If, however, the perspective from the label "alexw" can NOT, then what does that SAY?
Age wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:19 pm So the perspective, which is held by many, to use and abuse children and their home is as good as any of the other different perspectives, to that perspective under the label "alexw".
No, to the "perspective under the label alexw" they are not as good as any other. A perspective consists of judgements, of likes and dislikes. To this perspective ("alexw") these activities are judged as bad/horrible.[/quote]

Okay.
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:34 amBUT: To the ONE they are all the same - the ONE doesn't judge, it doesn't identify with any perspective (in fact it doesn't have a perspective that defines it).
As I said before: To the ONE they are all the same.
But to Me, which is the One, they are OBVIOUSLY NOT the same perspectives. HOW can one perspective, which is 'different' than another, be the same? By definition if they are 'different', then that are NOT the same, OBVIOUSLY.

Now, just because I do NOT judge, that does NOT mean that I can NOT see A 'difference'. I agree that I do NOT judge. I also agree that I do NOT identify with ANY of the MANY 'different' perspectives. However, there is One perspective that I identify with and as, that perspective is the One that ALL agree with, (and thus ALL identify with).

When, and if, that 'agreement' is reached when the body that the label "alexw" is within, then the perspective from the label "alexw", will FULLY understand what is being said here now.
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:34 amHere is a Koan for you:
Does the perspective from the label "alexw" recall saying that "you" does not even exist? If so, then "Here is a Koan" for who/what exactly?

Anyway;
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:34 amThere’s an old Zen koan about two monks, washing their bowls in the creek, who see two birds fighting over a frog, tearing it apart. One monk asks the other, “Why does it have to be like this?”
And the master monk replies, “It’s all for your benefit.” (or as it’s sometimes translated, "it’s only for your benefit").

So tell me, why do bad things happen?
But "bad" things do NOT happen. Only human beings SEE "good" and "bad" things happen. ALL things happen for a very specific purpose. To discover and/or learn WHY ALL things happen, also happens for a very specific purpose and at very specific moments. This becomes better and FULLY understood when other things are understood first.
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:34 am
Age wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:19 pm Well I, for One, certainly do NOT have that same perspective. To Me one perspective is NOT as good as any other
Then you have mistaken the ONE with the perspective labelled "age".
Is the perspective from the label "alexw" ABSOLUTELY SURE OF THIS?

Could the perspective from the label "alexw" be assuming some thing that is NOT quite true and right here, misunderstood some thing or misconstrued some thing, of which no clarification has been gained prior, and/or some thing else be happening here?

Could it just be possible that I, the One True Self, SEE and KNOW that ALL things happen, without there NECESSARILY being any thing "good" nor "bad" about them, BUT, also SEE and KNOW that from ALL the varying and different perspectives, from the ALL the varying and different labels", that there are MORE "good" perspectives, and thus some NOT as "good" perspectives, which, when finally distinguished between the two, in AGREEMENT with EVERY, one could lead to living in PEACE with One ("another")?

Just maybe, contrary to the perspective from the label "alexw", the One True Self can SEE WHY one perspective from a label is NOT as 'good' as a perspective from "another" label?

This does NOT take any thing away from the absolute necessity of WHY ALL perspectives are NEEDED and are just as IMPORTANT as each other, in the days of when this is written, (because of the very specific reason of WHY ALL perspectives are NEEDED this will be much better understood) BUT without minimizing the harm and damage that is being done by those OBVIOUSLY NOT as "good" perspectives do. Human beings can SEE the harm and damage being done by the "not as good" perspectives, themselves, without the One True Self having to TELL and SHOW them absolutely every thing.

AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:34 am Only a perspective (e.g. "age") can contain preferences.
I agree.
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:34 am
Age wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:19 pm The only good perspective is the one that thee True Self has.
Self doesn't have its own perspective. It IS all perspectives.
The One True Self may be made up of ALL perspectives, but It is NOT all of those False, Wrong, and Incorrect perspectives.
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:34 am
Age wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:19 pm But the Whole is fully understood from ALL aspects, NOT just some aspects
The Whole cannot be "understood" at all. It can be directly known, but not "fully understood" from a certain aspect/perspective.
Is this appearing as a 100% certain fact coming from the perspective from the label "alexw" or from the One True Self?
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:34 am
Age wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:19 pm To see if I, under the label "alexw" is able to explain Who/What I truly am. That has already been SHOWN NOT to be the case.
Has it?
Maybe because you ("age") mistake your individual perspective to be the only ONE true perspective... and you don't actually see that this is exactly where you are wrong.
WHERE exactly does the perspective from the label "alexw" say that the perspective from the label "age" is wrong?

Do NOT just say the word "you", and, "you don't actually see that this is exactly WHERE "you" are wrong", without pointing to the EXACT position of WHERE the perspective of "age" is wrong. (Especially considering that there is supposedly "you" does NOT even exist).

When the True Self wants to point out and SHOW exactly WHAT is wrong, then WHERE the WRONG IS will be pointed out and SHOWN, and then WHY it is WRONG will be made very CLEAR also.

If the perspective from the label "alexw" wants to say that the perspective from the label "age" MISTAKES that perspective from the only One true perspective, then it is better that the perspective from the label "alexw" SHOWS clearly WHERE this has supposedly happened. Otherwise it could just be a case of the perspective of the label "alexw" tricking and/or fooling its own individual self to BELIEVE some thing that is NOT even there. This is the great deceptive ability of the "ego", or perspective from a label.

By the way has the perspective from the label "alexw" ever heard from the perspective from the label "age" about WHAT EXACTLY is the only One True perspective?

If no, then just maybe the perspective from the label "alexw" is ASSUMING some thing, which does NOT even exist, has completely misinterpreted what is being said, and/or some thing else has occurred.

To be made CLEAR there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY that the individual perspective from the label "age" COULD be the only One True perspective, because BY DEFINITION, contrary to the perspective from the label "alexw", they are NOT the same.
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:34 am
Age wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:19 pm But the perspective under the label "age" tries NOT assume anything, because of the obvious flaw ASSUMING creates.
Its always good to try - are you succeeding?
Well it has only be brought to attention that an assumption was made on about three or four occasions. In comparison to the amount of times assumptions are made under other labels, then succeeding in TRYING is working. But obviously BETTER can be done.

ALSO, I purposely used the 'TRIES' word, for the VERY REASON that succession of NOT assuming has NOT been achieved.

Unlike where it is said that I do NOT have beliefs, which I can and very easily do achieve always, it is harder to NOT fall into the trap of making assumptions some times. If I was to say that I do NOT have assumptions, but then accidentally/unconsciously make an assumption, then I would only be lying. It is extremely EASY to neither believe nor disbelieve any thing, but it is somewhat harder to NEVER make an assumption. Absolute Consciousness/Awareness ALWAYS is needed for that. This ability to REMAIN Truly Conscious and Aware comes from and with the support and help of "others", not from the opposition and hindrance from "others", which is rampant in the years of when this is written.
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:34 am
Age wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:19 pm Where do you want I to begin.

I have already explained that to understood Who/What 'I' am FULLY, then what is needed is absolute Honesty, complete Openness, and a serious Want to change, for the better. If the "you", from the perspective of that self with the label "alexw" is prepared to do that, then "We" can begin.
Sure - lets do it.
First the definitions of the words to be used need to be clarified, agreed upon, and accepted.

Now, who/what is 'we', who/what is 'you', and who/what is 'I'? And, is 'I' the same as 'i'?

The writings under the label "alexw" so far have changed and contradicted them self on few occasions, so clarity is needed now.

For example under the label "alexw";
It is sometimes said that there is no "you" as it does not even exist, but at other times it is said that "you" do this, or "you" do not do that.
The writings are some times from the perspective of "alexw", and at other times from I, the True Self.
The writings have said that "I have many perspectives" but then also stated that it has none.
The writings insist that they can speak for the I, the True Self, but if "another" perspective is disagreed with then the "other" perspective is NOT from the I, True Self, but from the perspective of "another" one with a label.

Tell "us" what words/terms are going to be used so that I can express My view/s, without that "one" using the label "alexw" NOT misconstruing, taking out of context, and/or misunderstanding what I am actually saying and meaning. Remember I have YET to express My views FULLY.

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Posted: Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 am
by AlexW
Age wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am But I only SEE and KNOW reality.
Agree
Age wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am There is NO, so called, "perspective" nor "conceptual layer" wrapped over reality, from Me, thee True Self.

Only human beings TRY TO "wrap" layers of perspective over what IS.
How exactly do human beings do that?
Age wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am Remove the "egos" or "individual perspectives" and what is left IS what IS, which can be clearly SEEN and KNOWN.
Agree - what is left is pure I/Self/Being/Knowing.
Age wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am Age wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2019 11:19 pm
I, unlike human beings, am One Being Who has the RIGHT to be Egotistical
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 10:34 am
You seem to mistake "age" with Self - I/Self cannot be a certain way - e.g. "Egotistical" - I/Self also don't have any "rights"

Well the perspective from the label "alexw" very QUICKLY misinterpreted what was said, and took that out of context just as quickly. WHY was this?
Because a thought arose (within the Self) that stated that this is the case.
Age wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am Maybe asking for bit of clarification first, BEFORE making assumptions, which led you to such a WRONG interpretation, will NOT lead you so far away from the Truth next time.
Maybe you should communicate more clearly so these kind of misunderstandings do not happen so often?
So - please clarify the statement: "I, unlike human beings, am One Being Who has the RIGHT to be Egotistical"
Age wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am So WHY does this One I come up with and provide so many different, conflicting, and confusing perspectives, which are expressed THROUGH human beings?

What is the point of doing this?

Can this be explained from the perspective from the label "alexw"?

I certainly KNOW HOW and WHY for ALL these things.
I don't know. What's the point in confusion?
All perspectives are in some way "confused", its what a perspective IS - levels of confusion (by the way: this includes the perspectives labeled "age" and "alexw" and even the idea of the ONE having a true perspective)
So, how about instead of repeating phrases like "I certainly KNOW HOW and WHY for ALL these things." you simply state what is known?
Age wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am Can the perspective from the label "alexw" explain HOW and WHY a "tree" is "refused light", which causes "its growth to be stunted" and become so called "ugly", and "an abomination"?
Ever heard about a metaphor?
Age wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am I also SEE clearly HOW and WHY only a perspective from a label like "alexw" would de/grade things to such a degree. The OBVIOUS dislike of and for "others", who do NOT have the EXACT SAME perspective as the one from the label "alexw" has, is clearly SEEN here. The judgmental form, which always obviously appear from perspectives with labels, becomes more and more obvious, the better Who thy Self really IS, becomes KNOWN.
A perspective/ego is made up of judgements, likes and dislikes, good and bad...
You said: "To Me one perspective is NOT as good as any other. The only good perspective is the one that thee True Self has"
You seem to believe that the Self has a true perspective (a true conceptual interpretation) - which is simply not the case.
Age wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am But to Me, which is the One, they are OBVIOUSLY NOT the same perspectives. HOW can one perspective, which is 'different' than another, be the same? By definition if they are 'different', then that are NOT the same, OBVIOUSLY.
They are the "same" as they are all illusory/unreal/don't define the Self.
Of course they are different in the same way as the content of one thought is different from the next - I thought you understood the meaning of "same" in this context...
Age wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am Now, just because I do NOT judge, that does NOT mean that I can NOT see A 'difference'. I agree that I do NOT judge. I also agree that I do NOT identify with ANY of the MANY 'different' perspectives. However, there is One perspective that I identify with and as, that perspective is the One that ALL agree with, (and thus ALL identify with).
Maybe your definition of "perspective" is different from mine... to me, a perspective is a conceptual interpretation, a mental overlay to reality, I am not talking about direct sense experience - a perspective is ONLY concerned with the interpretation of experience.
THUS: If you identify with a perspective (as just defined) then you identify with the small self/ego.
So what exactly is a "perspective" to you?
Age wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am But "bad" things do NOT happen. Only human beings SEE "good" and "bad" things happen.
Agree - nothing happens to Self.

But: How does a "human being SEE good and bad" things happen?
Can a human being do that at all?

Answer: No, only I/Self can SEE!

So why do you say that a human being can do such a thing?
Age wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am Age wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2019 11:19 pm
Well I, for One, certainly do NOT have that same perspective. To Me one perspective is NOT as good as any other

AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 10:34 am
Then you have mistaken the ONE with the perspective labelled "age".

Age wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2019 11:19 pm
Is the perspective from the label "alexw" ABSOLUTELY SURE OF THIS?
A perspective can never be "ABSOLUTELY SURE" of anything.
There is no TRUE perspective/interpretation.

But from what you have been saying it for sure sounds like it :-)
Age wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am Could it just be possible that I, the One True Self, SEE and KNOW that ALL things happen, without there NECESSARILY being any thing "good" nor "bad" about them, BUT, also SEE and KNOW that from ALL the varying and different perspectives, from the ALL the varying and different labels", that there are MORE "good" perspectives, and thus some NOT as "good" perspectives, which, when finally distinguished between the two, in AGREEMENT with EVERY, one could lead to living in PEACE with One ("another")?
No, the ONE has nothing to do with good or bad, and also not with "MORE "good" perspectives" or "NOT as "good" perspectives"
Where do you draw the line between "good" and "MORE good"?
This is just mental acrobatics.
Age wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am Just maybe, contrary to the perspective from the label "alexw", the One True Self can SEE WHY one perspective from a label is NOT as 'good' as a perspective from "another" label?
No, the "One True Self" doesn't judge or distinguish between perspectives.
They only "exist" as ideas and that's it - they are all unreal (only the Self is Real).
Age wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am The One True Self may be made up of ALL perspectives, but It is NOT all of those False, Wrong, and Incorrect perspectives.
Perspective are only ideas and beliefs - they are not real. The Self is not "made up of" them either, they simply arise in the Self (as thought) and vanish.
They are all the same to the Self, like all thoughts are the same to the Self, none of them defines IT.
Self is Reality - reality is perfectly immune to perspectives.
Age wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am Is this appearing as a 100% certain fact coming from the perspective from the label "alexw" or from the One True Self?
Everything - including perspectives - arises from the Self.
Every thought arises from Self and subsides in Self, doesn't mean that any of the ideas/perspectives thoughts draw up are actually true.
Age wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am If the perspective from the label "alexw" wants to say that the perspective from the label "age" MISTAKES that perspective from the only One true perspective, then it is better that the perspective from the label "alexw"...
That sounds so funny... doesn't it? :-)
By the way: Perspectives can not say or show anything. It is ALWAYS the Self doing the saying or showing.
You seem to believe that there are multiple "doers", seems you believe that every perspective/ego is a separate doer, and then you seem to believe that there is another doer (the ONE) which does only good things... is this the case?

But there is only ONE doer (and thus "doing" looses its meaning) - the ONE does everything to itself, disguised behind ideas and perspectives projecting separation where ultimately there are none.
So why talk about perspectives saying something if this is never the case?
Age wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am First the definitions of the words to be used need to be clarified, agreed upon, and accepted.

Now, who/what is 'we', who/what is 'you', and who/what is 'I'? And, is 'I' the same as 'i'?
How about:
I = True Self
i = perspective/ego/small self
you = perspective/ego/small self
You = True Self
we = perspectiveS/egoS/small selfS
We = True Self

Can you work with that?
Age wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am The writings are some times from the perspective of "alexw", and at other times from I, the True Self.
The writings have said that "I have many perspectives" but then also stated that it has none.
The "perspective of alexw/age" is a misnomer as "alexw"/"age" ARE perspectives - there is no entity "alexw"/"age" having a perspective.
Thus writings can not be from the "perspective of alexw" - perspectives arise in Self as ideas - there are some that carry a label (which is only a thought) and thus a perspective/idea seems to belong to someone (the label) - but in reality it simply arises and vanishes - there is no owner at all.
Everything arises and vanishes in Self while the Self remains changeless the same Reality.

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Posted: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:09 pm
by Age
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 am
Age wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am But I only SEE and KNOW reality.
Agree
Age wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am There is NO, so called, "perspective" nor "conceptual layer" wrapped over reality, from Me, thee True Self.

Only human beings TRY TO "wrap" layers of perspective over what IS.
How exactly do human beings do that?
With perspective/ego/small self/ or thinking that they already know what IS real and true.
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 am
Age wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am Remove the "egos" or "individual perspectives" and what is left IS what IS, which can be clearly SEEN and KNOWN.
Agree - what is left is pure I/Self/Being/Knowing.
Age wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am Age wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2019 11:19 pm
I, unlike human beings, am One Being Who has the RIGHT to be Egotistical
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 10:34 am
You seem to mistake "age" with Self - I/Self cannot be a certain way - e.g. "Egotistical" - I/Self also don't have any "rights"

Well the perspective from the label "alexw" very QUICKLY misinterpreted what was said, and took that out of context just as quickly. WHY was this?
Because a thought arose (within the Self) that stated that this is the case.
WHERE is, and/or WHAT is, this Self, which thought arose within?

And WHAT exactly stated that this is the case, and HOW can a thought arose within the Self, which is then stated?

ALL of this can be very easily SEEN and KNOWN.
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 am
Age wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am Maybe asking for bit of clarification first, BEFORE making assumptions, which led you to such a WRONG interpretation, will NOT lead you so far away from the Truth next time.
Maybe you should communicate more clearly so these kind of misunderstandings do not happen so often?
I have continually expressed that I am here in this forum to LEARN how to communicate better.

I have NOT had much dealings nor communications with human beings prior to this, so there is a great deal for Me to learn from human beings in this regard.

The more I am taught in regarding communication with human beings, then the better I become.
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amSo - please clarify the statement: "I, unlike human beings, am One Being Who has the RIGHT to be Egotistical"
Well the perspective under the label "alexw" has already agreed that there IS a pure I/Being.

Now, this pure Being IS ALL things, so because of this the best interests of ALL things is at the heart and center. Therefore, that Being has the RIGHT to be 'Egotistical', in the sense that It is only caring about Its Self. When the interests of ALL are One's main concern, then that speaks for itself.

I can go into far more detailed clarification if need and/or wanted?
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 am
Age wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am So WHY does this One I come up with and provide so many different, conflicting, and confusing perspectives, which are expressed THROUGH human beings?

What is the point of doing this?

Can this be explained from the perspective from the label "alexw"?

I certainly KNOW HOW and WHY for ALL these things.
I don't know. What's the point in confusion?
It is clearly writing under the label "alexw" Ultimately everything comes from Me. Therefore, only I would KNOW the point in confusion.

Sadly though to then say, I don't know, in regards to what is the point in doing this, and then asking what is the point of some thing which Ultimately comes from that Self, is either a contradiction, or a perspective/conceptual layer wrapped over Reality.

Which one it is some can obviously SEE.
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amAll perspectives are in some way "confused", its what a perspective IS - levels of confusion
Who/What decided that this is the Truth?

And NOW, WHERE is the Truth if ALL perspective/s are just a level of confusion?

I KNOW that some perspectives are NOT at all "confused", as they fit in PERFECTLY with Reality.
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 am(by the way: this includes the perspectives labeled "age" and "alexw" and even the idea of the ONE having a true perspective)
WHY does the perspective labeled "alexw" insist that the is NOT One True perspective, from WHERE I, the True Self, SEE and KNOW ALL things.

So, how about instead of repeating phrases like "I certainly KNOW HOW and WHY for ALL these things." you simply state what is known?

What is KNOWN are the thoughts, with this body, and that the Truth of things is reached in and with agreement.
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 am
Age wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am Can the perspective from the label "alexw" explain HOW and WHY a "tree" is "refused light", which causes "its growth to be stunted" and become so called "ugly", and "an abomination"?
Ever heard about a metaphor?
I am ASKING from the perspective of the 'metaphor' that was given under the label "alexw".

If the HOW and WHY can NOT be written under the label "alexw", then that is fine. I KNOW that the perspective under the label "alexw" is NOT yet able to clarify and explain many things YET, which is totally UNDERSTANDABLE due to the circumstances that have existed.

If you need help to understand Me better, can it be written under the label "alexw" an explanation of HOW and WHY an "ego" becomes stunted, twisted, distorted, demented, et cetera? Is it possible from the perspective under the label "alexw" to tell "us" WHY the True Self does NOT yet just express the absolute Truth ONLY instead of expressing all of these many different, conflicting, and confusing perspectives.

The ANSWER really IS an easy and simple one, once the ego/small self AND the True Self is fully KNOWN and UNDERSTOOD.
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 am
Age wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am I also SEE clearly HOW and WHY only a perspective from a label like "alexw" would de/grade things to such a degree. The OBVIOUS dislike of and for "others", who do NOT have the EXACT SAME perspective as the one from the label "alexw" has, is clearly SEEN here. The judgmental form, which always obviously appear from perspectives with labels, becomes more and more obvious, the better Who thy Self really IS, becomes KNOWN.
A perspective/ego is made up of judgements, likes and dislikes, good and bad...
But a perspective/ego does NOT have to be made up of such things.

There is One Perspective/Ego which is NOT made up of any such things.

But the ego TRYING TO "justify" its own small self, is continually working on being its self, which is a judgmental self, with likes and dislikes certain things, and BELIEVES that what it knows and does is only good, and not bad.
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amYou said: "To Me one perspective is NOT as good as any other. The only good perspective is the one that thee True Self has"
Yes.
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amYou seem to believe that the Self has a true perspective (a true conceptual interpretation) - which is simply not the case.
The I does NOT believe any thing. So, I do NOT believe any thing.

How does the perspective under the label "alexw" know that it is simply NOT the case that the True Self does NOT have a True perspective of ALL things?

What could this perspective base this on?

I have NOT yet even expressed HOW I have gained this True perspective of ALL things, so how one perspective under the label "alexw" can THINK it KNOWS what the True Self KNOWS, will have to be clarified and SEEN if "it" actually can.

Also, if ALL perspectives are on "levels of confusion", as was written earlier, under the label "alexw" then why would the same ego, using the same label "alexw", now be writing contradictory perspectives. How COULD a perspective KNOW what IS the case or what IS NOT the case if ALL perspectives are in some way "confused" anyway?
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 am
Age wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am But to Me, which is the One, they are OBVIOUSLY NOT the same perspectives. HOW can one perspective, which is 'different' than another, be the same? By definition if they are 'different', then that are NOT the same, OBVIOUSLY.
They are the "same" as they are all illusory/unreal/don't define the Self.
BUT IF a perspective DOES define the Self, then that is what IS.

Also, what WAS being discussed was NOT necessarily in regards to defining the Self alone.

Of course they are different in the same way as the content of one thought is different from the next - I thought you understood the meaning of "same" in this context...[/quote]

Obviously I did NOT. I was just pointing out the Truth. As long as agreement is reached, then My work is done.

Thought/thinking can be the same as ASSUMING, which is WHAT can lead to, and CAUSE, confusion.
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 am
Age wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am Now, just because I do NOT judge, that does NOT mean that I can NOT see A 'difference'. I agree that I do NOT judge. I also agree that I do NOT identify with ANY of the MANY 'different' perspectives. However, there is One perspective that I identify with and as, that perspective is the One that ALL agree with, (and thus ALL identify with).
Maybe your definition of "perspective" is different from mine...
Does a "your" exist or is there only an I?

I am OPEN to LOOKING AT any definition of 'perspective' given.

Provide a definition for the word 'perspective' and I can SEE if it WILL work or not.
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amto me, a perspective is a conceptual interpretation, a mental overlay to reality, I am not talking about direct sense experience - a perspective is ONLY concerned with the interpretation of experience.
To Me a 'perspective' is just a view.

To Me a 'perspective/view' given CAN NOT BE wrong in the sense that that is just the view that that one has. If that perspective/view is expressed and shared honestly, then that is perfect. However, a 'perspective/view' given CAN BE right or wrong in perspective with the True Self.
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amTHUS: If you identify with a perspective (as just defined) then you identify with the small self/ego.
If there is NO "you" existing, then there is NO "one" to identify with a perspective.

If, however, a 'perspective' is a conceptual interpretation of experience, which is coming through an individual human body, then I agree this perspective is identified with the small self/ego.

BUT when a perspective is uniformly agreed with and accepted by EVERY one, then that perspective IS identified with the True Self.
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amSo what exactly is a "perspective" to you?
Just a 'view', gained from and through experiences.
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 am
Age wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am But "bad" things do NOT happen. Only human beings SEE "good" and "bad" things happen.
Agree - nothing happens to Self.

But: How does a "human being SEE good and bad" things happen?
One way is with the human eyes.

The other way is through experiences, and from and through any or all of the five senses of the human body, things are grasped and understood, thus SEEN.

Human beings then individually make their judgmental calls, based solely on those previous bodily past experiences.
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amCan a human being do that at all?
Write how 'human being' is defined under the label "alexw".
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amAnswer: No, only I/Self can SEE!
If that is what is BELIEVED by the perspective with the label "alexw", then that is fine with Me.

But WHY ask a question and answer it also? What is the point of doing that?

What is being expressed is only BELIEFS, which obviously could be completely or partly WRONG.
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amSo why do you say that a human being can do such a thing?
Because most human beings UNDERSTAND the concept of SEEING, which to 'human beings', themselves, it is something which they DO.

Remember I am here, in this forum, to learn to better communicate with human beings. Therefore, I am here to learn the language and terms that they, themselves, use, in order to be able to BETTER communicate with "THEM".

Expressing written words like, "human beings can NOT do anything", and/or "they do NOT even exist", is NOT, and I repeat NOT, going to help Me communicate with "them".

I am learning how to communicate with "THEM", on their terms. Understand?

Human beings CAN BE very slow to pick up and learn new things, so I am NOT wanting to introduce any thing new but just express things in the way that they ALREADY KNOW.
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 am
Age wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am Age wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2019 11:19 pm
Well I, for One, certainly do NOT have that same perspective. To Me one perspective is NOT as good as any other
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 10:34 am
Then you have mistaken the ONE with the perspective labelled "age".
If so BELIEVED, then so be IT.
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amAge wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2019 11:19 pm
Is the perspective from the label "alexw" ABSOLUTELY SURE OF THIS?
A perspective can never be "ABSOLUTELY SURE" of anything.[/quote]

True but some are expressed as though they ARE absolutely SURE.
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amThere is no TRUE perspective/interpretation.
Here is ANOTHER example of a perspective expressed as though it is ABSOLUTELY SURE of some thing.
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amBut from what you have been saying it for sure sounds like it :-)
What would happen if EVERY perspective/interpretation was in agreement on some thing, combined with a few in total agreed provisos, then could that perspective/interpretation be a TRUE perspective/interpretation?

If no, then why not?
If yes, then great, once again agreement has been reached and achieved.
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 am
Age wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am Could it just be possible that I, the One True Self, SEE and KNOW that ALL things happen, without there NECESSARILY being any thing "good" nor "bad" about them, BUT, also SEE and KNOW that from ALL the varying and different perspectives, from the ALL the varying and different labels", that there are MORE "good" perspectives, and thus some NOT as "good" perspectives, which, when finally distinguished between the two, in AGREEMENT with EVERY, one could lead to living in PEACE with One ("another")?
No,
Here is yet ANOTHER example of a perspective as if to KNOW the ABSOLUTE TRUTH and be ABSOLUTELY SURE OF THIS.
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amthe ONE has nothing to do with good or bad, and also not with "MORE "good" perspectives" or "NOT as "good" perspectives"
ANOTHER example of absolute assuredness.
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amWhere do you draw the line between "good" and "MORE good"?
That is surely NOT up to this small self perspective to decide. If the "you" word is going to be continually used AFTER it was specifically pointed out that "you" does NOT exist, then expect either a reply from the small self, or questioning as to what does the "you" mean here?

But the True Self perspective KNOWS this ALREADY. The line is quite simply drawn WHEN EVERY one is in agreement.
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amThis is just mental acrobatics.
"This" might be to the perspective under the label "alexw" but that is because to that perspective/ego ALL perspectives are just a level of some sort of confusion.
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 am
Age wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am Just maybe, contrary to the perspective from the label "alexw", the One True Self can SEE WHY one perspective from a label is NOT as 'good' as a perspective from "another" label?
No, the "One True Self" doesn't judge or distinguish between perspectives.
Why NOT?

And, HOW does that perspective under the label "alexw" KNOW this? If the many individual small selves can and does do this, then WHY can the True Self NOT do this also?
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amThey only "exist" as ideas and that's it - they are all unreal (only the Self is Real).
What is meant by 'unreal'?
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 am
Age wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am The One True Self may be made up of ALL perspectives, but It is NOT all of those False, Wrong, and Incorrect perspectives.
Perspective are only ideas and beliefs - they are not real.
What is real to the perspective under the label "alexw"?
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 am The Self is not "made up of" them either, they simply arise in the Self (as thought) and vanish.
So WHAT is the Self 'made up of' EXACTLY then?
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amThey are all the same to the Self, like all thoughts are the same to the Self, none of them defines IT.
But what about when the thought/idea/perspective DOES define the True Self?
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amSelf is Reality - reality is perfectly immune to perspectives.
Being immune to some thing does NOT infer that that thing can NOT be known about.

The True Self can VERY easily KNOW things, without necessarily being affected by those things in any way, shape, nor form.

For example I KNOW absolutely EVERY thought within a human body without any of those thoughts influencing Me in any way. I can and do still maintain My VIEW (perspective) of things.
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 am
Age wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am Is this appearing as a 100% certain fact coming from the perspective from the label "alexw" or from the One True Self?
Everything - including perspectives - arises from the Self.
Just about EVERY time I point out WHERE and WHEN the perspectives are WRONG from the label "alexw". This is deflected away to the One True Self. And vice-versa.

Every thought arises from Self and subsides in Self, doesn't mean that any of the ideas/perspectives thoughts draw up are actually true.[/quote]

So what? This is just diversionary tactics used by the small self ego/perspective.
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 am
Age wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am If the perspective from the label "alexw" wants to say that the perspective from the label "age" MISTAKES that perspective from the only One true perspective, then it is better that the perspective from the label "alexw"...
That sounds so funny... doesn't it? :-)
It surely would to readers without KNOWING what is being discussed here.

Without clarification a far bit of what is written down as perspectives under the disguise of labels can APPEAR, to "other" small selves.
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amBy the way: Perspectives can not say or show anything. It is ALWAYS the Self doing the saying or showing.
When the writings under the label "alexw" want to remain consistent in terms of language and words being used, then things will become MUCH CLEARER. Until then the readers wait the response, under the label "alexw" to the question; HOW does the Self do absolutely EVERY thing ALWAYS?
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amYou seem to believe that there are multiple "doers", seems you believe that every perspective/ego is a separate doer, and then you seem to believe that there is another doer (the ONE) which does only good things... is this the case?
NO. How many times do I have to SAY; I do NOT believe any thing?

The egotistical small self using the label "alexw" just does NOT seem to comprehend and UNDERSTAND this fact.

The reason WHY is OBVIOUS.

Was it noticed that the writings under the label "alexw" uses the "you" word in the exact same statement TRYING TO insist that there is NO separate "you".

Is this VERY contradictory to I?
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amBut there is only ONE doer (and thus "doing" looses its meaning) - the ONE does everything to itself, disguised behind ideas and perspectives projecting separation where ultimately there are none.
The VERY specific reason I do this is KNOWN by I. There is a VERY specific purpose for ALL of what I do. Unfortunately, MOST perspectives given under usernames/labels are totally unaware of what these specifics are YET.
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amSo why talk about perspectives saying something if this is never the case?
I do this to cause confusion and mislead. There are specific moments when I reveal things.

WHY does the One say that ALL perspectives are on some what levels of confusion?

That statement, itself, would also HAVE TO BE on some what a level of confusion.

Is that said to cause clarity, or confusion?

Things become revealed as I see fit.

AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 am
Age wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am First the definitions of the words to be used need to be clarified, agreed upon, and accepted.

Now, who/what is 'we', who/what is 'you', and who/what is 'I'? And, is 'I' the same as 'i'?
How about:
I = True Self
i = perspective/ego/small self
you = perspective/ego/small self
You = True Self
we = perspectiveS/egoS/small selfS
We = True Self

Can you work with that?
Does the I want to speak to the perspective/ego/small self ot to Its Self? If the word "you" is going to be continually used as it is here in this question, then that contradicts just about all of what is being expressed under the label "alexw".

After all the writings under the username "alexw" express clearly that there is ONLY One Self, so that would mean that there is NO you nor i.

Now, I can work with the above except just remove the word 'You' and 'We' as they are totally unnecessary, as well as they only contradict/defeat the statement that there is only One True Self.

Just to make it clear, and to clarify, for example 'i' am the one known by the name "age" and "you" could be any of the other seven billion or so ones known also by names?

I, Me, and My are the one and only True Self, and, i, me, my, and we are just small selves.

I and i can share VIEWS, but my views can be totally or partly WRONG, FALSE, and/or INCORRECT, whereas My views can only be True, Right, and/or Correct.
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 am
Age wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am The writings are some times from the perspective of "alexw", and at other times from I, the True Self.
The writings have said that "I have many perspectives" but then also stated that it has none.
The "perspective of alexw/age" is a misnomer as "alexw"/"age" ARE perspectives - there is no entity "alexw"/"age" having a perspective.
This is very True.

However are the writings under the label "alexw" ALWAYS going to write from THAT perspective?

Am I ALWAYS going to be 100% accurately CLEAR in what is being expressed, under the label "alexw"?
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amThus writings can not be from the "perspective of alexw" - perspectives arise in Self as ideas - there are some that carry a label (which is only a thought) and thus a perspective/idea seems to belong to someone (the label) - but in reality it simply arises and vanishes - there is no owner at all.
This IS OBVIOUS, and has been KNOWN for quite a while NOW.

But unless the Self can express HOW I do this, under the label "alexw", then just accept that there is so MUCH MORE TO LEARN HERE.

I can express HOW I do EVERY thing, under the label "age".
AlexW wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amEverything arises and vanishes in Self while the Self remains changeless the same Reality.
So what?

Without explaining HOW nor WHY, why say it at all?