Who here is enlightened?

[steeltoes]

The Age of Enlightenment, or the Age of Reason was a cultural movement that furthered scientific inquiry and reason in order to challenge ideas grounded in tradition and faith.

That might answer the question as to whom are the enlightened ones.

 

[challupa]

Doesn't all caps mean anger? Well, there goes that theory.

No, not in this case, it means loud, booming voice (like gods is supposed to be)
You know... :run:

 

[Vinayaka]

No, not in this case, it means loud, booming voice (like gods is supposed to be)
You know... :run:

Can you explain your name. Any relation to Chellappa?

 

[challupa]

Can you explain your name. Any relation to Chellappa?

Nothing 'enlightened'. It's a Mexican dish. Quite good actually!

 

[Windwalker]

The Age of Enlightenment, or the Age of Reason was a cultural movement that furthered scientific inquiry and reason in order to challenge ideas grounded in tradition and faith.

That might answer the question as to whom are the enlightened ones.

That actually raises a good point! Yes, Enlightenment in the West is understood differently than Enlightenment in the East. When the two come together, then we will be Enlightened, indeed.

 

[Prophet]

Hi Windwalker,

In my understanding, you've told me that you disagree with me that the ego is harmful amongst other things. However, you've not submitted anything that I would classify as argument or evidence that supports your view over mine. What you have submitted is called preaching. I will happily explain the difference between preaching and arguing.

Were you to care to submit an actual argument that has a place in a rational two-way discussion, you would've voiced your disagreement as an opinion and then proceeded to demonstrate why your reasoning is superior or truer to reality. Instead of this, you plainly state your viewpoint as fact and never even consider anything that disagrees with you as possibly true.

In my opinion, preachers are not worth debating. They tend to be attached to beliefs they cannot support. They are too insecure to be two-way conduits of information because merely considering that one's ideas may be wrong feels like suicide when they allow their beliefs to become attached. I hope we can avoid the conflict that I typically have with preachers.

You've talked several times of "healthy ego development" while talking about people identifying and becoming connected with bigger and bigger groups. This doesn't make sense to me. The ego separates individuals from each other, a truth I believe you've already agreed to, but you seem to have new knowledge that the ego now connects us. Is it possible that what you call healthy ego development is actually healthy ego regression as I'd say?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

^ Fwiw, esoteric instruction sometimes uses the analogy of the transmutation of the grub to butterfly via the chrysalis stage to describe the transmutation of divine nature spirit to angel via the human ego stage. The human soul incarnate/ego is cocooned spirit. Liberated, like the genie who has been trapped in the bottle, it has an order of magnitude greater capabilities.

 

[apophenia]

^ Fwiw, esoteric instruction sometimes uses the analogy of the transmutation of the grub to butterfly via the chrysalis stage to describe the transmutation of divine nature spirit to angel via the human ego stage. The human soul incarnate/ego is cocooned spirit. Liberated, like the genie who has been trapped in the bottle, it has an order of magnitude greater capabilities.

So you have x-ray vision ?

You can pick the lottery numbers ?

Women swoon at your feat ? (pun intended)

Your entoptic displays are in higher definition ?

Share !

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So you have x-ray vision ?

You can pick the lottery numbers ?

Women swoon at your feat ? (pun intended)

Your entoptic displays are in higher definition ?

Share !

1 Yes, but losing ones.

2 In my dreams.

3 Yes, but unresolvable resolution.

4 :drunk:

 

[Windwalker]

Hi Windwalker,

In my understanding, you've told me that you disagree with me that the ego is harmful amongst other things. However, you've not submitted anything that I would classify as argument or evidence that supports your view over mine. What you have submitted is called preaching. I will happily explain the difference between preaching and arguing.

Preaching? Seriously? I'm sorry, I thought I made it clear what I was talking about when referring to the ego. It is a legitimate term used in psychology to describe a function of the psyche. It's a term coined by Sigmund Freud in its relation to the Id and the Superego. I was, am, and will continue to speak of the ego in this context.

From a Wiki article on the ego:

"Freud used the word ego to mean a sense of self, but later revised it to mean a set of psychic functions such as judgment, tolerance, reality testing, control, planning, defense, synthesis of information, intellectual functioning, and memory."​

You may read the whole article discussing the Id, Ego, and Superego and their meanings here: Id, ego and super-ego - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You apparently must take ego in the cultural use to mean "selfish". I do not. That is egotism, or narcissism. That I continue to return in my thinking to the technical definition of ego, and speak from there is seen by you as 'preaching', I'm not sure what to say to that. Perhaps I failed in making clear I'm not speaking of narcissism? I thought I had several times.

Were you to care to submit an actual argument that has a place in a rational two-way discussion, you would've voiced your disagreement as an opinion and then proceeded to demonstrate why your reasoning is superior or truer to reality. Instead of this, you plainly state your viewpoint as fact and never even consider anything that disagrees with you as possibly true.

I can say the same thing, can't I? You have never acknowledged or entertained an understanding of the ego beyond your point of view in discussion with me. Again, hopefully my above explanation makes it clear that my frame of reference is the use of ego based in the pychological use of the term. I consider it to be a function of personality. It is therefore necessary and good.

Egotism is the issue. Not ego. That's pretty clear, I thought. To make ego the issue, would be like saying your body is bad. Clearly it's not, but only responding to its impulses in a social setting would be bad. And in fact that is one of the roles of the ego to control that impulse, according to Freud. There's a clear line of distinction. If you can't make that distinction, then you invite a whole raft of unsolvable issues along with it, namely how good exists through the body and through the ego. If it's only bad, then nature would have weeded it out like a disease, not evolve it in the entire species.

In my opinion, preachers are not worth debating. They tend to be attached to beliefs they cannot support.

I am not a preacher, and I can support my views and am doing so. Can you please support your understanding of what the ego is? Will you cite some experts in developmental theory in your understanding? I will give you many names if you wish me to, from Freud, to Jung, to Piaget, to Loevinger, etc.

In fact, what I am saying about ego development is drawing directly from Jane Loevinger, since I mentioned that name. Please read this, and perhaps reconsider your casting me as simply just preaching unfounded beliefs: Loevinger's stages of ego development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You've talked several times of "healthy ego development" while talking about people identifying and becoming connected with bigger and bigger groups. This doesn't make sense to me. The ego separates individuals from each other, a truth I believe you've already agreed to, but you seem to have new knowledge that the ego now connects us. Is it possible that what you call healthy ego development is actually healthy ego regression as I'd say?

Please read Loevinger's stages of ego development I cited above. It may help you with your confusion here. There are other developmentalists I can cite from as well touching on the stages of moral development, and also stages of cultural development that seems to follow this same pattern, generally speaking.

I'm sorry I failed to make it clear the basis for my position in a discussion of the ego. I thought I had.

 

[Prophet]

Preaching? Seriously? I'm sorry, I thought I made it clear what I was talking about when referring to the ego. It is a legitimate term used in psychology to describe a function of the psyche. It's a term coined by Sigmund Freud in its relation to the Id and the Superego. I was, am, and will continue to speak of the ego in this context.

From a Wiki article on the ego:

"Freud used the word ego to mean a sense of self, but later revised it to mean a set of psychic functions such as judgment, tolerance, reality testing, control, planning, defense, synthesis of information, intellectual functioning, and memory."​

You may read the whole article discussing the Id, Ego, and Superego and their meanings here: Id, ego and super-ego - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You apparently must take ego in the cultural use to mean "selfish". I do not. That is egotism, or narcissism. That I continue to return in my thinking to the technical definition of ego, and speak from there is seen by you as 'preaching', I'm not sure what to say to that. Perhaps I failed in making clear I'm not speaking of narcissism? I thought I had several times.

Ego was coined by Freud? Interesting view, but I'm fairly certain that the greek philosophers who spoke of ego came first.

A debater would take our conflicting ideas and compare them to reality. Because this step is hard, you instead take our conflicting ideas and compare them to some other set of ideas you already agree with.

Instead, you take the path of a preacher. You take our conflicting ideas and compare them to whatever authority, holy book, or Wikipedia article you got your own views from. This leads to circular reasoning, an utter inability to consider the viewpoints of others, and general blindness.

I can say the same thing, can't I? You have never acknowledged or entertained an understanding of the ego beyond your point of view in discussion with me. Again, hopefully my above explanation makes it clear that my frame of reference is the use of ego based in the pychological use of the term. I consider it to be a function of personality. It is therefore necessary and good.

I guess you _could_ say the same thing, but after I quickly dispatched this as invalid, this debate would quickly turn to discussing the nature of and motivations for slander in the context of ego. If that's something you're comfortable with, continue to accuse me.

Egotism is the issue. Not ego. That's pretty clear, I thought. To make ego the issue, would be like saying your body is bad. Clearly it's not, but only responding to its impulses in a social setting would be bad. And in fact that is one of the roles of the ego to control that impulse, according to Freud. There's a clear line of distinction. If you can't make that distinction, then you invite a whole raft of unsolvable issues along with it, namely how good exists through the body and through the ego. If it's only bad, then nature would have weeded it out like a disease, not evolve it in the entire species.


I am not a preacher, and I can support my views and am doing so. Can you please support your understanding of what the ego is? Will you cite some experts in developmental theory in your understanding? I will give you many names if you wish me to, from Freud, to Jung, to Piaget, to Loevinger, etc.

In fact, what I am saying about ego development is drawing directly from Jane Loevinger, since I mentioned that name. Please read this, and perhaps reconsider your casting me as simply just preaching unfounded beliefs: Loevinger's stages of ego development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Please read Loevinger's stages of ego development I cited above. It may help you with your confusion here. There are other developmentalists I can cite from as well touching on the stages of moral development, and also stages of cultural development that seems to follow this same pattern, generally speaking.

I'm sorry I failed to make it clear the basis for my position in a discussion of the ego. I thought I had.

Every time I ask for support, you never do it on your own. You demonstrate understanding of nothing. The only thing you're willing to demonstrate for me is a fundamentalist devotion to the opinions of others. Whereas my demonstrations are meant to show how our viewpoints line up against reality, yours do nothing more than demonstrate how our viewpoints line up against some "authority" you agree with.

Try impressing someone else with your namedropping.

 

[Windwalker]

Ego was coined by Freud? Interesting view, but I'm fairly certain that the greek philosophers who spoke of ego came first.

Fine. I should have said as applied to the psyche in the understanding of modern Western psychology. I'm not sure how this affects the argument.

A debater would take our conflicting ideas and compare them to reality. Because this step is hard, you instead take our conflicting ideas and compare them to some other set of ideas you already agree with.

A debater wouldn't turn this into ad homien attacks against me calling me a "preacher". It's common knowledge that when these begin in a debate, the person pulling them out has lost. I'm not a preacher for restating my position and supporting it as you asked.

Instead, you take the path of a preacher.

I do not. You're the first person I've discussed with here, or anywhere who's pulled this on me. That's says something to me. You said I have no support, I cited support. Not sure why you feel a need to go this personal attack path with me.

You take our conflicting ideas and compare them to whatever authority, holy book, or Wikipedia article you got your own views from.

Developmental psychologists ARE authorities in this subject matter. Are you per change a Creationist too who rejects valid science in regards to questions of evolution? What is wrong in citing authorities, when it's appropriate? Answer that if there is such an argument to be made.

Jane Loevinger is an authority. Freud is an authority. Jung is an authority. Piaget is an authority. Gebser is an authority. You said it's just my opinion. It is not. It is an opinion based on the works of authorities in these areas. Where do you back up your opinions from? Please cite them as you asked me to. And if nowhere, then why accuse me of not doing that? You accused me of doing that, I citing my legitimate authorities, you say that's not good enough.

What I am supposed to say to this?

This leads to circular reasoning, an utter inability to consider the viewpoints of others, and general blindness.

Circular reasoning to base one's ideas on authorities in these given fields? Nonsense.

I guess you _could_ say the same thing, but after I quickly dispatched this as invalid, this debate would quickly turn to discussing the nature of and motivations for slander in the context of ego. If that's something you're comfortable with, continue to accuse me.

Back up your claims then. I can. Can you? I'm more than open to changing my opinions if you can show me yours have merit and more explanitory power. I'm interested in knowledge and understanding, not "being right". I could care less about that. But so far, a better understanding from your position is not forthcoming at all. Instead, you attack me personally as a substitute for substance.

What am I supposed to say to this? You're right? I'm a preacher, you're argument is better, as if these are somehow related?

Every time I ask for support, you never do it on your own.

Excuse me??? Support comes from others. That's the nature of support! That's what it means. You asked me to back up what I was saying, to support it. I did. That's exactly what you asked for.

But now you're saying support myself using myself? Now that is circular reasoning, if you didn't know.

You demonstrate understanding of nothing. The only thing you're willing to demonstrate for me is a fundamentalist devotion to the opinions of others.

Fundamentalist devotion to researchers in these fields? Hardly, but they certainly have more weight of opinion than either you or I do! But unlike you, apparently, I understand models to be not fixed structures, and therefore there can be no fundamentalist devotion to them. However, if they have solid predictive power and practical application, which these certainly do, then they are useful in building further understanding upon them. That is all these are to me. As data comes along to change them, then they can be modified and improved. No fundamentalist is willing to allow for that.

What I hear, honestly, is you projecting yourself on others here. I am not remotely close to this person you see in me. Ever hear of the Shadow Persona? We project a face on others that we see in ourselves and wish to not see. You believe what you see, and I am not this person. You are seeing your own shadow.

Whereas my demonstrations are meant to show how our viewpoints line up against reality, yours do nothing more than demonstrate how our viewpoints line up against some "authority" you agree with.

I doubt you even understand my position while you're busy projecting your shadow on me and doing battle with that. You're not in a discussion with me, you're tilting at windmills.

Try impressing someone else with your namedropping.

Darwin! Evolution. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

 

[Prophet]

Fine. I should have said as applied to the psyche in the understanding of modern Western psychology. I'm not sure how this affects the argument.

A debater wouldn't turn this into ad homien attacks against me calling me a "preacher". It's common knowledge that when these begin in a debate, the person pulling them out has lost. I'm not a preacher for restating my position and supporting it as you asked.

I do not. You're the first person I've discussed with here, or anywhere who's pulled this on me. That's says something to me. You said I have no support, I cited support. Not sure why you feel a need to go this personal attack path with me.

Despite what you may think, if a debater is besieged by arguments that reduce to "I don't need evidence or support because I got a lot of important people who agree with me" it seems intelligent to me to for a good debater to attack the practice of submitting the opinions of others as evidence or support.

I've met people who argue like you before. Yours is a rhetorician's technique that requires no support. In lieu of support or understanding of the conclusions you've come to, you've submitted that some people who've spent their lives studying this topic agree with you. Similar styles of support are a commonly seen phenomenon in fundamentalist religion. There can be no possible evidence or support that hell exists, but since the Pope is Christ's vicar and he says that hell exists, any religious idiot can perpetuate his belief in hell by resting on authority just as you do.

You are relying upon the opinions of others to interpret evidence you can't be bothered to interpret for yourself. Forgive my skepticism, but a subjective opinion based upon evidence that tends to be pretty subjective in nature already is extremely shaky ground. You think you're on bedrock but your foundation is sand.

And regarding ad hominem: Ad hominem attacks (aka slander) would be exactly what I'd be doing if I didn't support my accusation that you are preaching. Again, your dismissals of my ideas in this debate can always be logically reduced to "I'm right and you're wrong." When you're challenged on this, your best is telling me about some famous people who you allowed to speak beliefs into you. Neither you nor the opinions you cite ever consider the possibility that the ego is an unnecessary element of personalities that can be done away with. You are so insecure that you are unable to consider even the possible consequences of my being right. I assure you that I do not share your fears and will be happy to voice for everyone here every ludicrous implication of a world according to you.

Developmental psychologists ARE authorities in this subject matter. Are you per change a Creationist too who rejects valid science in regards to questions of evolution? What is wrong in citing authorities, when it's appropriate? Answer that if there is such an argument to be made.

If you can't talk about the evidence that these developmental psychologists are viewing and basing their opinions on and the methods by which they arise at their conclusions and instead just want to base your argument against me on their conclusions alone, I'm fairly certain you prove that you cannot be trusted to be a fair judge of where citing is appropriate.

 

[Windwalker]

I see no reason for any attempt at further discussion with you.

You're on my ignore list.

 

[Thief]

I assume by this post you are claiming to be an enlightened person. Self proclamation again?

Didn't 'get' that last line....did you?

 

[Thief]

If anyone did say they were enlightened, would anyone really believe them anyway?

And therein the paradox.

How to stand before your fellowman and say....I have the vision.

Need a miracle?
So it was with prophets of old.

And the parables lay to waste....in the ears of those who cannot hear.

 

[challupa]

And therein the paradox.

How to stand before your fellowman and say....I have the vision.

Need a miracle?
So it was with prophets of old.

And the parables lay to waste....in the ears of those who cannot hear.

However, I don't think being enlightened necessarily means you can perform miracles. Do you?

 

[Thief]

However, I don't think being enlightened necessarily means you can perform miracles. Do you?

That would be correct.
But I did survive a car accident for cause of a 'nervous impulse'.

And my wife survived colon cancer.
I suffered a loss of voice and a 'gut' reaction that others 'noticed'.
She recovered...and my voice came back.
That gut reaction passed.

And other little things along the way.

But such things are not proof.
I probably couldn't do it again if I tried.

 

[challupa]

That would be correct.
But I did survive a car accident for cause of a 'nervous impulse'.

And my wife survived colon cancer.
I suffered a loss of voice and a 'gut' reaction that others 'noticed'.
She recovered...and my voice came back.
That gut reaction passed.

And other little things along the way.

But such things are not proof.
I probably couldn't do it again if I tried.

I would never under estimate the power of the mind to heal. After all we know the things that people experience while taking placebos.

 

[Thief]

I would never under estimate the power of the mind to heal. After all we know the things that people experience while taking placebos.

I've heard of that.
Fool the mind.....fool the body.

But what I went through was dreadfully real.

Empathy is a gift.
But it can hurt.

Don't follow me.