--It would be helpful in these discussions for there to be
a common definition for terms being used eg"real".When this word is
it may mean something very different from one person to another.
So for me the statement "the ego is not real" is an absurd
statement thats because of how I define "real".For someone using a
different definition this statement may make perfrct sense.Kevin
[email protected], anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is a difference between speaking about ego, I, Self etc. as if
> these were real objects that could be pointed to meaningfully in an
> abstract discussion, and speaking about one's "sense of self". A sense
> of self is an experience, not an idea. By all appearances, it is a
> very common experience, and the absence of it is not at all a common
> experience. Does this have anything to do with what is "real"?
>
> --- In [email protected], "marekreavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > "The ego(self) is as real as the 'it' in 'It's raining.'"
> > -- paraphrase from something posted last year on FFL
> > No it at all. Just raining.
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
