--As I have said in an earlier post the concept of ego does not only refer to the experience of a personal self/individuality it also refers to the intergrated and unified functioning of a human being.Infact it could be argued that the experience of being a personal self is only a small part of being an individual.This unified functioning is what people are refering to when describing someone as being a certain way eg no one on this forum would fail to tell the difference between Bob B. and Rick A.Individuality is a social and physical reality.The fact that a particular brain no longer produces the experience of individuality(CC) in no way changes the physical reality of that brain or the social reality of the "person" that that brain expresses.Statments suggesting that individuality is a delusion are based on a very restricted definition of what being an individual means.By not being clear about this anyone making statments like individuality is an illusion will invariably not be taken seriously by anyone coming from a western philosophical perspective.(which includes most thinking people in the Western world).Kevin
- In [email protected], Peter Sutphen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- shanti2218411 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --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 > > The ego is not real from the "perspective" of CC. > However it is real in waking state. Real meaning that > it is experienced or a phenomenological reality. There > is no individuality experienced in CC. There is a very > clear individuality in waking state. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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 > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com 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/
