If you’re already “dead”

[Thanatos13]

I use the term in quotes since the sense of self is merely a construct to understand the world around us, it doesn’t actually exist and never did (hence why “you” never actually “died”). 

But assuming that is the case then why bother doing anything at all? Is that not the “ego” when it comes to self actualization (which I’m still skeptical about)? What makes one keep living if there is nothing doing the living?

[Shin]

Ask that question to an ant.

[Thanatos13]

21 minutes ago, Mighty Mouse said:

It was never the ego that did the living.

How do you know? I mean without the ego all your likes and dislikes would vanish as would any motivation for self actualization 

[Thanatos13]

6 minutes ago, Mighty Mouse said:

Those drives may be part of the ego but they weren't created by the ego. The ego doesn't create itself, does it?

What motivates an egg and a sperm to turn into a fetus and grow into a baby? What motivates an infant to develop an ego rather than simply end it all?

Whatever forces are behind it are obviously not of the ego's own design. Whatever shape the ego takes, including all its drives and preferences, was never under its control in the first place.

If and when ego is gone, why should that mean that all those other forces (whatever they may be) are gone? If I recall, you yourself already said that there is no such thing as free will.

(even though you still seem to think you have free will to commit suicide).

That is of course assuming that there is any motivation at all and not simply a program or script being played out. 

[StephenK]

If 'ego' is equated with the idea of 'self', then surely there can exist desires outside of the context of self? Does desire necessitate the existence of a 'self' (as described in spiritual traditions)? I personally don't know.

[Ibn Sina]

3 hours ago, Thanatos13 said:

But assuming that is the case then why bother doing anything at all?  Is that not the “ego” when it comes to self actualization (which I’m still skeptical about)? What makes one keep living if there is nothing doing the living?

Although you are actually nothingness, you still need to do something because without doing that your body cannot survive, and the body WANTS to survive. Do you think that Buddha never ate anything , or had no desire for thirst simply because he knew the nature of his self? Well no! He did have diseases, he did get old, he did get food poisoning and died like anyother ordinary individual! . Once you are back from the realization, everything is same except there is perfect knowledge of the nature of the self. That is why he was laughing when a man came and spat him and scolded him. Think about it, Buddha laughed at him because he could see that man's delusion of the self, whom was he insulting? There was no one to insult! Buddha knew this, but the man was in his pityful state of egoness.

 

And if by 'doing anything at all' you meant in life purpose sense, then yes ! Once you are enlightened there is nothing to do at all! Everything becomes fruitless, because all those things become petty in contrast to the joy of  existence!

 

3 hours ago, Thanatos13 said:

 

3 hours ago, Thanatos13 said:

 

Edited January 31, 2018 by Ibn Sina

[Hero in progress]

@Thanatos13

Maybe I can offer some insight & further consideration.

The ego as a solid entity is a complete illusion, that's to say the sense of being a isolated object residing within the body, situated behind the eyes, between the ears is none other than a figment of mind. Its something that was created when you was very young. You was called to be a person to survive in a social context, in fact if you look into at all you will see that self & other are inseparable, meaning without other there's no you. 

So you ask "why do anything at all"

Well the thing is although there may not be a real entity harbouring a existence of its own, there is ego energy in the body, this is a heavy turbid energy residing below the navel. If you don't transend the ego and surrender too God, you will never be free of this heavy energy, and ultimately you will never be at complete peace. Also there is inherent suffering in self survival. You will live the rest of your life trapped in your own restricted world's of meaning and projection. 

And secondly if you don't transcend the ego you will go through life a bit selfish, serving only your own self agenda and as far as I can tell, that's not a very nice and happy life too live.

Ultimately its all up to you, In the grand scheme of things whether you choose to pursue Divine consciousness or not it doesn't make any difference to the infinite cosmos. But.. It would make a huge difference for your life and maybe the people around you. And finally if humanity meaning YOU doesn't get on board with becoming more deeply conscious and present, chances are, were fucking dead.

[Thanatos13]

46 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

Although you are actually nothingness, you still need to do something because without doing that your body cannot survive, and the body WANTS to survive. Do you think that Buddha never ate anything , or had no desire for thirst simply because he knew the nature of his self? Well no! He did have diseases, he did get old, he did get food poisoning and died like anyother ordinary individual! . Once you are back from the realization, everything is same except there is perfect knowledge of the nature of the self. That is why he was laughing when a man came and spat him and scolded him. Think about it, Buddha laughed at him because he could see that man's delusion of the self, whom was he insulting? There was no one to insult! Buddha knew this, but the man was in his pityful state of egoness.

 

And if by 'doing anything at all' you meant in life purpose sense, then yes ! Once you are enlightened there is nothing to do at all! Everything becomes fruitless, because all those things become petty in contrast to the joy of  existence!

 

I’m fairly certain that the Buddha realized that existence isn’t a joy, because the whole point of the Buddhist philosophy is to not be reborn into the cycle again. Existence was general viewed as undesirable. I’m also kind of certain he might have been a bit deluded.

44 minutes ago, Hero in progress said:

@Thanatos13

Maybe I can offer some insight & further consideration.

The ego as a solid entity is a complete illusion, that's to say the sense of being a isolated object residing within the body, situated behind the eyes, between the ears is none other than a figment of mind. Its something that was created when you was very young. You was called to be a person to survive in a social context, in fact if you look into at all you will see that self & other are inseparable, meaning without other there's no you. 

So you ask "why do anything at all"

Well the thing is although there may not be a real entity harbouring a existence of its own, there is ego energy in the body, this is a heavy turbid energy residing below the navel. If you don't transend the ego and surrender too God, you will never be free of this heavy energy, and ultimately you will never be at complete peace. Also there is inherent suffering in self survival. You will live the rest of your life trapped in your own restricted world's of meaning and projection. 

And secondly if you don't transcend the ego you will go through life a bit selfish, serving only your own self agenda and as far as I can tell, that's not a very nice and happy life too live.

Ultimately its all up to you, In the grand scheme of things whether you choose to pursue Divine consciousness or not it doesn't make any difference to the infinite cosmos. But.. It would make a huge difference for your life and maybe the people around you. And finally if humanity meaning YOU doesn't get on board with becoming more deeply conscious and present, chances are, were fucking dead.

No such thing as divine consciousness, no such thing as complete selflessness, we are dead anyway when the environment collapses, plenty of people are happy being “selfish”, there is no god. 

Its like people don’t read the question. 

[Ibn Sina]

47 minutes ago, Thanatos13 said:

1 hour ago, Ibn Sina said:

 

I’m fairly certain that the Buddha realized that existence isn’t a joy, because the whole point of the Buddhist philosophy is to not be reborn into the cycle again. Existence was general viewed as undesirable. I’m also kind of certain he might have been a bit deluded.

I am fairly certain that you haven't mistaken existance in the joy of existence as before the occurence of enlightenement. I am clearly stating that one's life purpose becomes meaningless and there is joy in existence AFTER one has become enlightened. And if you happened to believe that even AFTER enlightenment there is no joy, then you should go and read books on osho, zen, or watch leo's video - big picture of self actualization or go and ask Leo. Now if you say that that would be a claim from outside sources then YES, it is, because I haven't become enlightened yet and cannot tell you from experience that existence is joyful AFTER enlightenment.

 

He realized existence was suffering so that is why he went out to deal with this didn't he? Wasn't that the entire point of his story?

Ofcourse he said that life is suffering. And you forgot that he also said there is a way out of this suffering.

After Siddartha became Buddha, all suffering had ceased. It takes great courage to say ' no, his suffering had not ceased, he still suffered like he did before'

 

 

On 1/16/2018 at 2:59 AM, Thanatos13 said:

One thing that I never understood was why bother doing literally any of it when suicide is a more expedient alternative. 

 

Its like an insight I had one day when I realized I don’t have to or need to live. It’s optional 

 

Edited January 31, 2018 by Ibn Sina

[Thanatos13]

1 hour ago, Ibn Sina said:

I am fairly certain that you haven't mistaken existance in the joy of existence as before the occurence of enlightenement. I am clearly stating that one's life purpose becomes meaningless and there is joy in existence AFTER one has become enlightened. And if you happened to believe that even AFTER enlightenment there is no joy, then you should go and read books on osho, zen, or watch leo's video - big picture of self actualization or go and ask Leo. Now if you say that that would be a claim from outside sources then YES, it is, because I haven't become enlightened yet and cannot tell you from experience that existence is joyful AFTER enlightenment.

 

He realized existence was suffering so that is why he went out to deal with this didn't he? Wasn't that the entire point of his story?

Ofcourse he said that life is suffering. And you forgot that he also said there is a way out of this suffering.

After Siddartha became Buddha, all suffering had ceased. It takes great courage to say ' no, his suffering had not ceased, he still suffered like he did before'

 

 

 

Actually you got it wrong. 

Life is suffering but what he meant by exiting the cycle of suffering (in this case rebirth) is to become enlightened and then when you die you aren’t reborn again. Of course this assumes that rebirth is an actual phenomenon and not just something they made up to keep people from escaping through suicide.

Second, any claims of joy after enlightenment is pure speculation. We are assuming a state exists and that they reached it and didn’t just stop at something that felt good. There is something to be said about enlightenment being detachment, the only way to be happy is to ignore the hard reality we live in.

While Buddha did say there is a “way out” there isn’t evidence that it’s the case.

Ultimately the claims and argument of enlightenment boil down to “because I said so” and that just doesn’t fly.

I can say that existence isn’t a joy after enlightenment after speaking with others who claim to reach it. 

Finallt Leo isn’t worth asking jack about. Ever since I saw his view on skepticism his credibility took a nose dive. Not only did he butcher pyrrhonism but selectively applies it to things that contradict him. 

Reading books by zen practitioners or Osho don’t prove anything, all you are getting is their view on life.

[SOUL]

5 hours ago, Thanatos13 said:

I use the term in quotes since the sense of self is merely a construct to understand the world around us, it doesn’t actually exist and never did (hence why “you” never actually “died”). 

But assuming that is the case then why bother doing anything at all? Is that not the “ego” when it comes to self actualization (which I’m still skeptical about)? What makes one keep living if there is nothing doing the living?

Why do you believe the self doesn't exist?

[Thanatos13]

9 minutes ago, SOUL said:

Why do you believe the self doesn't exist?

Because we can “prove it”, just ask Thomas Metzinger

[SOUL]

1 minute ago, Thanatos13 said:

Because we can “prove it”, just ask Thomas Metzinger

You said it yourself, it's a construct to understand the world around us. That's a thing, it's constructed, it has individual characteristics and is used by us to understand the world. So, therefore, it exists.

Don't you feel better about yourself now? You proved Thomas Metzinger wrong.

[Thanatos13]

16 minutes ago, SOUL said:

You said it yourself, it's a construct to understand the world around us. That's a thing, it's constructed, it has individual characteristics and is used by us to understand the world. So, therefore, it exists.

Don't you feel better about yourself now? You proved Thomas Metzinger wrong.

You don’t understand what construct means in this sense. They refer to the self as more of an ongoing process, but it does not exist and never did. We just believe it does because it feels that way.

So I guess the correct definition would be that the self doesn’t exist as a thing. It’s a process, a “transparent self model” as he puts it. Like a window you can see out of but you can’t see the window.

I spoke with him about. Susan Blackmore is another who has done work on the matter, but there seems to be strong evidence to support that it does not exist. 

[SOUL]

1 minute ago, Thanatos13 said:

You don’t understand what construct means in this sense. They refer to the self as more of an ongoing process, but it does not exist and never did. We just believe it does because it feels that way.

So I guess the correct definition would be that the self doesn’t exist as a thing. It’s a process, a “transparent self model” as he puts it. Like a window you can see out of but you can’t see the window.

I spoke with him about. Susan Blackmore is another who has done work on the matter, but there seems to be strong evidence to support that it does not exist. 

So a process doesn't exist? You mean like the scientific method is a process of discovery doesn't exist?

Ok, you want to now say it's not a "thing" but a "process" and there are definite characteristics that define what the process of the scientific method of discovery is which make it what it is even if it's not a thing but a process.

The same thing... er... process of showing how the self exists as a method of creating identity that successfully sustains itself as a biological being in the world.

Wow, you are doing a pretty good job of proving this Tom guy wrong. You should feel proud of your self.

[Thanatos13]

25 minutes ago, SOUL said:

So a process doesn't exist? You mean like the scientific method is a process of discovery doesn't exist?

Ok, you want to now say it's not a "thing" but a "process" and there are definite characteristics that define what the process of the scientific method of discovery is which make it what it is even if it's not a thing but a process.

The same thing... er... process of showing how the self exists as a method of creating identity that successfully sustains itself as a biological being in the world.

Wow, you are doing a pretty good job of proving this Tom guy wrong. You should feel proud of your self.

You haven’t actually proven anyone wrong though. 

As I have said, the self isn’t a thing but a process. A process is not a thing. It’s a simple concept. 

Even an infant can see an action is not a thing. You are conflating the existence of the self as a thing with the scientific method as a process. 

It still doesn’t refute that the self doesn’t exist as a thing, something solid, but as a process. That’s why he calls it the phenomenal self. But even that doesn’t exist, but is rather an ongoing process. 

But processes aren’t things. 

Edited February 1, 2018 by Thanatos13

[SOUL]

Ah yes, your true nature comes out, glad to see you show your genuine intentions

16 minutes ago, Thanatos13 said:

You haven’t actually proven anyone wrong though. 

As I have said, the self isn’t a thing but a process. A process is not a thing. It’s a simple concept. 

Even an infant can see an action is not a thing. 

This is how you started the thread:

7 hours ago, Thanatos13 said:

it doesn’t actually exist and never did

It exists and you have acknowledged it exists by saying it is a process because, yes, a process exists. Especially so when it is a biological process that is performed involuntarily as a function of the body.

You keep proving the self exists with every reply

Explain with details about why you and the people you parrot believe this biological process "doesn't actually exist".

Edited February 1, 2018 by SOUL

[Thanatos13]

3 minutes ago, SOUL said:

Ah yes, your true nature comes out, glad to see you show your genuine intentions

This is how you started the thread:

It exists and you have acknowledged it exists by saying it is a process because, yes, a process exists. Especially so when it is a biological process that is performed involuntarily as a function of the body.

You keep proving the self exists with every reply

Explain with details about why you and the people you parrot believe this biological process "doesn't actually exist".

It actually doesn’t exist. 

The self doesn’t exist. There is no entity behind the mask pulling strings. It’s just a collection of processes that we take to be some “one” because” that’s how it makes sense. Believing something exists doesn’t mean the same thing as it actually existing. There is no “I”, no entity behind the mask. Just a variety of brain activity. 

[SOUL]

10 minutes ago, Thanatos13 said:

It actually doesn’t exist. 

The self doesn’t exist. There is no entity behind the mask pulling strings. It’s just a collection of processes that we take to be some “one” because” that’s how it makes sense. Believing something exists doesn’t mean the same thing as it actually existing. There is no “I”, no entity behind the mask. Just a variety of brain activity. 

So when were you going to provide actual evidence that the self doesn't exist? Just so you have an understanding what the self is by definition and not the interpretation straw man you think you can defeat.

Quote

self

a person's essential being that distinguishes them from others, especially considered as the object of introspection or reflexive action.

Let's see you prove that self exists again by replying in defense of ........

[Thanatos13]

The self as an entity doesn’t exist. There is no I or little man or any permanent core that is you. 

They showed through the rubber hand illusion that you can be fooled into thinking a rubber glove is part of “you”. This shows that the self as an integrated and separate entity is false. Rather it is an experience, and ongoing phenomenon. 

http://www.beinghuman.org/article/interview-thomas-metzinger-what-self