Dubstepforum.com

alien pimp wrote:

64hz wrote:a discussion on 'egos' never works, because its like discussing god - everyone has a different opinion on the definition of the word, and everyones arguing different points

that's where dictionaries come in establishing common definitions and common grounds.
if you call ego something that's not in their definitions you're not talking the language, as simple as that
so, for english speaking i usually go by miriam webster

thats not really how it works in real life is it though, and what i was trying to get at is that there are several different meanings of ego, and theyre all being referenced in this thread. i can think of at least 3 meanings for 'ego' of the top of my head, im sure miriam webster would agree with me.

64hz wrote:

alien pimp wrote:

64hz wrote:a discussion on 'egos' never works, because its like discussing god - everyone has a different opinion on the definition of the word, and everyones arguing different points

that's where dictionaries come in establishing common definitions and common grounds.
if you call ego something that's not in their definitions you're not talking the language, as simple as that
so, for english speaking i usually go by miriam webster

thats not really how it works in real life is it though, and what i was trying to get at is that there are several different meanings of ego, and theyre all being referenced in this thread. i can think of at least 3 meanings for 'ego' of the top of my head, im sure miriam webster would agree with me.

that's exactly how it works in real life, if you don't believe me ask any specialist in communication: any succesful communication needs the sender and receiver of the message to use the same code. that's exactly why the dictionaries were written, they are the language, alongside with your grammar textbook

now, if there are different definitions there are different things, obviously, no matter if those things are called the same. here you might wanna go to miriam and find out about paronyms

also, very helpful in communicating is always defining the terms, which the op should always do when there is a suspicion of ambiguity. but i think there is none here, what definitions do you think we are in danger to mix up? go to miriam, pick them up, then the op might need to point which one he meant, but i think we can figure it out pretty easily from the context

xarcane wrote:

parson wrote:http://www.amazon.com/Becoming-Like-God ... 1571892427

Parson on how to get rid of ego?

The man with BY FAR the biggest ego on here, trying to tell people how to get rid of ego?! And by hyping a book called, wait for it - BECOMING. LIKE. GOD.

Bruv your ego's so big you've literally boxed yourself off from the rest of humanity, you think you're some ascended being telepath who talks to aliens and shit... If you did try to destroy your ego, you've done the complete opposite; you're like some sort of Anti-Buddha who attempts to lead people along the path to destruction. Work on your own ego before you try and tell others how to get rid of theirs.

btw, who in this universe asks for the most praise, veneration, constant attention and obeying and all forms of cocksucking on his personality?
hint: he's not a member of dsf

a language isn't how it's defined, more how it's used.

popular definition almost always deviates from the dictionary definition, taking the word ego for example, to a layman it could mean arrogance or pride, to a psychologist it could mean the concious thought controller, and i think the op was referring to the mystic 'self' .

i didnt mean to get too caught up in semantics, my original post was a just a passing comment on how different people where trying to argue using different definitions of the word.

(i agree with most of what youre saying btw)

alien pimp wrote:btw, who in this universe asks for the most praise, veneration, constant attention and obeying and all forms of cocksucking on his personality?
hint: he's not a member of dsf

he might be

As AP said, there's ego, and there's egotism. I think the OP was most likely referring to egotism? Not that it would do that much good on here to find out which he meant, as we'd just veer off in about 5 different directions anyway, but still, it would be useful to know.

64hz wrote:a language isn't how it's defined, more how it's used.

popular definition almost always deviates from the dictionary definition, taking the word ego for example, to a layman it could mean arrogance or pride, to a psychologist it could mean the concious thought controller, and i think the op was referring to the mystic 'self' .

i didnt mean to get too caught up in semantics, my original post was a just a passing comment on how different people where trying to argue using different definitions of the word.

(i agree with most of what youre saying btw)

m8, your argument is not valid, definitions are like laws, they don't change according to everyone's wish because people fail at applying them. rather people need to change their behaviour according to the law. words mean what they mean and lots of problems come exactly from people not knowing their words.
semantics play a huge role in our life, as you yourself just pointed out.

your passing comment seems to me really important in the equation of this thread and wanted to clear it out. there is nothing shady here and red won't mean blue because some people use it so, except when all the people involved in communication accept this code. here we can't have an agreement over a new code, so it's best to use the best code we have at hand - english language. english is defined by dictionary. if you want to change that code, you need to inform and get acceptance from everyone here, not gonna happen

most problems have the simplest solutions masked by our own tendency to overcomplicate everything

kay wrote:As AP said, there's ego, and there's egotism. I think the OP was most likely referring to egotism? Not that it would do that much good on here to find out which he meant, as we'd just veer off in about 5 different directions anyway, but still, it would be useful to know.

this a habit i don't understand: self-translation: if one means egotism, why write ego? until further notice, i will talk about ego, as defined by our common code here - english language
but deffo the op needs to clear this out. if he knows what he meant

alien pimp wrote:

kay wrote:As AP said, there's ego, and there's egotism. I think the OP was most likely referring to egotism? Not that it would do that much good on here to find out which he meant, as we'd just veer off in about 5 different directions anyway, but still, it would be useful to know.

this a habit i don't understand: self-translation: if one means egotism, why write ego? until further notice, i will talk about ego, as defined by our common code here - english language
but deffo the op needs to clear this out. if he knows what he meant

To be honest, that's partly how language evolves. Over time, especially when dictionaries are not available or not involved, population subsets start making mistakes in understanding what words mean and apply a slightly different meaning to them instead. There are probably quite a few English words which have changed spelling, pronunciation and meaning over the last 1000 years. Add to that words which originated from a different language with concepts that don't translate neatly, and you end up with a hodgepodge mixture of words with new definitions a couple hundred years later. Just look at how definitions of words like "bad", "gay" and "queer" have evolved over the last century. "Orgy" means has different meanings in English and French.

Effective communication isn't always just a 1-way street, with Person 1 passing information to Person 2. It's more effective when Person 2 gives feedback and checks that he/she has understood Person 1's intentions correctly. And vice versa.

I think egotism, and the philosophical/mystical definition of the self are very closely linked tbh. Naturally the more someone defines themselves as an individual separated from the rest of the human race, the more their idea of self-aggrandizement begins to rise; the most obvious example being someone like Parson. When someone doesn't share a view of his, he's never able to qualify it - his immediate response is to box himself off as a unique individual, set apart from them in ways that allows him to understand what they don't, and thus impose on himself a sort of self-grandeur.

And that comment about the Christian God is exactly why I think the Judeo-Christian religion and all of it's derivatives are the anti-thesis of all that is correct. It teaches aggrandizement of the self, again another simple example provided by Parson's: "Becoming like God". You go to an evangelical church it's all about you. God wants a personal relationship with you. Jesus died for you. Being Christian gives you the right to be happy, whilst the unbelievers are miserable. It's only ever going to end in one way.

xarcane wrote:I think egotism, and the philosophical/mystical definition of the self are very closely linked tbh. Naturally the more someone defines themselves as an individual separated from the rest of the human race, the more their idea of self-aggrandizement begins to rise; the most obvious example being someone like Parson. When someone doesn't share a view of his, he's never able to qualify it - his immediate response is to box himself off as a unique individual, set apart from them in ways that allows him to understand what they don't, and thus impose on himself a sort of self-grandeur.

And that comment about the Christian God is exactly why I think the Judeo-Christian religion and all of it's derivatives are the anti-thesis of all that is correct. It teaches aggrandizement of the self, again another simple example provided by Parson's: "Becoming like God". You go to an evangelical church it's all about you. God wants a personal relationship with you. Jesus died for you. Being Christian gives you the right to be happy, whilst the unbelievers are miserable. It's only ever going to end in one way.

Well to be fair, it's only the followers of said God who ascribe the requirement to worship him/her/it. He/She/It hasn't actually come out and said "Worship me! Love me! Praise me!", all we have are writings by zealots from a couple of thousand years ago to go by. Frankly, all it does is make such a being seem rather insecure and shallow.

kay wrote:

alien pimp wrote:

kay wrote:As AP said, there's ego, and there's egotism. I think the OP was most likely referring to egotism? Not that it would do that much good on here to find out which he meant, as we'd just veer off in about 5 different directions anyway, but still, it would be useful to know.

this a habit i don't understand: self-translation: if one means egotism, why write ego? until further notice, i will talk about ego, as defined by our common code here - english language
but deffo the op needs to clear this out. if he knows what he meant

To be honest, that's partly how language evolves. Over time, especially when dictionaries are not available or not involved, population subsets start making mistakes in understanding what words mean and apply a slightly different meaning to them instead. There are probably quite a few English words which have changed spelling, pronunciation and meaning over the last 1000 years. Add to that words which originated from a different language with concepts that don't translate neatly, and you end up with a hodgepodge mixture of words with new definitions a couple hundred years later. Just look at how definitions of words like "bad", "gay" and "queer" have evolved over the last century. "Orgy" means has different meanings in English and French.

Effective communication isn't always just a 1-way street, with Person 1 passing information to Person 2. It's more effective when Person 2 gives feedback and checks that he/she has understood Person 1's intentions correctly. And vice versa.

if more and more people start smoking weed doesn't mean there is a new law, it only means we can have more and more hopes for legalisation, but until it happens, the law is what it is.
also slang is not language, is a parallel code with the language
who said communication is a one way street?
is anything changing in the traffic regulations when you come back from a trip on the same road? [aka p2 to p1]
feedback and checking fall under different laws than the initial message?

same tendency to overcomplicate very simple things

kay wrote:

xarcane wrote:I think egotism, and the philosophical/mystical definition of the self are very closely linked tbh. Naturally the more someone defines themselves as an individual separated from the rest of the human race, the more their idea of self-aggrandizement begins to rise; the most obvious example being someone like Parson. When someone doesn't share a view of his, he's never able to qualify it - his immediate response is to box himself off as a unique individual, set apart from them in ways that allows him to understand what they don't, and thus impose on himself a sort of self-grandeur.

And that comment about the Christian God is exactly why I think the Judeo-Christian religion and all of it's derivatives are the anti-thesis of all that is correct. It teaches aggrandizement of the self, again another simple example provided by Parson's: "Becoming like God". You go to an evangelical church it's all about you. God wants a personal relationship with you. Jesus died for you. Being Christian gives you the right to be happy, whilst the unbelievers are miserable. It's only ever going to end in one way.

Well to be fair, it's only the followers of said God who ascribe the requirement to worship him/her/it. He/She/It hasn't actually come out and said "Worship me! Love me! Praise me!", all we have are writings by zealots from a couple of thousand years ago to go by. Frankly, all it does is make such a being seem rather insecure and shallow.

True, but the Judeo-Christian God exists as they created him. And his first commandment to the people is: "Worship me, and only me... for I am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of their parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me". That's like the main tenet of the faith.

xarcane wrote:

kay wrote:

xarcane wrote:I think egotism, and the philosophical/mystical definition of the self are very closely linked tbh. Naturally the more someone defines themselves as an individual separated from the rest of the human race, the more their idea of self-aggrandizement begins to rise; the most obvious example being someone like Parson. When someone doesn't share a view of his, he's never able to qualify it - his immediate response is to box himself off as a unique individual, set apart from them in ways that allows him to understand what they don't, and thus impose on himself a sort of self-grandeur.

And that comment about the Christian God is exactly why I think the Judeo-Christian religion and all of it's derivatives are the anti-thesis of all that is correct. It teaches aggrandizement of the self, again another simple example provided by Parson's: "Becoming like God". You go to an evangelical church it's all about you. God wants a personal relationship with you. Jesus died for you. Being Christian gives you the right to be happy, whilst the unbelievers are miserable. It's only ever going to end in one way.

Well to be fair, it's only the followers of said God who ascribe the requirement to worship him/her/it. He/She/It hasn't actually come out and said "Worship me! Love me! Praise me!", all we have are writings by zealots from a couple of thousand years ago to go by. Frankly, all it does is make such a being seem rather insecure and shallow.

True, but the Judeo-Christian God exists as they created him. And his first commandment to the people is: "Worship me, and only me... for I am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of their parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me". That's like the main tenet of the faith.

this is a good model of a forum debate by my standards, loving how this thread evolves and what it takes out of people. let's see how long it takes til some monkey starts ruining it, but we've had a good share so far
needless to say i'm with xarcane on this one

good role model

man, i thought this would just be a thread about drugs

64hz wrote:

good role model

haha, that almost makes me understand satanists

aftee wrote:Egotism

^^

Alien had a very good answer even if we weren't talking about the same thing..it still seemed to apply.

xarcane wrote:

kay wrote:

xarcane wrote:I think egotism, and the philosophical/mystical definition of the self are very closely linked tbh. Naturally the more someone defines themselves as an individual separated from the rest of the human race, the more their idea of self-aggrandizement begins to rise; the most obvious example being someone like Parson. When someone doesn't share a view of his, he's never able to qualify it - his immediate response is to box himself off as a unique individual, set apart from them in ways that allows him to understand what they don't, and thus impose on himself a sort of self-grandeur.

And that comment about the Christian God is exactly why I think the Judeo-Christian religion and all of it's derivatives are the anti-thesis of all that is correct. It teaches aggrandizement of the self, again another simple example provided by Parson's: "Becoming like God". You go to an evangelical church it's all about you. God wants a personal relationship with you. Jesus died for you. Being Christian gives you the right to be happy, whilst the unbelievers are miserable. It's only ever going to end in one way.

Well to be fair, it's only the followers of said God who ascribe the requirement to worship him/her/it. He/She/It hasn't actually come out and said "Worship me! Love me! Praise me!", all we have are writings by zealots from a couple of thousand years ago to go by. Frankly, all it does is make such a being seem rather insecure and shallow.

True, but the Judeo-Christian God exists as they created him. And his first commandment to the people is: "Worship me, and only me... for I am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of their parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me". That's like the main tenet of the faith.

Yeah, and that's a pretty crappy quality to ascribe to a deity to be honest. Jealous God. What's he/she/it gotta be jealous about if they were actually God?