How do you get rid of ego?

[kay]

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

You should read up on how languages evolve before making it sound like you think that languages (and the words tha make them) do not change with time. That only makes you sound silly because there are plenty of examples around us. Pick up any copy of Shakespeare and compare word usage to current English norms.

Also, as an interesting aside (and you can look this up), there is at least 1 country in the world that has in fact changed the side of the road they drive on in the last 40 or so years. So yes, traffic regulations can change too overnight. After all, there weren't actually that many traffic regulations a century ago. They hadn't even fixed the positions of steering wheels yet at that point.

Oversimplification only works if society behaves like automatons.

[alien pimp]

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

You should read up on how languages evolve before making it sound like you think that languages (and the words tha make them) do not change with time. That only makes you sound silly because there are plenty of examples around us. Pick up any copy of Shakespeare and compare word usage to current English norms.

Also, as an interesting aside (and you can look this up), there is at least 1 country in the world that has in fact changed the side of the road they drive on in the last 40 or so years. So yes, traffic regulations can change too overnight. After all, there weren't actually that many traffic regulations a century ago. They hadn't even fixed the positions of steering wheels yet at that point.

Oversimplification only works if society behaves like automatons.

mate, you're confusing something, i've never said a language doesn't change with time, what are you on about?
and i've never said regulations can't change overnight, but, like in that example you gave, when they did that they've advertised for it in advance exactly for everyone to be on the same page. and when that happened, on either sense of the road there was the same law working.
i said: to communicate we need a common code. until the code changes are standardised and universally accepted, we don't have that. the dictionary is the book of language standards, to call it so...

what is for you the objective holder of the language standards then that everyone refers to for a common ground?
or how can you conceive communication between two people who understand different things from the same word?
you're losing me a bit here...

ah, and it's not about oversimplification because nobody needs to simplify anything, things are already simple, we can talk about overcomplication as things are made to look complicated while they're not

[the acid never lies]

to communicate we need a common code. until the code changes are standardised and universally accepted, we don't have that. the dictionary is the book of language standards, to call it so...

what is for you the objective holder of the language standards then that everyone refers to for a common ground?
or how can you conceive communication between two people who understand different things from the same word?
you're losing me a bit here...

Linguistics is very complicated indeed and not simply a case of what has been acknowledged by whoever wrote the dictionary. Bear in mind that establishing an official language was simply part and parcel of nationalist or expansionist projects in the middle ages - they still had 'language' before that and that imagined space outside what is officially acknowledged (slang) isn't a real space at all - it's just all codes and signifiers innit?

[kay]

what is for you the objective holder of the language standards then that everyone refers to for a common ground?
or how can you conceive communication between two people who understand different things from the same word?
you're losing me a bit here...

I think we're probably once again agreeing on the same things but not realising it. Indeed it is not possible to have effective communication between two people who understand different things from the same word. However, as the two of us have pretty effectively demonstrated over this thread (and quite a few times over the last 12 months as well ) people can and do associate different meanings to words. So it is often much better to clarify understanding on both sides before diving into divergent streams of discussion based on either sides leanings and only to find 3 years later that both sides had been talking about different things. Mostly it's an issue with people not bothering to go open up a dictionary and instead going by gut feel of context. But, as demonstrated by the destruction of a space shuttle because people got units of measurements mixed up, shit like this does happen all the time.

So, when in doubt, I just like clarifying definitions. English is a very imprecise language.

[alien pimp]

what is for you the objective holder of the language standards then that everyone refers to for a common ground?
or how can you conceive communication between two people who understand different things from the same word?
you're losing me a bit here...

I think we're probably once again agreeing on the same things but not realising it. Indeed it is not possible to have effective communication between two people who understand different things from the same word. However, as the two of us have pretty effectively demonstrated over this thread (and quite a few times over the last 12 months as well ) people can and do associate different meanings to words. So it is often much better to clarify understanding on both sides before diving into divergent streams of discussion based on either sides leanings and only to find 3 years later that both sides had been talking about different things. Mostly it's an issue with people not bothering to go open up a dictionary and instead going by gut feel of context. But, as demonstrated by the destruction of a space shuttle because people got units of measurements mixed up, shit like this does happen all the time.

So, when in doubt, I just like clarifying definitions. English is a very imprecise language.

yeh man, exactly my point. so isn't it logical then to have a book of codes? and isn't it logical that the book is the dictionary for the words, and the grammar textbooks for the relationship between words?
people are free to use the words how they feel, but if they want to communicate properly they have zero other options than referring to the dictionaries or to make and spread their own dictionary among their peers. the latter one won't work here.
allow this to be clearly stated and agreed over once and for all, so we can avoid a bit of the chaos created here each and every thread
simple.

[64hz]

imo a language is how its used, not how its defined.
im sure jamaican patois doesn't have a dictionary

[alien pimp]

imo

that's exactly what you need to take out of the equation for things to work properly: opinions.
replace them with facts, like the official definitions of words, and you got things going properly.

of course you don't need to have something written down to have a language, but that's irrelevant here, do you have any better option than what me and kay we're discussing for a language to be a good communication tool? so far nobody found alternatives

[honey-d]

I would hardly consider myself enlightened and without an ego but a lot of ego softening happened with me after watching my grandma die. She had Alzheimer and I literally watched her die over a 2 year period and then watched the final seconds as well. At first it really shattered my concept of the world I lived in, how people can change and become so distant from what we thought was their "self". I saw old pictures of her and had memories of her being a perfectly rational, reasonable, functional person but watched her change so much. Then I thought about the people around me and how they have changed so much. Then I thought of myself, and how Alex from 3 years ago certainly isn't the Alex I am today, etc etc. I had a looooooot of questions and confusion and ended up doing a lot of psychs (which helped in some ways and exacerbated the situation in many other ways) and that sorta ended up leading me into Buddhism which lead to meditation and a lot of studying.

So basically

Shatter world
Do drugs
Find the buddha

[alien pimp]

big up for chosing buddha over all others, he's the only one really focused on the people and their need of harmonising with their universe at hand, without asking anyone to suck his dick, as far as i know

[*grand*]

I imagine life is a lot better without it.

Never.. ego makes you who you are! It' more or less your beliefs your code, it ultimate is the you who you can hear in your head when you read silently, the you who goes in and out of your dreams.. your ego is you! To get rid of your ego therefore would mean to get rid of whoever it is you are.... you would just be a machine.. a shell. Maybe your question should be more, how do you change yourself?

Grand by Name Grand by Nature...

Grand

[xarcane]

But wouldn't it be so much greater if you could disconnect from everything that is self; selfish desires, self-interest at the expense of others? To just have a human shared desire and a shared hope, a real purpose to life. That's the best part of life isn't it, to have a shared focus/goal? It's the only real purpose of life really, to try and function as part of a greater whole. Sex, marriage, the family unit, work, friendship, society, religion, war... all of it. Self gets in the way of that.

[kay]

yeh man, exactly my point. so isn't it logical then to have a book of codes? and isn't it logical that the book is the dictionary for the words, and the grammar textbooks for the relationship between words?

Totally agree. However, people as you know are rather illogical. They'd rather make up meaning for words than look it up in a dictionary. Go figure.

[hackman]

Never.. ego makes you who you are! It' more or less your beliefs your code, it ultimate is the you who you can hear in your head when you read silently, the you who goes in and out of your dreams.. your ego is you! To get rid of your ego therefore would mean to get rid of whoever it is you are.... you would just be a machine.. a shell.

lol

[nowaysj]

imo

that's exactly what you need to take out of the equation for things to work properly: opinions.

Rich, considering the source.

[parson]

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.

thanks for reminding me why i keep tards on block!

figure out what ego is, fellas. you're pretty lost.

[*grand*]

The only way to get rid of ego is to die, thats it. And that's the truth, even striving for a greater good is a choice that you make within, an opinion you formulate that you believe to be correct for yourself. Ego's are what have led our species to where they are today. we need them to procreate, to compete for sources of food, to develop new ways of doing stuff as ultimate it is what drives us to do things. Otherwise we all still be single celled organisms in some primordial soup somewhere...

Chea

Grand

[hackman]

balderdash
(do you even know what the word ego means)

[xarcane]

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.

thanks for reminding me why i keep tards on block!

figure out what ego is, fellas. you're pretty lost.

I don't know I'm not a telepath like you Parson... Is it because the massive egotism associated with your extreme sense of self-importance can't handle any criticism? Or is this a little closer to the truth?



Lalalalalalalalala

[hackman]

hmm yes because we need a feeling of superiority over others and an inflated opinion of ourselves in order to survive, and it is impossible to get rid of that unless we die

[parson]

EGO HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH INFLATED OPINION OF SELF. YOU CAN HATE YOURSELF AND BE COMPLETELY CONTROLLED BY EGO.

EGO IS THE FAKE SELF THAT YOU'RE BORN WITH THAT YOU THINK IS YOU, BUT THE REAL YOU IS UNDERNEATH IT AND IT DOESN'T EXPERIENCE SUFFERING.