I'm Ti, my pic is plain in my profile. All faith issues aside- Alpha male?
Only in your mind.

Dubbing ones self Alpha male means you have weaknesses but are trying to make up for it with shallow verbal intimidation.

I've learned in my training and practice of various forms of martial arts that the ones who brag of their abilities are the ones who open themselves up to attack the most in competition. Beware the Quiet, kind man with the black belt, he has the ability 'and' confidence enough 'not' to brag about it.

Did I just hear someone bragging just now?

Oh wait,... maybe it was just the ramblings of the peanut gallery.

I've always like this quote from Sherri Tepper in "Gibbon's Decline and Fall":

"So if one wants to control men, one canonizes the ape nature of men. One makes one's cause the protection of apishness, or, as men would say, liberty! "

-Kerry O.

My apologies for all the noise in the background. For those interested in the discussion, philosophically, consider it all just an illusion, created or interpreted by our individual or unborn or unrealized Egos’. Moving on then:

Voil asserts that ego is a tool that is ‘required’ in order for the full context of the ‘illusion’ of life to be grasped. It was a tool that was developed through evolution to assist in human awareness of self and place.

I can understand the separatist nature of the ego in this light as the survival of such a weak and vulnerable species; humans required the illusion of individuality for survival. With individuality one is more concerned about self-preservation (which includes all that self deems necessary, including loved ones) to survive. With this kind of awareness, individuals are more likely to have less fear of physically separating from the ‘tribe mentality’, the oneness of the whole. It also provided ‘reason’ for such separation, (more leaders and less followers), more disputes over perceived property (food, shelter, women and mating). The farther the distance between groups of humans, the greater the survival rate of the species in times of natural disasters.

This of course ends up being how the ‘ego’ got its reputation, too many leaders, too many opinions, and much dispute. So while we may have gained ‘continued’ existence, we have been separated from our oneness by the illusion of individuality that the ego was designed to create.

Abra has another idea of Ego. He presents ego as merely an inept perception that man has created about himself. He believes that the true nature of man is not physical and not individual, and certainly not limited to any particular dimension. He further believes that all life has unity, connectedness, regardless of what illusion our current life’s situation imposes.

He also feels that people can deny the illusion of ego but, for many, the illusion is inextricably tied to their belief systems and a fear of loosing individual identity.

Holding such beliefs and denying oneness substantiates and justifies the ‘existence’ of ego in a ‘proper noun’ sort of way. As demonstrated by Wouldee and Farel with the idea that the ‘Holy Spirit’ (the spirit of their divine creator),alone can overcome Ego.

Apparently for them Ego is evil and requires divine intervention. Though why they might think that is not made clear, what does seem clear is that they don’t identify ego as a tool, nor as an illusion. It may be they believe ego is part of the package of sin into which they are born. Of course this idea negates the idea free will, as they expect that divine intervention will save them from the choices that may lead to sin. (paradox or oxymoron?) Not sure which.

I agree with Abra, that many fear loosing ‘the self’. To have individuality, allows one to separate ‘the self’ from all that it deems unworthy. To concede to oneness, would mean all individuals would thus become part of all that they deplore. They could no longer maintain autonomy over their perceptions of right and wrong, nor would they benefit from their ‘individual’ acts by ‘personal recognition or status among their peers, who will all also continue beyond death, as individuals.

Abra simply takes ego out of the equation and gives it no more consideration than yet another of those man made myths that has found its way into the belief systems of most humans, religion not-withstanding.

CreativeSoul has another version of ego. I will attempt to paraphrase. The unborn ‘self’, which I think, is referring to the ‘essence’ of an individuals true personality (including it’s perspective views of the illusory world to which it was born) and the ego begin development synonymously. The nature of the unborn self is apparently not of this dimension as it requires development in order to comprehend within its’ current state.

That development must be taught, in some manner or maybe ‘learned’ is a better word. But the evolution of the unborn self is interfered with by teachers who focus on the development of the ego; individuality. When the underdeveloped self begins to learn through this false perception it continues to use this perception as it’s base from which to continue development.

Thus, the true self remains ‘unborn’ as it has never developed the ability to perceive from its true nature.


All of these ideas are very different. All of them require that the intellect of the ‘individual’ connects with some belief.

Belief in science and evolution, believe in a divine creator, belief that how we experience the world comes from how we are taught to think.

But of all of these the truest form of existential theory is the belief that all life extends from a single life force and the illusion of the ‘individual’ is a pre-conceived notion that is taught, but can be unlearned.

But existentialism of this nature depends on a life force that must be able to divide – to believe that a unified life force can divide for a singular purpose (to exist in an illusion of an individual form) is not, to believe in the continuity of oneness (a singular whole).

Even though Abra is the most existential in thinking, it is quite possibly Voil that comes closest to the first of the Sartre quote in the OP.

Both Voil and Sartre conform to the same consensus; that Consciousness is (the illusion that leads to belief) and Unconsciousness is (the ego (Voil) or the “pre-reflective cogito” (Sartre)

It is only ego for Voil and the “pre-reflective cogito” for Sartre that are capable of the known. The transference of data (the known) between the unconscious (non-thetic self) or ego can only be understood by the consciousness when it conforms to the illusion of what one ‘believes’ to be reality.

Therefore, in the current state of being, which can only be conceived consciously, through illusion “to believe is to know that one believes, and to know that one believes is no longer to believe”

I have taken the liberty of viewing the Sartre quote ‘backwards’ in order to understand it. But it took all of your views for me to put it into context. This is the manner in which I have attempted to present it to you all.

By all means, feel free to debate it.

Once again, the quote:
" To believe is to know that one believes, and to know that one believes is no longer to believe. Thus to believe is not to believe any longer... This in unity of one and the same non-thetic self consciousness. non-thetic consciousness is not to know. Thus, the non-thetic consciousness (of) believing is destructive of belief. But at the same time the very law of the pre-reflective cogito implies that the being of believing ought to be the consciousness of believing.”
Jean-Paul-Sartre

funny how you fail to notice how that background noise was exact examples of your topic pertaining to belief and believing ..that background noise was actually an exchange by those to justify that because of religion they have some God giving right to call their belief truth not because of any undisputable evidence but because of the influences of others .and also what you failed to notice in that background noise is how it showed how people are willing to believe and use faith to justify that belief because they do not "know"

If you know nothing, and know you know nothing,
then you know more than the one who knows nothing,
and doesn't know he knows nothing.

I wasn't particularly speaking of me, putz. You and funches should share a dorm. I've proved God factually and all you cowards do is ramble or not respond. Have fun in la-la land. I'm fed up with the stupidity that hides itself in philosophy containing no 'real' power exept to feed the egos of the participants. I proved God in other forums. Look if you want, but funches for example can't respond with more than a shallow quip. Learn how to type dude, stop being lazy.

Oh well. You look at the messenger and disapprove. The message and all the facts and evidence is what I layed at your feet. None of you can even argue documented healings and miracles but the joy of debate steals your purpose in life.

What it boils down to is I'm not afraid to break stereotypical christian rules because I have admitted that modern American church sucks. I don't live there.

If you want truth handed to you and lived out for you, just kill yourself now and get it over with. you're just taking up space and sucking oxygen.

..er..nuenjins do you even see what your posting .aren't you bragging now ..and lying too ..because if you have the confidence you "believed" you have you wouldn't be hiding behind a fake profile picture ..and this martial arts training your talking about probably is what you learned off of sitting on the couch playing video games and watching "Dragon Ball Z" ..to keep on topic you probably "believe" you are this character when online

Please back up your mouth with the scripture funches. Thats what I find so amazing claim the scripture but don't show proof of it.....typical scenario for the lost.

funches

But I did not fail in that endeavor - it appears in my oppening. The opening also pointed out that the voices failed to discuss 'philosophically' rather than from the 'consciousness' which I later explain can only be 'illusion'.



I don't believe I failed, at all with this regard as I made direct reference beginning with this:


I feel I gave all the points you indicate, their proper due in accordance with the amount of influential rhetoric that was presented.

I realize my post was quite a bit longer and more in depth, intellectually, than all the 'background' posts you are use to reading. But this is philosophy and requires a bit more attention, focus and thought, AND a willingness to be open to the content of what others have to say.

The person who is willing to partake of such discussion, can best show that willingness by fully reading the posts and discussing them without bias, to the best ability the the 'conscious' mind can make.

I going to let you find it so maybe it will get you to actually read what you keep preaching about ..but here's a thought ..try placing the phrase in the search engine

You are sooooo dense. Why do I have to repeat myself.

OK, real slow this time....I know it's hard funches, but please ....take your time.

My.....pic.....is....in ....my .....profile.

Also.....I......trained....in ....Hapkido.....and.....Jujitsu.....but ....I....was.....bragging....on ....those.....who.....trained....me....and.... taught....me.

You're never right about anything funches, must be frustrating being lazy and simple.

Yes, Redy the screams were loud. Rather humorous and distracting.
I lean towards Voila's interpretation of ego and self, as well.
Your observations are quite focused and on the mark with Sarte's views giving the clearest of reference points.

My view is one of experience with regards to the faith, or confidence if you will, of an added dimension of personal enrichment. Although sin and absolution appears to be the major componenet of my view, it is not.
I am outside of the box there. In a no mans land so to speak.
Sin and absolution were dealt with ages ago, as I see it. No difference between us there. Conscience and guilt are universal and not unique and are part of our collective reality, but in my mind not the issue at the essence of conscious awareness of God's presence in ones being. A willful decision has been exercised to allow entrance of what may come and the settling in peace from the addition to ones being through contentment.

That being said, the oneness or lack thereof by man as a collective entity functioning in spatial harmony does require a standard reference point to grasp. As Sarte puts it, belief and knowledge will not harmonize themselves to express the image he seeks to identify.
Not having talked with Sarte, I cannot know what he intended to say and cannot suppose upon him that he was right or wrong in his observation. As all thought does evolve and take the shape of 'David trapped in the Marble' I would offer an observation to ponder that may aid in freeing 'David'.

Suppose that faith leads to belief and that leads to revelations of that belief and that the revelations lead to knowledge and that knowledge leads to understanding knowledge and that understanding knowledge leads to wisdom, let me hypothesize a narrow and succint observation based solely in my postulate.
By confidence to dare, faith, one exercises an openness to explore a belief that in unsubstantiated. In holding that belief to build concrete support for that belief, considerations must be given to ascertain the motive of that belief, and in seeking the motive(s) one requires some revelation of fact or opinion to continue in the stream to an unknown destination.
Let us suppose ,then, that knowledge is revealed through the exercise of that faith which is sequestered and qualified in the assumption that faith will lead to knowledge and beyond.
Whatever that knowledge may be, it is supported by the confidence of the belief that the revealed knowledge will hol some universal application ( for the sake of argument at the least)
Now, knowledge is embraced, as consistent with the pursuit, and the belief becomes moot as being hurdled by knowledge.
Now then, we could surmise that belief is no longer viable as a destination, but knowledge has become the destination.
Therfore, we no longer believe. We know.
If we know something is substantial, then its not a belief.
If I believe an apple will fall from a tree, and I have reasonable cause to believe it will occur, then when it does fall, whether I observe it fall or not , I can know that it is true when I observe the apple on the ground. For argument sake let us suppose that we witnessed the apple falling to the ground.
I now possess sufficient knowledge to no longer believe it, but to accept that it does. But still, I must explain this phenomenon to others. Why I must is not important for the sake of this line of thought that I am depicting.
To describe this phenomenon I must entertain another's confidence to believe what is still an assumption in their mind.

Since my observation is beyond belief, it is not belief and therefore not real in the mind of one that is engaged to believe it, unless confidence in ones observations is known to be trustworthy.
In quick overview at this point in the development of the mutual exclusivity of belief and knowledge, one must accept that communicating belief requires knowledge that others lack.
In so supposing, beliefs are dissimilar and the desired concclusion is suspect as to being communicable at all.


If one believes, one does not know. If one knows, one does not believe, but rather know. To know is to make others believe without ignoring their belief. To believe, one must not know.


I see a conundrum that Sarte may be trying to overcome. And that the conundrum is in the inability of any to universally elucidate to the collective us, or I , or ego.

That being stipulated, he may be suggesting that individuality is required to leap from belief to knowledge and that destroys the argument against man being an individual.

He suggests that a subjectivve lock is placed on all knowledge and that assumptions must be acceptable to reach consensus.



The conclusion being, as expressed in my hypothetical model of an apple falling to the ground , that understanding knowledge to possess wisdom is somehow an impossibility.

Not knowing the man personally and unaware of his real intentions, I want to assume that he was focused and intent upon considering the viability of an expressed thought that had siezed his cognizance.

I would put forth that perhaps he had read or heard something that opened his being and sought an avenue of expressing what had entered into his being in a universal and simple way that all could grasp with ease.

Considering the time and location of his environment, it may have been something like this. As follows....


"Understanding knowledge is the beginning of wisdom."

This is an ancient saying with universal appeal. It is also found in dogmatic context within an assumptive mythological stream of conveyed thought from an ancient perspective, and that being a Judaic contemplation.

" The fear of the LORD(JHWH) is the beginning of wisdom : and the knowledge of the holy is understanding." Prov. 9 : 10.KJV

and again,

" there is no wisdom nor understanding nor cousel against the LORD(JHWH)." Prov. 21 : 30.

and again by further analogy another assumption that he may have encounterd.

"The fear of the LORD(JHWH) is the instruction of wisdom ; and before honour is humility." Prov. 15 : 33.


These seem to me to be quite alarming statements to be made without having established a criteria to apprehennd.

Hence, the elusiveness of comprehending anything without assumption.

Having no assumptive integrity, how can anything be known as fact or real.

I suppose it may never be adequately expressed, but always entertained, that knowledge is fleeting.

It is humorous and disturbing.

Thank you for your endurance and indulgence in my thoughts on Sarte.

My intent was, after all, to conclude nothing but affirm his observations as lucid.





Added at 9:11 am as an amusing afterthought.

I find myself still embracing Sarte's observations and yet distant from his example of " belief and knowledge" , yet still in the same ether. Not able to escape his embrace and not willing to disregard it, as he came to coin it much earlier in time. heheh But yet we both share the observation equally.
That astounds me and defines my affection for existential thought. Intriquing always, but I would like to share a moment of his time in the indulgence of some well aged scotch, preferably one of a single malt character. LOL

and if that was true then you also failed to realize that the post was aimed at those making the background noise

I once was a poor man, begging in the streets for scraps of food. But I found a winning lottery ticket and though no effort on my part, more than turning it in, I became a rich man.

Now, I compassionatly give my scraps to the poor, as I shake my head and think
"typical scenario for the lost", if they would only "get a clue".


The above is very good example that indicates how the Conscious mind rules the individual - and then feels faultless when the conscious effort comes out wrong. A good example of how a belief (the ego is bad) can manifest all manner of creative thinking in it's defense. Sadly for those who believe the Holy Spirit resides with them, they also believe that Spirit to 'override' the bad ego - THUS, their conscious efforts are ruled and directed by the Holy Spirit - AND CAN NOT BE IN ERROR!

This, making it impossible to ever be able to admit full responsibility for their actions, for they can not be wrong. Once a person has committed to such reasoning and declared such beliefs - IT IS THE EGO that blinds them to any further knowledge. What they seek to eject as 'bad' is the very thing that KEEPS them 'safe' from ever having to face the embarrassment of admitting error.

There ya go Funches - I've more thouroughly addressed your post.

like I said you "believe" you are this nuenjins character when you are online ..you lack the confidence to be yourself so you have to descend into the fantasy world of a cartoon character which probably explain why you take the "faith" approach pertaining to your religious beliefs ..you don't "know" who you are and don't like who you really are ..see how this is on topic

Wouldee, I am, unfortunately, on a tight schedule today. I promise to give your post the consideration it is due, when I have a bit more time to reflect on your words.

A brief skim of your text indicates a bit more effort was placed into communicating with the additional challenge of less intimidating vocabulary. For that reason alone, I will respect the effort, by making sure to come back to your post.

Well thank you, Redy

You never looked at my profile doofus The pic is explained there. Wow are so dense that it isn't even funny anymore. You know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING and are to lazy to even check facts. You are the one who is like a cartoon. You just throw insults with no intelligence and borrow info from other posts. You're a whiny little boy who can't find someone to love him so you lash out. People turn from you and laugh in real life too don't they. No identity crisis here, why would "I" go online to waste my time and be fake.

Funches- "Duuuuhhh, you cartoon pic fake and funny, you is deeealusional. Heeeehhh. Me squash rabbit."

It's Ok, don't reply to facts shown, you may reveal that you are lazy and simple, can't risk that. Everyone can see it already though. That's what makes your' character on here so funny.Funches... center stage...drooling and looking at the pretty light.

Wouldee is the one you should be listening too, he is more 'tempered' than I am. He is the best example and the most compassionate man on this community. comprehend him and there you will find Christ , the poetry AND the reality, trapped within this mans bones. Go look for yourself. I actually have no resolve left with you and I'm sure that's what you want to prove. That no one is reliable and yet another person gave up on you. It's not a person you're angry with though I don't believe. i'm leaving the jumper cables for good this time, someone else will be along shortly. -Ti

no need too ..that anime avatar explains your mentality perfectly..you place it there for a reason and whatever the reason is ... it equates you as a wannabe