Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is our society strengthening?

Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 11:14:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Do you think it is?

How is it?

Leading question?
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 12:16:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/12/2012 12:01:31 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
wut

Is our society strengthening?

Do you think it is?

How is it?

Leading question?
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 12:23:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/12/2012 12:22:54 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:16:58 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:01:31 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
wut

Is our society strengthening?

Do you think it is?

How is it?

Leading question?

What's the metric, bro?

If the metric is something like "number of cute puppies", then I imagine we're probably flying high.
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 12:26:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/12/2012 11:14:30 AM, Oryus wrote:
Do you think it is?

Ego - Definitely
Self - Not at all
Muscles - Depends if your town has a gym

How is it?

Strengthens the ego (the antithesis of the true self) by providing a big system of rewards that mock cause and effect, Thereby weakening the true self because nature doesn't allow double standards.

Leading question?

Huh?
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 12:30:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/12/2012 12:26:44 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 5/12/2012 11:14:30 AM, Oryus wrote:
Do you think it is?

Ego - Definitely
Self - Not at all
Muscles - Depends if your town has a gym

How is it?

Strengthens the ego (the antithesis of the true self) by providing a big system of rewards that mock cause and effect, Thereby weakening the true self because nature doesn't allow double standards.

Leading question?

Huh?

What's a "true self", dawg?
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 12:34:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/12/2012 12:22:54 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:16:58 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:01:31 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
wut

Is our society strengthening?

Do you think it is?

How is it?

Leading question?

What's the metric, bro?

What a fvcking excellent question. My point exactly.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 12:35:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/12/2012 12:26:44 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 5/12/2012 11:14:30 AM, Oryus wrote:
Do you think it is?

Ego - Definitely
Self - Not at all
Muscles - Depends if your town has a gym

How is it?

Strengthens the ego (the antithesis of the true self) by providing a big system of rewards that mock cause and effect, Thereby weakening the true self because nature doesn't allow double standards.

Leading question?

Huh?

Sorry, you may have to read Ober's "Is our society degrading?" thread to understand what I'm getting at :)
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 12:35:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/12/2012 12:34:13 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:22:54 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:16:58 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:01:31 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
wut

Is our society strengthening?

Do you think it is?

How is it?

Leading question?

What's the metric, bro?

What a fvcking excellent question. My point exactly.

I suggested number of puppies. We could even average it over a population to get puppies per capita (PPC).
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 12:35:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/12/2012 12:30:56 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:26:44 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 5/12/2012 11:14:30 AM, Oryus wrote:
Do you think it is?

Ego - Definitely
Self - Not at all
Muscles - Depends if your town has a gym

How is it?

Strengthens the ego (the antithesis of the true self) by providing a big system of rewards that mock cause and effect, Thereby weakening the true self because nature doesn't allow double standards.

Leading question?

Huh?

What's a "true self", dawg?

True self is the nature of the human that resides outside of the knowledge base. Animals are fully in tune with their 'selves' and have no ego.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 12:36:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/12/2012 12:35:42 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:34:13 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:22:54 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:16:58 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:01:31 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
wut

Is our society strengthening?

Do you think it is?

How is it?

Leading question?

What's the metric, bro?

What a fvcking excellent question. My point exactly.

I suggested number of puppies. We could even average it over a population to get puppies per capita (PPC).

Oh, by all means. The metric can be whatever you want it to be.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 12:37:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/12/2012 12:36:34 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:35:42 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:34:13 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:22:54 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:16:58 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:01:31 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
wut

Is our society strengthening?

Do you think it is?

How is it?

Leading question?

What's the metric, bro?

What a fvcking excellent question. My point exactly.

I suggested number of puppies. We could even average it over a population to get puppies per capita (PPC).

Oh, by all means. The metric can be whatever you want it to be.

I might actually do this calculation.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 12:38:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/12/2012 12:37:21 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:36:34 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:35:42 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:34:13 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:22:54 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:16:58 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:01:31 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
wut

Is our society strengthening?

Do you think it is?

How is it?

Leading question?

What's the metric, bro?

What a fvcking excellent question. My point exactly.

I suggested number of puppies. We could even average it over a population to get puppies per capita (PPC).

Oh, by all means. The metric can be whatever you want it to be.

I might actually do this calculation.

PLEASE SHARE YOUR RESULTS FOR THE SAKE OF SOCIETY!

XD hahah!
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 12:38:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
what the hell is going on here? haha
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 12:40:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/12/2012 12:35:58 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:30:56 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:26:44 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 5/12/2012 11:14:30 AM, Oryus wrote:
Do you think it is?

Ego - Definitely
Self - Not at all
Muscles - Depends if your town has a gym

How is it?

Strengthens the ego (the antithesis of the true self) by providing a big system of rewards that mock cause and effect, Thereby weakening the true self because nature doesn't allow double standards.

Leading question?

Huh?

What's a "true self", dawg?

True self is the nature of the human that resides outside of the knowledge base. Animals are fully in tune with their 'selves' and have no ego.

What is the true self like? It seems like you're just redefining "true self" as "transcendent human nature", which isn't really helpful. It's like defining God as "an entity that we can't know and which exists outside spacetime." It seems like a thin attempt to pretend like essentialism is true while still grounding it in the negativity of an unthinkable, transcendent presupposition. I ain't having any of that, homeslice.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 12:43:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/12/2012 12:38:14 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:37:21 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:36:34 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:35:42 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:34:13 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:22:54 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:16:58 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:01:31 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
wut

Is our society strengthening?

Do you think it is?

How is it?

Leading question?

What's the metric, bro?

What a fvcking excellent question. My point exactly.

I suggested number of puppies. We could even average it over a population to get puppies per capita (PPC).

Oh, by all means. The metric can be whatever you want it to be.

I might actually do this calculation.

PLEASE SHARE YOUR RESULTS FOR THE SAKE OF SOCIETY!

XD hahah!

I'll get to work immediately.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 12:46:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/12/2012 12:38:33 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
what the hell is going on here? haha

haha If I must speak plainly-

Ober made this thread: http://www.debate.org...

As kermit said, this is a parody of that thread.

As Cody pointed out, I've given you no measuring stick with which to measure the "strength" of society. Because of this, it is a subjective question. And, in my opinion, it is also a leading question. I didn't ask you whether society was strengthening or degrading, I just asked you if and how it is strengthening.

Really, you could probably make multiple lists for each society listing their strengths and weaknesses based on many different measuring sticks (i.e. goals, priorities, etc.). So, if we were really to assess the strengths and weaknesses, it would be good to have goals and priorities in mind first. As I'm sure you are well aware, many of us have very different priorities and goals :)
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 12:48:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/12/2012 12:40:09 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:35:58 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:30:56 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:26:44 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 5/12/2012 11:14:30 AM, Oryus wrote:
Do you think it is?

Ego - Definitely
Self - Not at all
Muscles - Depends if your town has a gym

How is it?

Strengthens the ego (the antithesis of the true self) by providing a big system of rewards that mock cause and effect, Thereby weakening the true self because nature doesn't allow double standards.

Leading question?

Huh?

What's a "true self", dawg?

True self is the nature of the human that resides outside of the knowledge base. Animals are fully in tune with their 'selves' and have no ego.

What is the true self like? It seems like you're just redefining "true self" as "transcendent human nature", which isn't really helpful. It's like defining God as "an entity that we can't know and which exists outside spacetime." It seems like a thin attempt to pretend like essentialism is true while still grounding it in the negativity of an unthinkable, transcendent presupposition. I ain't having any of that, homeslice.

What is true self like? It is just the essence of experience. The peak of any emotional state, the moment void of thought and filled only with experience. Times when you cannot help yourself but to jump for joy or burst out in tears. True self is just human experience void of thought interference, as opposed to the ego-mind. The opposition between self and ego encompass our human experience totally, I don't know what you mean when saying this distinction 'isn't helpful.' True self just serves to define the opposite of the ego, and how you want to define it is for you to decide. We all have egos and knowledge sets that are built upon an animalistic framework, strip it down and you are left with true self. It's just a term to describe innate essence.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 12:50:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/12/2012 12:46:37 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:38:33 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
what the hell is going on here? haha

haha If I must speak plainly-

Ober made this thread: http://www.debate.org...

As kermit said, this is a parody of that thread.

As Cody pointed out, I've given you no measuring stick with which to measure the "strength" of society. Because of this, it is a subjective question. And, in my opinion, it is also a leading question. I didn't ask you whether society was strengthening or degrading, I just asked you if and how it is strengthening.

Really, you could probably make multiple lists for each society listing their strengths and weaknesses based on many different measuring sticks (i.e. goals, priorities, etc.). So, if we were really to assess the strengths and weaknesses, it would be good to have goals and priorities in mind first. As I'm sure you are well aware, many of us have very different priorities and goals :)

yeah, just didn't realize it was a parody. i'll still be chippin' away though
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 12:51:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/12/2012 12:50:15 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:46:37 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:38:33 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
what the hell is going on here? haha

haha If I must speak plainly-

Ober made this thread: http://www.debate.org...

As kermit said, this is a parody of that thread.

As Cody pointed out, I've given you no measuring stick with which to measure the "strength" of society. Because of this, it is a subjective question. And, in my opinion, it is also a leading question. I didn't ask you whether society was strengthening or degrading, I just asked you if and how it is strengthening.

Really, you could probably make multiple lists for each society listing their strengths and weaknesses based on many different measuring sticks (i.e. goals, priorities, etc.). So, if we were really to assess the strengths and weaknesses, it would be good to have goals and priorities in mind first. As I'm sure you are well aware, many of us have very different priorities and goals :)

yeah, just didn't realize it was a parody. i'll still be chippin' away though

Go for it. I wanted people to put their two cents in too.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 1:17:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/12/2012 12:48:49 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:40:09 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:35:58 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
True self is the nature of the human that resides outside of the knowledge base. Animals are fully in tune with their 'selves' and have no ego.

What is the true self like? It seems like you're just redefining "true self" as "transcendent human nature", which isn't really helpful. It's like defining God as "an entity that we can't know and which exists outside spacetime." It seems like a thin attempt to pretend like essentialism is true while still grounding it in the negativity of an unthinkable, transcendent presupposition. I ain't having any of that, homeslice.

What is true self like? It is just the essence of experience. The peak of any emotional state, the moment void of thought and filled only with experience. Times when you cannot help yourself but to jump for joy or burst out in tears. True self is just human experience void of thought interference, as opposed to the ego-mind. The opposition between self and ego encompass our human experience totally, I don't know what you mean when saying this distinction 'isn't helpful.' True self just serves to define the opposite of the ego, and how you want to define it is for you to decide. We all have egos and knowledge sets that are built upon an animalistic framework, strip it down and you are left with true self. It's just a term to describe innate essence.

I have some objections:

1. I think you're a bit misguided to use the term "self" here--you can define a "true self" as whatever you would like, but you have to be aware that use as such does not line up with what ordinarily is meant when people employ the term. I think it is difficult to avoid entangling the two notions of self in common discourse, which presents a problem if someone begins to confuse your "true self" with the ordinary character of the self as some kind of abstract central controller by means of which we direct our thoughts and actions. This is not a substantive objection per se, but it is an important interpretive concern.

2. I suspect you're merely repeating the error of subjecting the subject of experience--which you term the "true self"--from the objective knowledge one claims to therefrom derive--which you term the "ego-mind". I enjoy the notion of immersing oneself in "pure experience"--and, in fact, I would go so far as to say that this realm of experience as something to be had, rather than merely undergone as a midpoint for analysis, is the proper dwelling place of the subject; however, I cannot agree with your characterization of experience as such as some kind of "true self" which maintains the quality of some essential inner character inherent to being. Moreover, the fact that you define it specifically in relation to the "ego" (which is a relation of immediate opposition) shows that you are not extricating yourself from the fracture, but are merely choosing to favor one side over the other, as those who expropriate experience for the sake of scientific analysis are doing.

3. Hence, I don't think there is such a thing as "innate essence" which resides inside us; rather, I argue, it is a precondition for the legitimate having of experience to flee from the idea that we have some kind of "essence" or "innate element" which defines and identifies us as beings consigned to a particular identity or mode of being. This entails escape not only from the concepts contained in the ideas, but the labels, too, which are used to signify those ideas (meaning, the escape from notions of "self" or "essence" or "transcendence").
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 1:20:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Damn. I saw you had posted in this thread, Cody. And I thought you were posting regarding the success of our society: puppies per capita :(
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 1:40:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/12/2012 1:20:58 PM, Oryus wrote:
Damn. I saw you had posted in this thread, Cody. And I thought you were posting regarding the success of our society: puppies per capita :(

Lol. The population research is hard to get--what I can say, however, is that it isn't looking good; while there are a surplus of puppies generally, as evidenced by things like shelters for stray or abandoned animals, the rate of population growth of puppies vis-a-vis humans is questionable. Between 2003 and 2010, number of dogs-in-households grew by about 7%, from approximately 61.5 million to 65.95 million. The population of the US, however, grew, between 2000 and 2010, from approximately 281,420,000 to 308,750,000, a gain of around 10%. Controlling for things like multi-person households, multi-pet owners, and the fraction of puppies as a percent of total dog population, my estimate is that our society is probably declining in terms of puppies per capita. Even though there are more people, more puppies, and more owners, the rate of human population growth, vis-a-vis increases in dog population and pet ownership, PPC does not appear to be doing too well. Still, though, amateur statistical methods seem to suggest something good.

If you estimate and compare PPC for 2003 and 2010, you use:

1.03 x 281,421,906 --> 289,864,563 (2003).

I use 1.03 as an average of 10% growth over 10 years. I'm more inclined to think the growth is exponential, but this will do for such a short duration.

2003 PPC: 61,520,000/289,864,563 = .2122371
2010 PPC: 65,947,000/308,745,538 = .2135966

There is a tiny growth over the 7-year period, which increases if you consider the 10-ish million more dogs (bringing us to about 77 million, I think) which do not belong to a home. Still, if you control specifically for puppies, and you factor in individual variance to account for concentration of puppies, the picture becomes much hazier. If PPC is rising, on average, it doesn't seem too significant.
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 1:47:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/12/2012 1:17:57 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:48:49 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:40:09 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:35:58 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
True self is the nature of the human that resides outside of the knowledge base. Animals are fully in tune with their 'selves' and have no ego.

What is the true self like? It seems like you're just redefining "true self" as "transcendent human nature", which isn't really helpful. It's like defining God as "an entity that we can't know and which exists outside spacetime." It seems like a thin attempt to pretend like essentialism is true while still grounding it in the negativity of an unthinkable, transcendent presupposition. I ain't having any of that, homeslice.

What is true self like? It is just the essence of experience. The peak of any emotional state, the moment void of thought and filled only with experience. Times when you cannot help yourself but to jump for joy or burst out in tears. True self is just human experience void of thought interference, as opposed to the ego-mind. The opposition between self and ego encompass our human experience totally, I don't know what you mean when saying this distinction 'isn't helpful.' True self just serves to define the opposite of the ego, and how you want to define it is for you to decide. We all have egos and knowledge sets that are built upon an animalistic framework, strip it down and you are left with true self. It's just a term to describe innate essence.

I have some objections:

1. I think you're a bit misguided to use the term "self" here--you can define a "true self" as whatever you would like, but you have to be aware that use as such does not line up with what ordinarily is meant when people employ the term. I think it is difficult to avoid entangling the two notions of self in common discourse, which presents a problem if someone begins to confuse your "true self" with the ordinary character of the self as some kind of abstract central controller by means of which we direct our thoughts and actions. This is not a substantive objection per se, but it is an important interpretive concern.

Well, you asked me to define my terms. Doing so would clear up any semantic confusion.

2. I suspect you're merely repeating the error of subjecting the subject of experience--which you term the "true self"--from the objective knowledge one claims to therefrom derive--which you term the "ego-mind". I enjoy the notion of immersing oneself in "pure experience"--and, in fact, I would go so far as to say that this realm of experience as something to be had, rather than merely undergone as a midpoint for analysis, is the proper dwelling place of the subject; however, I cannot agree with your characterization of experience as such as some kind of "true self" which maintains the quality of some essential inner character inherent to being. Moreover, the fact that you define it specifically in relation to the "ego" (which is a relation of immediate opposition) shows that you are not extricating yourself from the fracture, but are merely choosing to favor one side over the other, as those who expropriate experience for the sake of scientific analysis are doing.

I am characterizing the 'essence' of experience, and pointing out the intended usage of the word self:

self |self|
noun ( pl. selves |selvz|)
a person's essential being that distinguishes them from others, esp. considered as the object of introspection or reflexive action

ego |ˈēgō|
noun ( pl. egos)
a person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance : a boost to my ego.
• Psychoanalysis the part of the mind that mediates between the conscious and the unconscious and is responsible for reality testing and a sense of personal identity.

Self is the essence of our being, while ego is cognition. Common usage of the term self may often pertain to 'the body of matter that we control' - but this usage would in fact be a misusage.

3. Hence, I don't think there is such a thing as "innate essence" which resides inside us; rather, I argue, it is a precondition for the legitimate having of experience to flee from the idea that we have some kind of "essence" or "innate element" which defines and identifies us as beings consigned to a particular identity or mode of being. This entails escape not only from the concepts contained in the ideas, but the labels, too, which are used to signify those ideas (meaning, the escape from notions of "self" or "essence" or "transcendence").

The idea that a 'precondition' differs from 'innate essence' is strange. The human precondition, or the intrinsic nature of humanity is rightfully labelled 'essence.'
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 1:47:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/12/2012 1:40:21 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/12/2012 1:20:58 PM, Oryus wrote:
Damn. I saw you had posted in this thread, Cody. And I thought you were posting regarding the success of our society: puppies per capita :(

Lol. The population research is hard to get--what I can say, however, is that it isn't looking good; while there are a surplus of puppies generally, as evidenced by things like shelters for stray or abandoned animals, the rate of population growth of puppies vis-a-vis humans is questionable. Between 2003 and 2010, number of dogs-in-households grew by about 7%, from approximately 61.5 million to 65.95 million. The population of the US, however, grew, between 2000 and 2010, from approximately 281,420,000 to 308,750,000, a gain of around 10%. Controlling for things like multi-person households, multi-pet owners, and the fraction of puppies as a percent of total dog population, my estimate is that our society is probably declining in terms of puppies per capita. Even though there are more people, more puppies, and more owners, the rate of human population growth, vis-a-vis increases in dog population and pet ownership, PPC does not appear to be doing too well. Still, though, amateur statistical methods seem to suggest something good.

If you estimate and compare PPC for 2003 and 2010, you use:

1.03 x 281,421,906 --> 289,864,563 (2003).

I use 1.03 as an average of 10% growth over 10 years. I'm more inclined to think the growth is exponential, but this will do for such a short duration.

2003 PPC: 61,520,000/289,864,563 = .2122371
2010 PPC: 65,947,000/308,745,538 = .2135966

There is a tiny growth over the 7-year period, which increases if you consider the 10-ish million more dogs (bringing us to about 77 million, I think) which do not belong to a home. Still, if you control specifically for puppies, and you factor in individual variance to account for concentration of puppies, the picture becomes much hazier. If PPC is rising, on average, it doesn't seem too significant.

Goodness. This is very unfortunate to hear as I would like folks to emphasize the strengths of our society in this thread. If we don't have a desirable PPC, we don't have much, honestly.

However, on the flipside, society will benefit from your astute analysis in the long run so things are still looking up. We need not lose hope because we know what our goal is. We just need to make plans to improve the situation. I believe WKUK has our solution.

Your name will go down in history, Cody.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.