Ego reactions on discussion boards

I don't think you need the spiritual wisdom of the ages to tell someone they're being a bit of a tard. You shouldn't, anyway. I guess if we were more enlightened we'd tell him we have love him and replace "you" with something like "the spiritually unrealised mind" while we proceded to just bitch at him, but the effect is basically the same.

 

hmmm...

I think you should read his posts again and maybe try some application.

You might be suprised.

 

Meh. Ego is as ego does. I can't stand people who'll start a whole thread dedicated to describing something they find disagreeable as if it were a symptom of deep spiritual unrest, rather than just call the person a jerk because they think they're a jerk. This guy thinks he has no ego. He hides it because he thinks it will impress us with how well-adjusted he is. But it just looks absurd and teenage.

They're no different from a dozen other users' identikit posts. I have "personal experience" of them they don't get much better with re-reading. It's something along the lines of "you suck but I didn't say that, if you don't agree with me you either a) don't understand what I'm saying, or b) don't want to agree with me enough because you're not as spiritual and cool as me". Am I warm?

 

I'm 100% positive that he does acknowledge the fact that he has an ego. To not have an ego would to not be human.

You're actually very cold. What you are perceiving as being talked down to is nothing more than humble advice, really. I haven't come across a member on these boards that have claimed enlightenment. There are some that are obviously more spiritualy developed than others, that much is clear. However, you will find that they are usually the ones that are the most non-confrontational, and hardly ever antagonize another, just for the sake of antagonizing.

 

True, but it's clever, because you can also apply it with extreme hyperbole to a perfectly healthy ego. What's the difference between desperately needing to win, and simply not wanting to "lose"? Vast, as vast as the difference between "throwing a stone at a cat and setting it on fire", but if someone wants to, they can simply blow an interpretation out of proportion, read meaning into slight turns of phrase... it's how a certain type of mind works, one that equally cannot stand to lose, but rather than throw the board across the room instead totally disregards the rules of the game until the other player doesn't see the point in trying.

 

You'd be surprised. A fair few will, as I said, scour Wikipedia and othersuch resources for any suitably clever term or piece of psych/sci jargon to then use as a label for anything they find disagreeable. The way he's using "ego" doesn't seem like anything I'd understand by it. He uses it negatively, but to describe perfectly healthy, normal responses. How would I not interpret that to mean that he at least thinks he shouldn't have an ego?

It just seems like an attempt to demonise normal behaviour, to turn an interest in having a debate beyond the level of detached, non sequitur aphorisms into a negative thing. It's ironic that he says it's so common on message forums, as they're the one place where you can get away with just trotting out said aphorisms.

If you say so. Most of his posts just strike as passive-aggressive attempts to string out some minor disagreement in one thread into a matter of deep philosophical and spiritual concern. Forum cliche I guess, maybe I should regard him as a more complete individual rather than just a genre of person... but why?

 

ahhh..

so what is the ego to you? When that word is tossed around this board, it is usually to refer to it in a spiritual sense, something that creates illusions and hides us from our true self. Forgive my rather vague definition, but it's something that can be hard to pinpoint. I'm sure others will expound if they feel it's neccessary.

By no means is blues somehow exclusive of having an ego. Like he said, discussing things on a forum, by the forum's very nature, almost surely requires the use of the ego. However, I think sometimes it is wise to read between the lines and try to pick up on what is really being said.

 

... and i'd also like to think ... 'What is trying to be said'.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoatzin
That's the most petulant self-satisfied self-aggrandising piece of butthurt I've ever read.

Look again, neo... was this just not perfect? What good is a theoretical post without an illustration?? Couldn't have asked for anything better.

 

He? He? Hmmmm.... blues lifts up skirt..... I tawt I taw a puddy tat... I DID I DID taw a puddy tat. :smilielol5:

 

No, I understand. It's how a lot of people use it. Personally I find its use in that fashion unhelpful, since its psychological definition doesn't really have much to do with that unless I've severely misread it.

That said, I'm not sure I agree with how he's portraying it even then. Maybe it's because I'm just a fool rushing in to a discourse that's obviously been going on a long time (if it's developed its own vocabulary it must've been), but there are a lot of givens being presented that I can't figure out the rationale behind. The thing about not wanting to change people's opinions, for example. I just couldn't figure out how you've got to a point where that's just mentioned in passing, like a universal invariant or something!

Again, maybe I'm a fool rushing in. But I'm getting the sense that a lot of the "more spiritual" are just acting the part, or else trying to skip over the more mundane parts of the process of self-examination, growth and so forth, so they can get to the end quicker. The illusions we create are a part of us. The ways we hide ourselves from ourselves... I can't help but think that these things tell us more about ourselves than the self itself... know what I mean?

I'm a blunt little tool. If someone chooses to bury what they're saying between the lines, only coyly alluding to it in a constant passive tone, they should get used to being misread. A miscommunication is as much the fault of the sender as the receiver.

I think that's one thing you DON'T get from message boards, actually. In real life, you're talking to someone, and they'll make little phatic noises of agreement or affirmation now and then, just to let you know that they're still following. Here, you can write pages without getting that little check to make sure you're actually being understood. That's why I prefer the more direct mode of speech. I don't like to assume that someone's prepared to piece together what I've said, what I really said, what I left unsaid, what I'm avoiding saying, etc.

 

I'd think that, if you bothered to comb every sentence for meaning stated, meaning implied, meaning meant, meaning implied by omission and so forth, you could come away believing pretty much whatever you wanted. Words are malleable. It's bad enough reading between the lines when someone is just speaking as one normally would. When someone's anticipating that you'll read between the lines, it does no good to stop at the meaning they want you to go searching for. So then you have to read between the lines between the lines. And so on. Far better to just say what I mean, I think.

 

Meh, I said what was on my mind. I wasn't obsessed with winning or losing, and I wasn't trying to convert you to my opinion. In a way, if you wanted to pick one of my posts as an example of what you were talking about, that was probably the worst one!

 

It's no big deal either way Hoatzin. It's all good. No harm done.

 

You say that like you aren't desperate for the last word.

 

If i'm reading this right ... then yes i think i understand what you're implying

 

And what purpose does this serve other than to perpetuate some sort of childish "win" or "lose" scenario.

By saying she is desperate for the last word, you reveal that you are too.

 

whoops

I thought you were male.

I apologize.

 

Well I think you're reading rather too much into that.

 

no problem, neo.