Ego loss is not ego loss.

I believe the concept you describe is self-awareness and context.
This is on a much more fundamental level.

Your mind only knows "Chair" as separate from "Space" (and countless other things). "Chair" is linked to "Table" or "Room" or some other connection formed in your mind through your cumulative experience of Existence.

Association is the connectivity of thoughts.

This principle of association applies to everything you have ever learned, and frames your ego.

 

This is all abstract to me. I don't experience principles. Did you actually experience this stuff or read it from a book?

 

You don't experience principles?? I don't even really know what that means.. If it's literal, it is false.
The principle of association is a legitimate neurological function; it is the method by which we learn and perceive reality.

There is no experience I am describing here.

This is self-evident, fundamental process functioning and comprehension.

While the thought system as a whole is my own, the individual aspects are unoriginal and transcendental of time.

 

Being present in the moment your right. The mind cannot understand this, but you can through awareness. Awareness doesn't derive from the mind. You go beyond the mind. If you observe your thoughts, then you are not a part of your thoughts. The ego loses power because you don't 'see' yourself as your mind(thoughts), but the one observing the thoughts. Observe your emotions as well. There is a wealth of intelligence beyond the mind. Have you ever noticed when you felt at your best was when you were not thinking? When the mind is quiet? You don't think when you are present, you 'feel'. It's not another thought when it derives from awareness. Peace.

Moke

 

This is pretty much the same as I stated earlier, just worded differently

The concept is more basic and simple. It's as simple as you would not know light if there was not dark because of the association between the the two.
All of everything is defined to a great extent based on it's associations to other things that we have ascribed to them or that are intrinsically present.

 

I believe moke64196 and NoxiousGas both present logical arguments.

 

As do you :2thumbsup:

 

I said self awareness not ego-loss.

 

You're right haha, I must have misread. Nonetheless, I would again say that a lack of self-awareness would not be similar to either.
This is for the same reasons; neither state (coma or blackout) equate to an inability to recognize perception (as that is self-awareness).

 

I can't observe my thoughts. I can observe what they are about, but not the thoughts themselves. Thought is too quick.

Also, feeling is thought - as is awareness.

 

Perhaps you ought to calm your mind. My thoughts are not too quick.
In fact, I control my thoughts (content, speed, duration)(usually).
And usually, my mind is absent of conscious thought.
It took a long time to make this a natural thing; my thoughts used to be "normal".

 

If your mind is absent of conscious thought, then you won't be able to tell if they are quick, slow, controlled, uncontrolled, or natural.

Thought, by nature, is lightning fast. To "observe" it, is impossible. If we could do so, the ego would be smashed to pieces because the illusion of the linking together of thought to form a 'self' or 'soul' would be gone..

 

I most definitely am able to discern qualitative characteristics about my own mind and thoughts.

When you look at a chair, do you think, "Oh, that is a chair; NOW I understand."??
No. You see the chair, and immediately understand the fact.
If the chair is brown, you know that it is brown.
If the chair is moving, you know that.


Where do you get your information??

Associations are not an illusion that creates who you are as a person.
Associations are only the means of quickly (nearly instantaneously) perceiving Existence without effort.
It's like a computer's cache in this capacity; imagine if you had to perceive everything as an individuality..


How would the recognition of associations dissolve an ego??

The recognition of this fact is simply that, the recognition of a fact.
To me, it is no different than understanding that water is H2O or that I am an organism.
Actually, it's nearly exactly like understanding that thoughts are electrical impulses traversing dendrites.
It has no great impact on me.

However, the utilization of this recognition allows for control.

 

How? You are using thought to do that. When you see the chair, you refer back to your knowledge to recognise it as a chair. To know you are doing that is just another form of thought, as is to know that you know that you are doing it, and so on. And thought is not capable of discerning anything except in reference to your own knowledge.

 

Feelings or emotions derive from the body. Your emotions are your bodies response to what your mind is thinking. If you feel fear or anxiety then take it as your body is telling you that what your mind is thinking is false. The problem with the body giving emotion to thought, is that when your body gives emotion to thought, it manifests into more of the same thoughts. The very thoughts the body doesn't want the mind to think. Your emotions fuel your thought manifestations.

 

walsh, I honestly don't understand why you continue pushing the idea of thought's presence at me.
This isn't being disputed. Obviously thoughts about thoughts are thoughts.

This does not impede the ability to analyze thought.

The fact that thought is thought has nothing to do with the fact that thought can be studied.

Furthermore, thought does not need to discern anything when it is original thought.
The creation of thought can be spontaneous, irrelevant, and anything honestly.

moke64916 also makes a good point that emotions can influence thoughts; however, emotions are not thoughts. Emotions are chemicals inducing sensation, which can fuel and generate thought; the two are distinct.

 

The problem is you keep bring up the ability to "observe" thought, which I said is not possible. Analyze, yes - but not observe. Observe entails doing something at the same time, whereas analysis is of something in the past. To observe thought would be like saying I can hear myself hearing something.

 

I have never once even used the term observe, in the first place; but that is irrelevant.

I am fully capable of simultaneously generating thought and recognizing it.
In fact, it may be that this is intrinsic, as both processes are in the mind.
When I think something, of course I know that I have thought it.
Further, I can be thinking something, and realize it, and change or divert or control my thought.
Spontaneous thought are sometimes generated, but I am in most control of my thoughts.

Incidentally, through self-awareness it is possible to recognize subconscious thoughts or activity.
I attest to this myself.

 

Actually I'm coming around to the view that there's probably no such thing as ego loss at all. Even if there was such a thing as self-awareness, you'd have to be aware that you were self-aware to recognise that.

This guy says it a lot better than I can

 

Are you serious? That's an absolutely ridiculous statement.

Try asking a previously fully functional adult currently in a coma to pass you a glass of water.