Quote:
I did come here to ask a question, but that last reply makes me want to ask more:
Quote:
When a woman orgasms, her body releases a massive amount of oxytocin, which is the chemical that makes her feel all cuddly and attached to you.
Are you suggesting that a relationship is only good if they are physically attached through chemicals?
No. I'm saying it feels a lot more natural for both parties involved than a relationship lacking that aspect. A relationship being "good" is entirely subjective.
Quote:
In my experience, those relationships are the most dysfunctional because its harder to break up when it needs to happen. What are you describing? i.e. Lust vs Limerance vs Love? Sounds like limerance to me.
In this case you are defining a relationship as dysfunctional if it's harder to break up when it needs to happen. What if that means it was actually a great relationship? I sure as hell don't know. Do you? And, yes. It sounds like limerance to me, too. So?
Quote:
Quote:
Getting into a relationship BEFORE you have sex is like a woman taking a piss while standing. It's possible, but it's messy and quite retarded. It doesn't feel right because it doesn't feel natural.
How do you know its natural? Seems to me if a woman bonds so strongly with her first love, evolution meant that first lover would be her mate for life. But I have read no literature on the subject.
I don't see why you would jump to that conclusion. Any chemical release is temporary.
Quote:
Quote:
Also, AFCs often try to jump into relationships as soon as possible, regardless of whether or not they have sex with the woman, because they have a scarcity mentality.
Is this world black and white, or is there some gray area? I have a scarcity mentality, there simply are not that many girls I would enjoy dating from what I've experienced. Does that make me an AFC?
You know very well that those two are very different "scarcity mentalities." The AFC scarcity mentality is all like "It's really hard for me to get laid in general." Yours is "It's really hard for me to find maximum compatibility, regardless of sex."
I'm talking about sex. You're talking about dating.
Quote:
My original question was how do you define ego? I've noticed it is far from an objective definition, after talking with various people.
From wikipedia:
Ego (spirituality)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For the ego in psychology, especially Freud and Jung's concept of ego, see Ego, super-ego, and id. For other uses, see Ego (disambiguation).
In spirituality, and especially nondual, mystical and eastern meditative traditions, the human being is often conceived as being in the illusion of individual existence, and separated from other aspects of creation. This "sense of doership" or sense of individual existence is that part which believes it is the human being, and believes it must fight for itself in the world, is ultimately unaware and unconscious of its own true nature. The ego is often associated with mind and the sense of time, which compulsively thinks in order to be assured of its future existence, rather than simply knowing its own self and the present.[1][2]
The spiritual goal of many traditions involves the dissolving of the ego,[citation needed] allowing self-knowledge of one's own true nature to become experienced and enacted in the world. This is variously known as Enlightenment, Nirvana, Presence, and the "Here and Now".
Eckhart Tolle comments that, to the extent that the ego is present in an individual, that individual is somewhat insane psychologically, in reference to the ego's nature as compulsively hyper-active and compulsively (and pathologically) self-centered. However, since this is the norm, it goes unrecognised as the source of much that could be classified as insane behavior in everyday life.[citation needed] In South Asian traditions, the state of being trapped in the illusory belief that one is the ego is known as maya or samsara.
[edit] Descriptions of the ego
The German/ Canadian spiritual teacher, motivational speaker, and writer Eckhart Tolle writes about the ego in his book A New Earth.
"The extent of the ego's inability to recognize itself and see what it is doing is staggering and unbelievable. [...] To become free of the ego is not really a big job but a very small one. All you need to do is be aware of your thoughts and emotions - as they happen. This is not really a 'doing' but an alert 'seeing'. In that sense, it is true that there is nothing you can do to become free of the ego. When that shift happens, which is the shift from thinking to awareness, an intelligence far greater than the ego's cleverness begins to operate in your life. Emotions and even thoughts become depersonalized through awareness. Their impersonal nature is recognized. There is no longer a self in them. They are just human emotions, human thoughts. Your entire personal history, which is ultimately no more than a story, a bundle of thoughts and emotions, becomes of secondary importance and no longer occupies the forefront of your consciousness. It no longer forms the basis for your sense of identity. You are the light of Presence, the awareness that is prior to and deeper than any thoughts and emotions." [3]
The Armenian mystic G.I. Gurdjieff, as well as the self-described neo Gnostic writer and teacher of occultism Samael Aun Weor, posits that the ego is inherently constituted by many "I's":
"One of man's important mistakes," he [Gurdjieff] said, "one which must be remembered, is his illusion in regard to his I. "Man such as we know him, the 'man machine,' the man who cannot 'do,' and with whom and through whom everything 'happens,' cannot have a permanent and single I. His I changes as quickly as his thoughts, feelings, and moods, and he makes a profound mistake in considering himself always one and the same person; in reality he is always a different person, not the one he was a moment ago.[4]
"I am going to read a newspaper," says the "I" of intellect. "To heck with reading," exclaims the "I" of movement, "I prefer to ride my bicycle." "Forget it," shouts a third ego in disagreement, "I'd rather eat; I'm hungry."[5]
Weor used the terms "Being" (equivalent in meaning to SPAM in Hinduism[6]) and "ego." drawing the distinction that the two states possible are that of Being, which is "transparent, crystal-clear, impersonal, real, and true," and that of the "I," which is "a collective of psychic Aggregates that personify Defects, whose only reason to exist is ignorance."[7] He characterized this distinction:
"Superior and inferior 'I's' are a division of one organism itself. The superior 'I' and the inferior 'I' are both the 'I'; they are the whole ego. The Intimate, the Real Being, is not the 'I.' The Intimate transcends any type of 'I.' He is beyond any type of 'I.' The Intimate is the Being. The Being is the reality. He is what is not temporal; He is the Divine. The 'I' had a beginning and inevitably will have an end, since everything that has a beginning will have an end. The Being, the Intimate, did not have a beginning, and so He will not have an end. He is what He is. He is what has always been and what always will be." [8]
CHAT
