(copy paste of a theory i made like last month)
Let’s define the id as pure objectivety and the superego as pure universiality. We must be objective while realizing objective reality has it’s roots in the universal reality. That is the balance needed. The only way for expressed objectivity to be recieved correctly(thus being productive, thus being truely objective) is for it yo be within the paramiters of reality of the person recieving it. Only then can you proceed to make their reality your objectivity. And they will learn to get their objective (id) outlet from that.
Look at a person who gets turned on being humiliated/dominated. Probably in their childhood they felt powerless. But they learned to get their power (id) outlet from the very thing that made them feel powerless. Subconsciously it’s using the very thing meant to put them down to get them off
Look at Islamics who live in a superego driven society. They turn that into their id outlet and turn the whole thing crueltly repressive. A savage in the name of Allaah is a saint
The only people that can truely say they are followers of the universal superego are true buhhdists. They get their outlet from reality. And that’s something real, which is why they at least get to a false awakening. But the thing is the only reincarnation an “enlightened” buhhdist would get is being utterly recycled into the universe. All will completely lost.
When it comes completely id driven people, they wind up in jail/losers/defined by their parents. They mistake their objectivity for a universal thing thus making people repulsed by them and they don’t end up getting what they want. To put it in your terms they are focused with being because they assume they universally are
The true goal is objective reality. Someone with an objective reality type of view knows the world isn’t at their beck and call so they must figure out how to get what they want within the peramiters they are in. To put it in your terms, they are focused with becoming
the point is that there is that, even in a society against hedonism and pro rules, they turn the preservation of rules into their hedonistic outlet
and the psychological pattern of this
Who was it? Oscar Wilde who said that - "What we need today is a new kind of hedonism. (paraphrasing).
Hedonism is a school which argues that pleasure is the only intrinsic good.[1] This is often used as a justification for evaluating actions in terms of how much pleasure and how little pain (i.e. suffering) they produce. In very simple terms, a hedonist strives to maximize this net pleasure (pleasure minus pain).
There is nothing wrong with pleasure, especially when that pleasure leads to productivity (or is productivity) - as you say, you consider yourself to be a productive hedonist. Pleasure derived from learning, for instance; from reading wonderful books that we love, from simply sitting outside in nature and meditating; going to college/university to ‘become’ who one feels they are meant to become. I don’t think that hedonism is good or bad…it is only the end result that defines and judges the word for us. And pleasure does not necessarily imply a lack of some kind of pain or discomfort. Someone going to college and having to study hard may be struggling and having to deny himself things, but at the same time, he is aware of the pleasure within that even because he realizes that at some point he will achieve something - he is productive.
What Wilde was speaking about with his line in The Picture of Dorian Gray was a frame of mind where only pleasure for the sheer sake of pleasure was sought after. Your kind of hedonism may lead to growth and maturity. It is just a natural offshoot of desiring to become or being.
What he was speaking about could actually lead to more pain, not less, both from the side of the hedonist and the one who might have been painfully touched by that kind of hedonism. Probably much more in line with finding ways to deny our mortality than your way of being hedonistic, which simply affirms life so has no fear of death. There is usually no kind of productivity sought in the earlier form of hedonism, as Wilde implied. At least I don’t feel there is.
Delight is a word that can imply ‘following one’s bliss’. Joseph Campbell was a staunch proponent of ‘following one’s bliss’ and basically what he meant was the same, I think, as what you mean by your form of hedonism. The one form seeks a balance, and the other is without balance.
For example, give me a one-two minute lecture of how a buddhist would practice hedonism.
So are you saying here that the practice of buddhism or of detachment, letting go, lends itself to a truly honed productive hedonism? I can actually see this. The more one is able to detach, which includes from all of the silly things which we tell ourselves are important and even from those things which we see and continue to see as important, the clearer our minds become (as in vacuuming or sweeping up a floor) and the more focused and mindful we can be on those things which we are trying to achieve. Even our very breath becomes more productive. If I am not mistaken, isn’t breathing or the way in which we breath, I mean, very important to a buddhist’s way of thinking?
In this way, one’s self truly becomes or flows into one’s Self…or ought it to be the other way around. I am not a buddhist. What do I know. Are you a buddhist?
Define ‘turned on’ here.
This reminds me of Nietzsche saying “What doesn’t kill us makes us stronger”. At some point, they ‘take back’ their power or come to the realization that they always had it. Those who make children feel powerless are themselves quite powerless and lack the awareness to even know this. At some point, a person learns that he/she is indeed powerful, can be powerful - as in having inner strength.
There seems to be something ‘to be desired’ in the way in which you describe it above. Maybe what you seem to be describing here is not the person who realizes his power, but the one who ‘gets off’ because/when he senses somehow that he has no power. The power you seem to be describing above which I bolded would be more of an illusion of power. You might use the expression ‘negative energy’ - that just came to me and it seems to suit your description better. Wouldn’t you say that one’s illusions can be called ‘negative energy’ - or even wasted energy?
by we I meant society, as a whole
and, no, hedonism is NOTHING like Buddhism. everyone being a productive hedonist means you have to watch your back because everyone would be seeking to improve their station…so preach buddhism
buddhists have no will. theirs is that of the universe around them. a productive hedonist is pure will and changes the universe around him to conform to his will
see how the two go so well together?
thats not really what i’m saying. basically your taking power as the nominator and denominator while i am saying power is the nominator with the denominator of [id]. people that like being dominated have made being dominated their ‘power’. unlike most people they have a nominator of being dominated with a denominator of [id]. they learned to get their id outlet (‘get off’) on the very thing that was meant to put them down
just like muslims have rules that should effectively eliminate the [id] in their life. but they learned to get their id outlet from protecting those very rules. they become savages (the thing the rules try to prevent) in the name of those rules
lastly i dont think power is an ‘illusion’ per se. but it is usually only as real as you let it be
Hold yor horses there, not all Muslims fit that bill. You are pretty much trying to call all Christians Amish with talk like that. Muslims have different beliefs just as Christians do. there are different sects of the Islaamic life.
We might be going into a different realm here; sort of like a sado-masochistic role. A man may be quite powerful in his life, or at least, ‘appear’ to be so but he may be a masochist who enjoys being humiliated/dominated so he might get his power through being dominated, just as a drug addict might feel he gets his from using drugs, though it’s all an illusion. And this can be because he felt powerless as a child.
When you think of it, it is all based on a lack of self-awareness. The person is not even conscious of it because it is all he knows. It is a habit that has become so engrained within him. It takes conscious awareness to realize that we have a problem and how our instincts are capable of driving us to this end and that.
I don’t know…what you seem to be saying here is that power plays the dominant role and the id, a function of the mind capable of ruling our instincts is governed by that thirst for power, even if a sense of powerlessness and abuse as a child is the subconscious drive that fuels it. I may be wrong in understanding what I think you’re saying though. Even so, how is that any different than anything else in our lives that subconsciously govern and motivate us.
I don’t think that we can ‘effectively eliminate’ the id in our lives…anyone who is not aware of it, and doesn’t constrain it when necessary, will succumb to it. It doesn’t matter what religion a person is or who the people are. It’s an individual thing. Our beliefs can prey on us and our instincts are capable of making ALL of us act as animals if we do not use our minds and wills to restrain them. The best of us can become a savage given a particular set of circumstances if we don’t understand this.
When we use power for the right reasons, yes, it is powerful. I wasn’t saying that power is an illusion…only that what some feel is powerful is really weakness in disguise and a denial of that. As in your case with the person whose sexual energy is misdirected and becomes the power source because of a lack of power actually. As in the rapist who feels a need to rape because he has no power, no control within himself and he gets it through delusion.
I would think that a practicing Buddhist would have very little ego, not the super ego. Someone practicing Buddhism learns to detach, which includes detaching from the ego, at least the false ego. Maybe a better word for your ‘super ego’ would be the ‘universal mind’ in regard to Buddhists. A perfect moment for a Buddhist maybe would be complete transcendence of everything…no ego that would drive one to destruction. And that perfect moment could give inexhaustible energy.
You can say in a way that we are all being recycled…none of us remain the same from moment to moment. A lot of time, energy, space and material is saved through recycling too. And for an enlightened Buddhist, reincarnation may be the way to go to eventually get it ‘right’.
when it comes to buddhism and superego, it isnt “my superego”, it’s freuds lol. not the same as ego as we know it. but, yeah, i call it a universal perspective. my point in that was that ego is a source of will. all perspective has ego. buddhist notice that most have a shitty ego and seek to rid themselves of it. but we all have ego…so they turn there ego into a non-ego. it’s a contradiction just like the term universal perspective (how could a single perspective be that of everyone’s? why should one seek to make it that way?)
you misunderstood me when i said recylced. a buddhist makes his ego that of the universe(losing his will. making his will that of the world around him). so he will become the universe when he dies. a productive hedonist has the ego of pure will. pure life…maybe an enlightened productive hedonist would become a god
you seem to be stuck in the common view of morality (buddhism is good in that one knows how detatach. it isnt good in that it detaches what would lead to it’s success and attaches human life. even when it isnt productive to his success…i think that you should detatch from this morality that has been imprinted on you) all power is power. not only when it used for good. on the contrary, it’s hardly ever power when it’s used for “good”
and i dont think we should seek to get rid of the id…only to focus it. my point was that technically a masochist and an islam give up their id…but that they learn to get their id outlet out of the very thing that is anti-id. id, by nature, seeks power…but that can be unlearned. i’m saying that id only usually has the nominator of power but can be seperated from power and given a new nominator. in the case of a masochist it would be loss of power (what if you made someone’s id to serve your every whim? that can be imprinted )
Isn’t that contradictory, unless I don’t get your context here. If you’re comparing Buddhism with Freud’s superego, they don’t match up. Aside from that, strictly speaking…
The terms “id,” “ego,” and “super-ego” are not Freud’s own. They are latinisations by his translator James Strachey. Freud himself wrote of “das Es,” “das Ich,” and “das Über-Ich”—respectively, “the It,” “the I,” and the “Over-I” (or “Upper-I”);* From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Many see ‘ego’ as bad or negative but if we don’t have one, we’re just a mess of matter. “We’re born, we live, we die”…isn’t that sort of a universal perspective?
Agreed, ego is a source of will – it defines and determines us. Is one’s perspective a matter of will or a matter of sensation/perception because of the influences of things? Are you speaking of subjective thinking here?
What do you mean by ‘shitty’ ego? Too egotisical, too detached? You know, another way that I see this…isn’t turning one’s ego into a non-ego, sort of egotistical? Isn’t that sort of seeking after something (not that I think anything at all is wrong with that) but buddhists, aren’t they supposed to detach from seeking ANYTHING? Would a buddhist think in terms of becoming…or simply being in each moment? I might be wrong here.
Are you speaking about becoming totally so interconnected with the world that the Buddhist would disappear and merge with it? Is that what Buddhism is? If he is making his will that of the world around him, then what determines how he acts, if he has no will to speak of? And how would he even define the world around him? That almost reminds me of how one would sublimate his will and ego to the will of god. But maybe I am just not understanding you here.
Forgive me here, but that sounds extremely egotistical to me.
So you’re using the term ‘hedonist’ here to simply mean one who follows their own ego as will in order to have a productive life…I can see the word “pure’ here…it’s focused and mindful on achieving its own ends, but in a productive way. Maybe one who is becoming an enlightened productive hedonist wants to be a god. There goes the buddhist down the drain.
This I don’t quite get. You seem to be saying here that one’s ‘expressed objectivity (that I see as still subjective) will define another’s reality. Okay, you’re equating ‘expressed objectivity’ with a sense of productivity, I think? I think you need to explain this more thoroughly to me. I really do want to get it but my mind isn’t grasping it.
What does ‘detaching’ have to do with morality? Well, insofar as it can lead to good (not meant in terms of morality) through reasonable, rational and logical action, one might say that it can lead to moral actions or lead away from immoral action, though I don’t think so much in terms of morality. To detach from one’s anger and see things in a proper perspective, as having so much less meaning than what is given to it, one may prevent themselves from committing murder. This might seem superfluous to you but I wonder how many murders might not have been committed if one had simply detached.
I don’t think of detachment in terms of giving up so much of the ego that one has no drive and incentive to be productive and to accomplish things. This is part of the normal healthy ego. At the same time, one does not have to ‘attach’ so much to the outcome. Actually, less attachment to it can create more focus, mindfulness and energy towards that end.
hahahaha. This I don’t understand. You’ll have to expound on it. Seems to be a bit of nazi flavoring to me. Sorry. What do You mean by power here?
Basically, what you are saying maybe is that we need to harness our instincts. They are natural and we can’t really rid ourselves of them – their part of our animal nature which is a good thing under the right circumstances – and we can be made aware of them.
Well, I would say that if a person understands not only themself, their emotions and human nature, that might not be done. Does a puppeteer actually have that much power, or is it simply an illusion? Would the puppeteer have power if the puppet had more power? The puppeteer feeds off of the puppet’s weakness, just as vampire bats feed off of each other, but they do it for altruistic reasons. Seem to have gotten off a bit here. haha
Practicing to rid ourselves of old habits and patterns would slowly but surely weaken that imprint, maybe fade it into nothingness. But that would take a lot of hard work and self-love.
i’m saying rules and the general inhibition of self (i. id) is the super ego. i am saying buddhism is the ultimate inhibition of self. of will. i still think it’s the best option out there though
i see most versions of the ego to be negative. and i see other true (possitive) egos outside of mine to be negative to me
i agree that ego can be interchangable with perspective. that’s why i say objective perspective vs universal perspective. everything else is subjective
i think you’re right that buddhist seek to be in each moment…but i also agree that seeking that is still seeking. they adopt a universal ego when they only want to be universal. i dont really care about that though. by shitty i meant unproductive. a lot of times a little bit of egotisticalness can be productive
well it was speaking under the grounds that reincarnation was real. and it was speaking about reincarnation. i’m saying he wont even be a “he” anymore. he would become literally nothing
if god (from the bible) were real i would consider him a god (not the god). much like an over controlling person he wants you to make your will his giving him more willpower. i wish i could learn to make people sublimate themselves to my will
you’re forgetting i’m not a buddhist and i love egotisticalness (i’m pretty cocky irl). but i dont consider it egotistical at all. if you become the universe (as opposed to the universe becomming you) you become nothing
that almost made me drool
tell buddhism not to clog my pipes on the way down
objectivity will always be productive (to the object. in this case me)
you touched on it earlier. expressed objectivity would sublimate the expressee to the expressor’s will
on the flip side i’d say detatchment could also lead to many more murders. but i’m not one to detatch, i was just noticing the hypocricy of buddhism. true detatchment leads to nihhilism (i’ve said that the nihhilist is the modern buddhist). i say detatch what you can not change and detatch what is unproductive. when it comes on how much to attatch, attacht whatever is most productive to the (productive) thing you want
i dont really know. i’d say will. you just said something to the extent of '…is power when it is used for good"
maybe i’m a bit of a nazi :-"
exactly. then the puppeteer’s goal is to make sure they dont understand themselves beyond the box that is the strings.
personally i think a good puppeteer would seek to make his puppet strong, powerfull, and happy so that the puppet would be able to better preform for itself and the master…but then that crosses into friendship lol
Alright, you said above that we are to define the id as purely objective and the superego as pure universality. I’m sort of caught up in the other definitions as in…
The Super-ego aims for perfection. It comprises that organised part of the personality structure, mainly but not entirely unconscious, that includes the individual’s ego ideals, spiritual goals, and the psychic agency (commonly called “conscience”) that criticises and prohibits his or her drives, fantasies, feelings, and actions.
Wikipedia
So we are to completely eliminate these definitions although I suppose in part that a buddhist does strive for perfection, I don’t think they are taught to ‘…criticise and prohibits his or her drives, fantasies, feelings, and actions.’ Wouldn’t that be putting ‘too much’ emphasis on self, rather than accepting these drives and learning to detach from them, especially if a buddhist is to become part of the universal mind.
What you mean by ‘version’ here is the way in which we view the term ‘ego’? You need to give me an example of what you mean by the second half of this…I don’t want to take what you are saying out of context.
I think that an ego, or let’s say a person who is self-aware, and acts on that, would necessarily see things as ‘real’ and would have an objective or a universal perspective. Wouldn’t an ‘objective perspective ‘be’ a universal perspective? Does that make sense to you – am I grasping what you’re saying here?
I think that statement I made above is wrong. A person can be/live/enjoy each moment…in other words, practice mindfulness and focus, as opposed to being scattered, and at the same time think or contemplate in terms of wanting/seeking to become, or to become more enlightened. The one doesn’t negate the other. Seeking to obtain ‘something’ or to attain to something, is not a negative thing. To think ‘otherwise’ would be egotistical or neurotic, no? I don’t think that Buddhism implies leaving humanity behind; perhaps merging with it, becoming interconnected with all things, which humanity is a part of. Are you losing me?
Yes, I agree it can. If you’re using the term to mean the same thing as the positive connotation of ‘selfish’ (I feel) which is to mean to focus on one’s own life in order to be productive, which is not negative, but both logical and realistic. From another’s point of view who would not understand that, it can be seen as being left behind.
Well, we can’t know if reincarnation is real or not. There was a time that I sort of intuited that it had to be the only explanation for an unjust world, and especially since so much in nature is recycled or returns… but then I am not a Buddhist. Anyway, I don’t get what you’re saying here – ‘he wont even be a “he” anymore. he would become literally nothing’. I don’t think that reincarnation would defy evolution, do you?
Well, since I don’t actually know if there is a god, in some ways the biblical O.T. god does remind me of some of the ‘gods’. I don’t think that our giving of our own wills to another, gives that other more willpower, just more control over us and gives us less. If you do wish that….then you are already on the way to being a much, much, much, much lesser god. Nazi!!!
Aside from that, why not just learn to give up some of your own will…that might make you more of a god. hahahaha
Cocky is good and fun. True universal Ego doesn’t lack personality and neither would I say that Buddhists do, unless he/she does 'individualistically.
A bit of competition here, huh? Does the ocean and the giant wave argue over who is more important? Does it actually make a difference? I think your statement is based on ego here…I thought a Buddhist ‘became one with the universe’. Unless you think of the universe as total nothing; when you become the universe, or the universe becomes you, you become or are a part of EVERYTHING. Unless you are transcendent, and you become nothingness itself…which to me is everything.
I’m glad to oblige. Up to this point, I thought you aspired to be a Buddhist. I don’t think the two are exclusive though… a Buddhist and an enlightened productive hedonist…are they? Not the way you’re using the word ‘hedonist’.
This would only be true if the ‘expressee’ had no will or life of his own, no? Maybe I’m not getting you here. The expressee (is that even a word ) may understand and see the beauty and reason behind the expressor’s desire for its productive objective but that is not sublimation of one’s own will. I see it as a form of autonomy and perhaps even love. Love is will too. You really do like to control, don’t you? hahahaha
Perhaps a better word for what you’re saying here would be ‘apathy’. They are not the same thing. Real detachment does take will…apathy is simply laziness and unawareness.
I agree with you here, up to a point. Part of true detachment is in reflecting upon what is ‘actually’ meaningful or ‘needed’ in a more objective way…and letting go of that which isn’t meaningful…and this does or can lead one to become more nihilistic. It isn’t that one sees everything as ‘nothingness’ but just that they begin to see and judge more discriminately what is important. I would say it is more dependent on the degree of nihilism. Does that make any sense to you?
Exactly…a truly nihilistic, hedonistic, Buddhist[ic] statement. omg, maybe you are a buddhist in spirit.
Ah, such fear of letting go. Perhaps, at the same time, the puppeteer’s goal ought to be to better understand ‘himself’, and why he chooses to be such a puppeteer, lest at some stage the puppet cuts the strings and gains perfect autonomy and happily skips away. =D>
hahahahaha…you left out the word ‘independent’ too. How you describe it would not be a friendship…perhaps a relationship of sorts but not a friendship. There are no masters within a friendship. Does that puppet go back into the box from whence it came? With you, probably. There can only be a friendship when the boundaries between puppeteer and puppet are dissolved, all strings are cut, the puppet is made real and both become mutually interdependent on each other.
And friendship usually does NOT mean that what comes out of the one’s mouth is the same as what comes out of the other’s mouth.
that’s my point. the universal mind inhibits, goes against, is the complete opposite of- the objective mind (self)
endless amount of subjective egos (with varying degrees of productivity). only 1 objective ego (the epitome of productivity).
by the second half i meant that other objective egos are a danger to you. they are your enemies and they know it
the point is the universal perspective is that of all perspectives. what is the most good for the most people. and the point is we come from a single perspective. all we should be concerned about is what is the most good for us. that is an objective perspective. when 1 person tries to adopt a universal perspective it goes against his single perspective
they dont leave humanity behind but they leave themselves behind
what can be seen as being left behind?
no it wouldnt defy evoltuion…that’s the point lol
implying buddhism is far from the ‘fittest’ outlook on life
it’s not only giving someone your will. it’s making your will an extention of their own. that most definitely gives them more willpower. you have more people seeking your goal. and if your goal is to give yourself money and power…well
the whole point of this is that giving up your will, while it does feel nice, is the easy way out. it is giving your will to the ultimate ‘god’ (the universe) and that is something very real that you can feel
the universe is the background noise. we move upon it’s foundation. becoming one with the universe would equate becoming the floor. do you want to be the floor?
making the universe become one with you (and there is a big difference) is like turning the floor into a giant robot that you have control over
they are the most similar and the most different. both seek a ‘oneness’ but in completely different ways
i think you completely get that part
what if you are a prince and your older brother (the crown prince) whom you love is a cruel person. you know that if he becomes king the kingdom will be full of death and slavery
it takes detatchment of that love to kill him
better yet what if you just want to be king yourself and but you love your brother, the crown prince. again it takes attachment of what is important (your will) and detatchment of what isnt (the love you have for your brother)
nihilists is someone who sees everything as nothingness. a buddhist sees everything besides peace and life as nothingness. a productive hedonist sees everything that isnt productive to you as bad (in varying degrees) and everything that is producitive to you as good (in varying degrees)
basically they seek will
no…buddhist would have you think you cant change anything (eg what makes you suffer) and to detatch from it as opposed to change it
there are masters in everything inculding friendships. chromosomes between mother and father come perfectly together because (and not inspite of the fact that there are) dominant genes
friends dont speak the same things. but they share the same goals (what is best for eachother). thats the point
But I’m thinking here that the objective mind is actually a subjective one and that it is not in harmony.
I don’t see this. Unless you’re talking about competition here. When we are being objective, are we not more focused on our goal and less on another’s? And don’t we share in the same goal at times? I bet the word TEAM has an “I” in it for you. Only kidding.
Okay. I think I get what you are saying here. What you ‘seem’ to be saying here is what many people would call ‘selfishness’ or perhaps even narcissism. It is both a good thing and necessary to focus on our own lives; but, to what degree? This can lead to the exclusion of all others, or humanity, and become pathological, no? I would use the word ‘altruistic’ in terms of your ‘universal perspective’ and that would better lead to the survival of mankind. Your ‘objective’ thinking reminds me of ‘every man for himself”. What would happen to you if that was every man’s thinking?
Ah, but humanity ‘includes’ themselves. One does not give up one’s individuality here. We are not speaking of the herd instinct but being part of something larger than our very selves, which actually makes us more aware of our real selves.
The person who appears to be left behind…the false ego, in other words.
Unless I totally misunderstand you, you are saying that Buddhists look on themselves as nothing? I don’t think the concept of nothingness implies that we become ‘nothing’.
"…in the development of Nishida’s logic of Nothingness, “being” is thought of in terms of the objectivity of determinate things, “relative nothingness” is understood as a mere privation or simple negation of being, and an enveloping sense of “Nothingness” is provisionally associated with a kind of transcendental subjectivity of consciousness or the heart-mind. Ultimately, however, Nishida comes to posit Absolute Nothingness as the “place” (basho) that embraces both subjective (noetic) and objective (noematic) dimensions of reality. Thus, he relegates not only privation of being but also subjective nothingness, in the sense of the “field of consciousness,” to a type of “relative nothingness.”[10]
Reality, as the dialectical “self-determination of Absolute Nothingness,” is in Nishida’s later works understood as a dynamic “identity of the absolute contradiction” between subjective (relative) nothingness and objective being. Absolute Nothingness is the temporal and spatial “place” wherein individual persons and things determine one another in their mutual interactions
.” …What, then, is the ultimate place wherein the encounter between subjects and objects takes place, wherein persons and things coexist? According to Nishida, this must be the place wherein persons and things not only undergo changes in accidental categorical qualities, but wherein they essentially and existentially “come to be and pass away.” It is the place, not just of intellectual judgments, but of birth and death. This ultimate “groundless ground,” which “envelopes” all beings, yet which does so in such a way that lets them contain their own principle of self-determination, Nishida calls “the place of true Nothingness. Although in no sense a determinate being, neither is this place of true or absolute Nothingness a mere static vacuity. In some sense, it must be thought of as both the epistemic source of consciousness and the ontological origin of beings.
All ontologies of universal being fail to allow for the existence of the true individual, or for the genuine encounter between individuals. Since “there is no universal [of being] whatsoever that subsumes the I and the thou” (NKZ VI, 381), the locus of genuine interpersonal encounter must be thought of in terms of the place of Absolute Nothingness.
Well, yes, if one gives their will over to another, that is more power to the other. If that is part of a common goal, the power is shared then and mutually beneficial to both, yes?
If someone wants to serve another or a cause because of something or someone they believe in, how is that to be considered as taking the easy way out though both participate and gain something. There is still great energy to be expended, much struggle, and the focus constantly has to be on that ultimate goal. But yes, at the same time, that can give one an extreme sense of being and place in the universe. Or have I missed your point here?
I don’t think of it that way…there is no distinction to me. I look at it as dancing to music. You ‘hear’ the music (universe) and you start to dance. After a while, all boundaries slip into nothingness. You are the music and the dance at the same time.
“As above, so below”…no distinction. Incidentally, where would we be without that floor? Can we always soar?
Yeah, and perhaps ‘getting that part’ is beneficial to you?
And will might find another way. I wouldn’t kill him…I would just have my most trustworthy and noble friends take him on a ship to a far away place from whence he could never return.
Same scenario holds…
I see varying degrees of being nihilistic in order to route out ego and non reality…and then there is the pathological nihilist who sees nothingness as a way to eradicate himself, based on ego. A Buddhist, I think, sees ‘nothingness’ as a path of non-ego in order to constantly flow/constantly become in relationship to/with others and the universe
I think perhaps that the ‘productive hedonist’ might just be at least a bit anal in nature. If he sees everything that isn’t productive as bad, he needs to acquire some balance in his life and go and have some fun.
I don’t think Buddhism is fatalism or defeatism. I may not know much about it but I don’t get that from it. I think a Buddhist realizes that suffering is a natural part of existence (awareness) but they would only ‘embrace’ their suffering (if it couldn’t be changed) toward becoming…not out of a masochistic attitude.
[/quote]
If there is an attitude of a ‘master’ in friendship, then it isn’t a friendship.We aren’t speaking about genes here, we’re speaking of individuals. Friendships ‘are’ equal in spirit and they usually consider themselves as equals, though of course one may be more intelligent, prettier, stronger…but yet they are equals. Perhaps that’s what you mean by master.
True, friends do share the same goals, though I think it’s important that they also have other interests and goals that are not the same. And a ‘true’ friend always hopes for the best for his/her friend…I mean, realistically speaking…what is the best.
)
There goes the buddhist down the drain.
](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
I’m glad to oblige. 
Up to this point, I thought you aspired to be a Buddhist. I don’t think the two are exclusive though… a Buddhist and an enlightened productive hedonist…are they? Not the way you’re using the word ‘hedonist’.
There can only be a friendship when the boundaries between puppeteer and puppet are dissolved, all strings are cut, the puppet is made real and both become mutually interdependent on each other.
Friendships ‘are’ equal in spirit and they usually consider themselves as equals, though of course one may be more intelligent, prettier, stronger…but yet they are equals. Perhaps that’s what you mean by master.