necessiti of ego-destruktion

<div>By way of footnote–</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>bodhicitta: bodhi citta</div>
<div>bodhi&nbsp;: fr. root *budh - "to know"&nbsp;: "knowledge"</div>
<div>citta&nbsp;: "consciousness"</div>
<div>…thus the compound: "knowledge-consciousness" i.e., the
consciousness of knowledge …by extension, a person who has
that<BR></div>
<DIV name="wmMessageComp">bodhisattva: bodhi sattva</DIV>
<DIV name="wmMessageComp">bodhi : "knowledge"</DIV>
<DIV name="wmMessageComp">sattva : root *as - "to be" … 3rd sg.
sat:&nbsp;[he/she/it] "is" + abstract noun suffix (-tva: "-ness"): lit.
"is-ness" i.e., "reality"</DIV>
<DIV name="wmMessageComp">… thus the
compound:&nbsp;"knowledge-reality" i.e., the reality or
presence&nbsp;of knowledge …by extension, a person who is
characterized by/as that </DIV>
<DIV name="wmMessageComp">&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV name="wmMessageComp">—</DIV>
<DIV name="wmMessageComp">Where is that quote from,
Kandinskij?<BR><BR>-Vijay</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT:
blue 2px solid" name="wmMessageComp">——– Original Message
——–<BR>Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: necessiti of ego-destruktion<BR>From:
"-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" &lt;[email protected]&gt;<BR>Date: Wed,
April 05, 2006 5:49 pm<BR>To: [email protected]<BR><BR>"Obviously,
before the Bodhisattva is born, the Bodhicitta must be<BR>formed within
ourselves. &nbsp;Furthermore, it is important to clarify
the<BR>necessity of disintegrating the ego, the "I" in order for
the<BR>Bodhicitta to emerge. &nbsp;The Bodhicitta is formed with the
merits of love<BR>and supreme sacrifice for our fellowmen. &nbsp;The
Bodhisattva is formed<BR>within the environment and psychological
atmosphere of the Bodhicitta."<BR><BR>To create a network with the risk
of egos imploding has been proven<BR>again and again and again as
unsound and yet the humans keep on trying.<BR><BR>Why is the
destruction of the ego such an unpalatable task?<BR><BR><BR>- The
Pistis Sophia Unveiled<BR>– <BR>`~. ka-shin.Rei D42
Kandinskij<BR>&nbsp;D42 Des?Gn Studio<BR><BR><BR>+<BR>-&gt; post:
[email protected]<BR>-&gt; questions: [email protected]<BR>-&gt;
subscribe/unsubscribe:
http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz<BR>-&gt; give:
http://rhizome.org/support<BR>+<BR>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject
to the terms set out in the<BR>Membership Agreement available online at
http://rhizome.org/info/29.php </BLOCKQUOTE>

>"Obviously, before the Bodhisattva is born, the Bodhicitta must be
>formed within ourselves. Furthermore, it is important to clarify the
>necessity of disintegrating the ego, the "I" in order for the
>Bodhicitta to emerge. The Bodhicitta is formed with the merits of >love
>and supreme sacrifice for our fellowmen. The Bodhisattva is formed
>within the environment and psychological atmosphere of the >Bodhicitta."



Why are these gnostic preachings obvious?
Why should I go to Iraq and disintegrate my "I"?
Why are my fellowmen assumed to be indifferent to my plight?



>To create a network with the risk of egos imploding has been proven
>again and again and again as unsound and yet the humans keep on >trying.

The ego saves us from the willy nilly destruction of the collective hateful storms that gnostic preaching advocates.

>Why is the destruction of the ego such an unpalatable task?

see above
>Because we choose to exist for ourselves.



hopefully

Go far away.

- The Pistis Sophia Unveiled
–
`~. ka-shin.Rei D42 Kandinskij
D42 Des?Gn Studio


The self admired.

But I really want to build a network where the ego implodes, don't I? I think of what I'd like to do with art, and that's one of the aims- to encourage and assist in the destruction of illusion, delusion, and ego. I haven't done very well, but the
theme is present as an interest, maybe the sole interest, and I doubt that with art I've even yet to begin producing anything.

So, really? Is this a completely misguided practice? My doubts as of late are whether or not the net can produce that kind of result in any other way besides slapping hands when they point at you. I feel like the entire structure is designed for ego
annhilation or to facilitate the ego annhilating, you know? Either this thing is gonna get us somewhere or its going to kill us in a bath of crazy externally reinforced subjectivity.

If boiling our ego/illusion/delusion/false consciousness in a tub of acid must be a completely self-contained process, then I could never assist anyone! I recieved outside help, though I had to choose it. I don't feel like I could give it, not yet.
If true, what next?

-er.


"-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]> on Wednesday, April 05, 2006 at 7:49 PM -0500 wrote:
>"Obviously, before the Bodhisattva is born, the Bodhicitta must be
>formed within ourselves. Furthermore, it is important to clarify the
>necessity of disintegrating the ego, the "I" in order for the
>Bodhicitta to emerge. The Bodhicitta is formed with the merits of love
>and supreme sacrifice for our fellowmen. The Bodhisattva is formed
>within the environment and psychological atmosphere of the Bodhicitta."
>
>To create a network with the risk of egos imploding has been proven
>again and again and again as unsound and yet the humans keep on trying.
>
>Why is the destruction of the ego such an unpalatable task?
>
>
>- The Pistis Sophia Unveiled
>–
>`~. ka-shin.Rei D42 Kandinskij
> D42 Des?Gn Studio
>
>
>+
>-> post: [email protected]
>-> questions: [email protected]
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>+
>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

But Eryk, isn't your ideal network just an extension of your own ego?

We all expected the network to profoundly change our actions, and it has.
It's not as dark and forbodding as you describe. It is the anarchic, and anarchy was never a collective experience. I still see the collective as an extension of the super-ego, and that super-ego is easily usurped, by Stalin, by Hitler, and by current regimes.

Eric

In other words Eryk, I would rather put up with the noise of millions of egos than live with the silence of a destructive super-ego.

Eric

Eric Dymond <[email protected]> on Saturday, April 08, 2006 at 11:12 PM -0500 wrote:
>But Eryk, isn't your ideal network just an extension of your own ego?

You can work with an awareness of your ego and ignore the ego. It takes practice, but not even that much practice before you're aware it's an actual possibility. I am not at the point where I can completely disregard ego, but I can be aware of my
ego to a greater extent than I have been, just by looking for it. I still have to admit I am primarily an ego-destructing hobbyist with bouts of authentic effort and opportunities.
>
>
>We all expected the network to profoundly change our actions, and it has.
>It's not as dark and forbodding as you describe. It is the anarchic, and anarchy was never a collective experience. I still see the collective as an extension of the super-ego, and that super-ego is easily usurped, by Stalin, by Hitler, and by
>current regimes.

Precisely; but some of that anarchy is seeking order. So we're living in an amplified echo-chamber of noise and self-gratification, and the web allows us to seek out reinforcements of our reality rather than the option to extend and expand it. It's
not the technology per se, its the use of the technology that worries me.
>
>
>Eric
>+
>-> post: [email protected]
>-> questions: [email protected]
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>+
>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

>Precisely; but some of that anarchy is seeking order. So we're living >in an amplified echo-chamber of noise and self-gratification, and the >web allows us to seek out reinforcements of our reality rather than >the option to extend and expand it. It's
>not the technology per se, its the use of the technology that worries >me.

Well you are dead on track with the issue of use. I hope that egos take control of the media and use it for their own determined reification. We wait and watch and worry, but there is much to hope for. The current regimes force a self aware censure on our acts. I see the ego as the only way to break through this paranoid cul de sac.
Same goal, different methods.
take care,
Eric

Well I should be more precise in breaking down the ego as an instrument of will and the ego as an instrument of delusion. Certainly the ego of the will is vital and no practice I know of advocates the destruction of that element of ego. The ego
driven mythologies and drive to reality-excluding self-satisfaction is my concern. The notion that the echo chamber is really a bunch of people getting together to form a mutually agreed upon, socially constructed reality. That has nothing to do
with ego and has everything to do with looking for outside reinforcements of mythology and delusion. And they'll do it, have done it- read any political blog with any readership to speak of, and watch what's happening. It's not pretty!

-er.


Eric Dymond <[email protected]> on Sunday, April 09, 2006 at 12:38 AM -0500 wrote:
>>Precisely; but some of that anarchy is seeking order. So we're living >in an amplified echo-chamber of noise and self-gratification, and the >web allows us to seek out reinforcements of our reality rather than >the option to extend and expand it.
>It's
>>not the technology per se, its the use of the technology that worries >me.
>
>Well you are dead on track with the issue of use. I hope that egos take control of the media and use it for their own determined reification. We wait and watch and worry, but there is much to hope for. The current regimes force a self aware censure
>on our acts. I see the ego as the only way to break through this paranoid cul de sac.
>Same goal, different methods.
>take care,
>Eric
>+
>-> post: [email protected]
>-> questions: [email protected]
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>+
>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

> I see the ego as the only way to break through this paranoid cul de sac. -Eric D.

But what if the ego is as much a product of the paranoid cul de sac as a
resistance to it?

If there is a difference, how do we find it? / what are the criteria for
what is out vs. in me ?

(…earnest, not rhetorical questions…)

Vijay

On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 [email protected] wrote:


> But what if the ego is as much a product of the paranoid cul de sac as a
> resistance to it?
>
> If there is a difference, how do we find it? / what are the criteria for
> what is out vs. in me ?
>
> (…earnest, not rhetorical questions…)
>
> Vijay
>

V. excellent question: what if the ego is a fly sitting on the tip of your
nose that makes you chase your tail around all life long w/o
accomplizshing anything, annoying your neighbours, and killing your wife?
Wouldn't "you" <Uncle Sam Finger Point> want to get rid of it and the
porn-star indusdtry of "quasdi_personal attention"–you are all stars now?
Or would you prefer to make pleasant, housewife, Oprah-style pornography
to feed the papie-mache "rekkid" and "media" Industrie?

<insert klown musik> you can all be staaarz.. unity is impooosible..
be more fragmented and disunited than eeever, make your own poorn!
weverybody is a rock staaaar</>

or would "you" prefer to rock-sockit all with an excellently handmade
cole haan handbag?!

<not free>
http://www.colehaan.com/colehaan/catalog/product.jsp?productId2296&categoryId03126&productGroup2298
</not free>


Gone knitting!

_________________________________________
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42