/Thought I see as the incarnation of language. Incarnated by what? In what way? /Not reason alone. You know? Yup, I dig it. /And language is wild, relatively speaking. Agreed. /Thought would be the the raw bits of imagery that reason manipulates in its function. To nitpick, I don't think reason manipulates anything if you follow me. Reason can be implemented by will but is a tool or an act, not a source of intent. At least that's my call, what do you think? /You said something like that- "the act of reasoning" but to me it sounds backwards. Yeah me too I think I corrected myself. /Reason sounds more like a monitor. The act of counseling or channeling, like a sieve or a bottleneck. I thought this pretty much summed it up: "Reason is real-time implementation of awareness in a manner that attempts consistency with comprehension derived from previous reasoning. A cumulative process." Here I'll try to clarify with modification: Reason is real-time implementation of awareness in a manner that attempts to integrate the object(s) of focus in one's current awareness into a pre-existing inter-relationship of concepts in one's mind in a manner that it is consistent with those relationships, thus adding / altering the structure itself continuously cumulatively. /Its as if thoughts skit around like little neutrinos or tachyons until there's some chlorine molecules there to stop and direct them. One's awareness doesn't dissipate just because one fails to exert the will of focus - hence skitting. I think awareness and thought both have momentum. Sometimes those momentums are aligned, sometimes they're out of whack. /Choice would be hestitation. Pause to contemplate a branch(ing)? /Instinct is autonomous monotony and with nothing to 'sweeten it' or awaken it, if you follow, instinct goes on click-clack-tacking in the illusion of will. How do you know it's an illusion? I hate to quothe the matrix but indeed the illusion is difficult to separate from the reality in the case of will. /Remember I wrote about the click-clack-tack of the instinct engine and the smooth hum of the intellect one? Of course. /Choice is a stop in the madness, some kind of intellect awake enough to breed skepticism. ITS KIND OF LIKE THIS. Choice is just a branch where a loop of uncertainty might loom. Depends on your "geometry" so to speak. /Ego is a slippery motherfucker. Give me a second. Hmmmm..... Take as many as you need. /Now we've got thought and we've got choice, right? Yeah okay. /What draws them together is the magnetism of 'self-awareness'. I disagree, I think choice is implicit to thought. It wouldn't be thought without choice. That's what separates it from the clickety clack in a sense don't you think? I see it as self-awareness begot thought begot choice, one cannot be without the others. They are an inherent trinity in this context. /The more and more these come together....the more and more that we become conscious to knowing that we know, its as if you feel all the parts of your humanity or being enter each other and you feel all your 'personality' concentrate itself to a point. You feel an individuality. An ego. Hmm.. from that perspective I think ego is fallout from consequence. Can you see that? Ego develops in kids in the first six months of life though it's quite simple at the time. Ego is the result of the realization that crying yields food. It is heightened when it is further realized that crying gets a change of diaper. As consequence is experience, ego is created from the choices you make and their result in the validity you feel in the accuracy of your mind's ability to cope as it encounters stimulous. Wow I just had the thought "oh my fucking god I'm 'riffing' definitions with an invisible typist". That was pathetic. Regardless what do you think of all that there? /Left hand, two fingers: choice /Right hand, two fingers: thought /Together, that illusory new angle on top: ego. /See? Please tell me you see. I definately see, but had to twist it the way that allows me to see it. I think I changed it in doing so. Do you think I made it better, worse or just missed it? /I don't know how else to explain 'ego' but in terms of a mental voice. You have one yes? So do I. Of course. /And its this voice that 'guides' me that has me feeling I have a soul(moo...whatever). Yes exactly. (note that just because we realize this doesn't mean that we don't *shrug*) /Its with this individuality that life and action seem free. Okay. /This voice is nothing without words to carry it in and I get to thinking.......what are words? Ephemara. Language is an abstract. Yes but the abstract is real in the sense that it does exist as an abstract. I don't think physicality is a necessity for "existence" on a fundamental level. Physicality does exist in terms of language in that the brain has somehow physically encoded it into a mind, but it is the content - the FEELING that is truly abstract yet I know to exist in that I type this to you now. Rambling. Pardon. /That's what lead me to thinking that 'ego' was an illusion by means of a mental voice. Why illusion? When you watch a film it's real that the film affects you no? /See? Except for the necessity of the illusion, certainly. /But religion doesn't call it 'ego'. It calls it either a spirit, a soul, an archangel, a cherub or a Seraph or a guardian angel. You don't need all this to illustrate clearly that idea of a soul has no merit. It's quite simple. No data. Make up whatever and it's no more specific than anything else. Theories and such. Bah, it takes a while but I don't think this strengthens or weakens religion's argument. It is shot before getting started. Argument from authority. /That's what I'm trying to weasel after. I'm aware but I think this is the wrong path for that one as I've mentioned. Simply too far and unrelated. I dunno, give me your thoughts and we'll continue if you'd like. /Only science calls it an ego. There is only one leap of faith that can be logically justified: Faith in reason (as logic is a subset). After all, it's reasonable to be reasonable. Hehe. /And this ties into my trying to explain the gods away via language or ego. Gods are easily explained away without all this trouble, but I sure enjoy the topic regardless. /Ditto. Along the lines of how I tried to explain it. Okay then. /Yes, and Freud can lick me. Don't you think his tongue would be a little dry (being dead and all)? /His idea of an ego was something like an angsty teen snot wacking off to a naked pic of his mother. Yes it's mostly that well, freud had it somewhat together but IMO attempted to create concrete associations that were only valid as generalizations or analogies. /We're talking stability here. What has you and me thinking we're individuals and thinking we're both real people despite being "disembodied typists hundreds of miles away nowhere". I think I nailed it pretty good but who knows, maybe you or someone else will take issue with it. /Yup. Werd. /Now you see where I'm at? Yes? No? Maybe so? I think so, do you see where I'm at now? It's funny with all this talk about ego I was just thinking (regarding the topic at hand) "you know, we're quite good at this (referring to gendy and i)" LOL. Ah, that's amusing.