For a long time, I subscribed to the Buddhist notion that one’s ego should be annihilated: 0. In the spring, I tried Nietzsche’s idea that ego should be maximized: infinite. Now, I’ve realized that ego is not harmful if it resides in the proper place: 1.
-
Show this thread
-
1 is a number that is meaningless on its own, as all numbers exist solely through their relation to each other and the ways they can be manipulated. So what is the ego, 1, in relation to?
5 replies 0 retweets 13 likesShow this thread -
If A is an ontological frame that holds your world together, in my case Christianity, and b is your own personality, then: [A b] = the product of your life, with some noise (inaccuracy/sin) thrown in
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likesShow this thread -
Imagine A is an infinite dimensional matrix Imagine b is a vector with an infinite number of values For the sake of discussion, assume that the experience of your life is the fusion of these quantities and that they end up multiplying
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likesShow this thread -
For 3.5 years, I repeatedly discarded b while continually computing new approximations of A.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
Ego, b, develops naturally on its own. The real ego trip I’ve been on for the past 3.5 years: I continued to periodically kill b after it had developed for a while and replace it with the byproduct of a new conception of A.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
The person never matched the ideal, so a continual unhappiness and grasping towards perfection continued.
1 reply 2 retweets 9 likesShow this thread -
I feel so relieved now that I can accept having a personality. It feels better, more natural. Buddhism exalts nothingness to eliminate suffering. Christianity exalts wabi sabi to maximize the Passion of humanity over the longest span of time possible.
4 replies 0 retweets 17 likesShow this thread -
Buddhism implies an ontology shaped like: [A] Christianity implies an ontology shaped like: [A b]
4 replies 0 retweets 13 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @yungdeleuze
Riley [3.11] Retweeted Sadie Oblak
Dont miss the point! ([A b] = product of Life w/noise) is an equation, implying equality. If expressing this as an equation works- Manipulating the components would be in your favor
Who you WERE is not who you ARE, who you ARE is not who you WILL BE.https://twitter.com/sadie_oblak/status/1042201050776776705?s=19 …Riley [3.11] added,
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Yes, this is true. However, it is important to hold onto a strong, consistent framing of reality. It leads to more stability of outcome and provides a rock for weathering storms, especially when passing one’s genes on in a multi-generational model. b continually changes.
-
-
Replying to @yungdeleuze
Respectable, But I think I disagree. [b] seems wholly dependant on [A] (i.e. the ontological distinction between Buddhism & Christianity) If [b]'s existence and development is dependant upon [A] then [A] is what truly matters here. Maybe [A + (b^2)] = ?
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.


