Can we understand anything at all, as long as we base our understanding on someone else´s surmise?

Swarn Gill says:
Definitions are different than labels. Words mean what they mean. Some words take on different meanings as they get used commonly so I was simply asking what you meant by ego. I guess I just define the ego differently, or see it playing a different role based on my study of psychology.

Can we analyze this with an impartial outlook?

What is the purpose of definition? Of any definition.

Can we linger on this for a while before giving an answer?
Why du we need definitions? Why are we urged to define things eventually?

Can we learn anything directly through accepting and
taking as good what other people have termed as “real”?

Can we understand anything at all, as long as we base our understanding and rely on someone else´s surmise? – even if this suppositions are called “science”?

Or are we maybe afraid to understand, that is, exposing ourselves to direct and unmediated experience?

How can words and their inherent meaning become other than “common” if we are
to approach them through the filter of yesterday experience…?

Can other people´s “yesterday experience” apply to who we are and what we are being confronted with just now…?

Definitions imply that there is an all-knowing authority. I thus ascribe authority importance, as I am afraid to know, that is, to find out for myself.

So I do wonder:

Can it be so that whatever preconceived definition deprives me of my spontaneous relation to Life and the object of my inquiry?

Nature´s inexorable imperative

Adapt or perish, now as ever.

-H. G. Wells

What is the Psyche?

“The Psyche is the greatest of all the cosmic wonders, and the “sine qua non”
of the world as an object. It is in the highest degree odd that Western man,
with but very few – and even fewer – exceptions, apparently pays so little regard
to this fact. 

Swamped by the knowledge of external objects, the subject of all knowledge has been temporarily eclipsed to the point of seeming nonexistence.”

– C.G. Jung

What I am involves what you are

Allan Watts

The age of counterfeits

No, but really…

It really goes on my nerves:

All these smart guys like Gregg Bradden, Wayne Diar, Donald Neale Walsh, David Ike, Deepak Chopra, Esther Hicks so forth and so on…- all of them speaking skillfully about consciousness and frequencies, quantum physics, the Universal Field, metaphysics,
The Law of Attraction, the one more interesting than the other…

And yet…The result of all this intelligent verbosity is null! ZERO…!

It doesn´t fucking make sense…Not that what they come up with is without value,
but were the things they said really powerful and worth-while, you could feel this improved state they talk about, everywhere around you.

Instead what…in everyday life humans are more and more absent and disturbed, more senselessly aloof and aggressive, reckless, greedy and self-absorbed…

Paradoxically, despite the information and incredible sophisticated means at hand, Stupidity is growing exponentially reaching alarming levels.

It is truly an insurmountable gap.

The masses are always the way they are. But if all these New Age prophets were
genuinely and virtually dedicated, they would probably manage
TO BRING ABOUT A REAL, PALPABLE CHANGE. You would just feel it naturally…

Albeit they being well articulated and probably well-intentioned, I really suspect most of them being no more than a bunch of counterfeits.

They are most likely not aware, but they are as deceitful as the age they are a part of.

Descartes and his imagined identity

I think therefore I am.

Seemingly, what irreparable harm he has done Life this fool of philosopher – which otherwise is said to have been quite a likeable person – for everything, and I mean everything in today’s society, is directly connected to his mad assertion.

“Remember, people like Descartes”, says Joakim,
think this faulty contention  – cogito ergo sum -, is deep and mystically true.

I mean, its their only argument for their imagined identity.

Most likely, it would be more appropriate to say ‘I sneeze, therefore I am’ …
It makes more sense, doesn´t it…?” 🙂

Me too

I don´t want to believe, I want to know.

– Carl Sagan

The more crazy, the more correct

This is a story told by Osho.

Wilhelm Pauli was prevailed upon to speak about the new ideas to the audience which also included Niels Bohr. He spoke for an hour, and then there was a general discussion during which he was criticized rather sharply by the other scientists.

Finally, Niels Bohr was called on to make a speech summing up the argument. “We are all agreed,” he said, “that your theory is crazy, Pauli. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.

My own feeling is that it is not crazy enough.”

Courtesy of

Says Alan Watts

What you are basically, deep, deep down, far, far in,
is simply the fabric and structure of existence itself.

Cognitive dissonance

“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong.

When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn’t fit in with the core belief.”

 -Frantz Fanon