Hey stranger

We've talked about this before in our innate ramblings.

You reality is defined by your perceptions, your perceptions are defined by your beliefs and your beliefs are defined by your definitions. The mainstream definition of 'ego' seems to be that it's the root of all evil and should be cast out with the aid of a plastic fork at all costs. Very simply Jung defines it as the 'information central' of our consciousness, which handles everything we process from information to emotions, perceptions... Spirituality..... It's the point of origin for our existential experience, essentially, and gives us a framework of perspective that without, we'd go bonkers. Ego simply gives us a reference point so we can be 'here' and see 'there'. In some religious practices there's the dissolution of the ego but there's always a sense of 'I Am' even in that process.

I had a discussion with someone who was trying to define various stages of ego, self, Self.... but ironically the discussion was becoming more and more like the definition of ego she was trying to set herself against.

I Am is only limited by what you can think of I Am as being, and when you think about is as merely being a place where you put your feet everything looks differently. You even have the choice of whether to put your feet there or realise you have no feet, and everywhere is.

With all of the wise words spouted in the forum, nobody is listening to themselves - http://www.gestaltreality.com/2013/0...ensional-self/
We are multi-dimensional after all. Perhaps we should start using the word 'entity', and should I look out my floppy hat and flowery dress that makes my hairy legs so elegant?