The language of the ego

The Holy Ones

The Holy Ones (Photo credit: Stuck in Customs)

The language of the ego: dualism “VS” holism.

This essay is an edit to a reply of mine in this “conversation thread” online: (Facebook “friends” of mine should be able to view it. New friendship requests are welcome.)

The “language” of the ego (the language model that we call “the ego”) is entirely valid- that is- internally consistent… at least up to a point. That language of the ego is like this:

Over here is “me” and over there is “the other, you, my kids, my job, the world, the devil, the economy, heaven, God,” etc….

However, that language model is not the only model that is internally consistent or valid. When the world is something that shows up INSIDE of “me,” then that me is not the me of the ego, but the me of God or the Holy Spirit or I AM or Christ (consciousness) and so on.

Holy Spirit painting

The divisive or divided spirit (“of the devil”) naturally experiences conflict. That is inherent to that “linguistic model” of the guilt-ridden devil or the suffering ego.

However, it is not “wrong.” It is merely incomplete. Sure, even though it may be “internally consistent,” that does not mean that it is relevant in any particular moment of now. (We could also call that model of language by the label “the language of relativity” as distinct from “the language of the absolute.”)

Ironically, though, language itself is inherently relative, divided, linear, and categorical, right? So, when “one” is identifying the “me” as a mere object (of language), “one” could call that a denial of the whole- or neglecting of the whole. It is focusing on a part- like looking at a finger and not noticing that the finger has no activity of it’s own, no “personal” purpose except in service of a larger organism….

“We” have no independent purpose except in relation to the whole, of which each of us is a part, a component. We as individuals have no direct experience of the whole. However, so what?

When “one” is self-aware as language self-organizing… or as the spontaneous self-organizing of “life itself,” that can then be described by various terms like “being in the flow” or “being one with God,” however… those linguistic descriptions are not IT. It is the language itself- not just the words themselves. What is happening is not just the sequence of word objects, but the process of language itself- which manifests as any particular sequencing OF “word objects.”

By the way, words are just objects of language. If one can really and directly get that words are just objects of language, then the various expressings of “me” and “God” and “ego” are just language living it’s life. “Language living its life” is not in conflict with any particular instance of language living it’s life. That is like saying that the letter “y” is not in conflict with the word “yes.” There is no “yes” without a “y.”

That is, it’s all just fingers and thumbs- yes, acting in “apparent” opposition to each other. Without that apparent opposition of fingers to thumbs, how useful would those thumbs be? The purpose of a thumb ONLY exists in relation to the fingers, those to the arm, and so on.

There is no branch of the tree of language that is not the tree of language. There is no conflict in the absolute realm of language itself, just variations- lots and lots of infinite instances of… the very same “me” process!

Language is the process of pretending that objects “inherently” exist. Objects are all actually processes, temporary events, developments, “comings and goings,” AKA the Tathagata.

There is no such thing as an ABSOLUTE object- no eternal thumbs- no eternal fingers- no eternal dream – no eternal self- no eternal suffering – no eternal cause of suffering- no eternal end of suffering- and no eternal noble eightfold path. “Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate.”

There is only a process of self-organizing. Got it? The name that this process gives itself is… language.

At the end of a dream, all the content of the dream is recognized as “never really happened at all” – well, at least the entire system of belief (language model) is itself “relative” as in pasing or temporary- like focusing only on “y”
as if Y is uniquely meaningful as distinct from “yes” or “you” or “yellow.”

The neurological context in which the dreaming (a process!) is experiencing it’s Self (a process!) is also a process. These are no isolated processes. There is absolutely no such thing as an isolated process (an “object”)!

There are just variations in the singular flow of the Holy One. You are not an object. I am not an object. We are distinct variations in the flowing process of the Holy One. As a “word object” in language, “I” and “you” and “Holy One” are simply linguistic events that may or may not be appearing.

From the Tao arises fingers and thumbs, conflicts and oppositions, dreamers who believe they are not themselves dreams- but how can there


Self/Other (Photo credit: ladyb)

be a dreamer WITHOUT there being a dream? The dream defines the “word object” of “dreamer.” No dream means no one dreaming. The dreamer is the dream.

The “I” is not an object but a process (or a “sub-routine,” using the terminology of the move series The Matrix) and that process of “I” is simply the “world” itself manifesting as each “I.” There is no personal “I” manifesting the world. That distinctively self-important “spirituality” is actual the absolute extreme of… ultra-materialism. Within the yin is the yang.

When “one” does not identify as other than the source process (rather than as the linguistic objects of “I am this thumb or I am this body or I am this legal entity or this business or this denomination”), then there is no “face to face” but only “face to no face,” only whatever shows up (the process or the everything that shows up)- “the face” – and the capacity or the nothing (yin) in which the everything (yang) is allowed to APPEAR so very temporarily in the eternal moment of right now forever – the “no face.”

See See through the single eye of God. The two eyes that you think you have do not fundamentally exist (nor do you!) except perhaps only as mere temporary procedural functions of the process of the Holy One, who, by the way, revealed to me just yesterday that she used to be a Taoist, but is now considering joining the Mormons, depending on whether her great grandfather (you?) can fix her computer fast enough. When “you” stop insisting that life does not make sense and must be complicated and confusing, so is God. 😉

There is no such “thing” (objectively) as the English language. There is just the process of naming the process of naming.

2 Responses to “The language of the ego”

  1. jrfibonacci Says:

    a somewhat similar prior essay of mine:

  2. jrfibonacci Says:

    Jaguar Kukulcan replied:

    Ha ha, love the ending
    Right on J.r! This is deep :-):-)
    Well said. Your writing is eloquent and insightful
    I fully agree. Aside from . . . I believe we are and it is ALL absolute
    I also read and completely agree with your Bloggish thingy
    Of course it’s much easier for us to accept things as they are down here in NZ
    It’s like we have a buffer between us the rest of the world crazies you live with every day
    but my policy is to acknowledge what is, as . . . being
    seek to learn and integrate the lesson
    How does it serve me? How can I use it to serve others?
    and move on
    It’s plain that it is all energy, so the only safety on this chaotic planet is our own pure lightness of being
    Sometimes I’m down. But by nature and design I am light

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: