The mother of all sins...

In the paint splatter, the drops at the outer edges are still part of the original drop from the brush. No mass has been lost and there is now just more "space" between the droplets. If there is an outside influence such as heat, the mass is transformed into another form of energy and may not be visible, but it is still there in some form. Dark Matter?

All things are a form of energy if we can agree with those scientists. I don't know all the names of the big brains who are descended from the first aliens to visit the earth, but I "feel" that they have put the right theory's forward. Remember the Initiate lesson and the statement that "we are self taught", only if we are alone in the universe.

Maybe it was those aliens that mated with the monkeys? Is that why the stood up straight?:lol: Sorry, I apologize for that last statement.

And now for something completely different...

The sin of ego can also be transformed into the gift of humility or humbleness. It is in the service of others for the sake of true compassion that we become one with The Force.

Phortis Nespin wrote: EGO! The idea that we are separate from one another and that I should have more than you!That I should be held to a different standard than you! That I am better in any way than you!

NOT! You implies Me. There can not be one without the other. If there were no me, than what would you be called?

I think you are getting confused between 'ego' and 'being egotistical'. The 'ego' is an illusion, but by no means does that forbid being egotistical.

Your second point is correct in my view, I just think the latter part of that first point is wrong.

Morally I agree of course, but not having the sense of 'self' does not mean that you can't do immoral actions. At least to the best of my knowledge I do not see how it is forbidden.

It appears to me that “The monstrous self is the source of all evil.”- Kirk is entirely to do with people being overly selfish rather than having anything to do with Enlightenment.

I completely agree that we should be more considerate and helpful toward society rather than focus on the needs of ourselves.

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one" - Spock

Akkarin wrote:

I think you are getting confused between 'ego' and 'being egotistical'. The 'ego' is an illusion, but by no means does that forbid being egotistical.

Sorry, not confused but misstated. You are right, all beings have an ego in the sense that the ego is the " I " in the collective consciousness. It is when the ego becomes egotistical that it is not in concert with the collective consciousness.

As a separate point; If a person is considered mentally challenged, and although mainstreamed into society,can an act he commits be considered immoral if that person does not know the difference? I guess what I am asking has to do with the point of view of the person committing the act and not society as a whole. How do we judge an act done by another if we do not have all the information about that person that was available at the time the act was committed?

In judging others are we not implying our egotism in their act? "If it were me, I would not have done that!" Is this a form of the monstrous self? Should the morality of the act or the mental capacity of the person be considered first? Is the morality of the act of the mentally challenged make him the monster? Is there an egotistical side to this person?

In my job I find it hard to condemn anyone who has a mental challenge because of the complexity of the mind. Which brings me to the question, Is egotism a form of mentally challenged?

Phortis Nespin wrote: Sorry, not confused but misstated.

That's what I had assumed when you wrote it.

Phortis Nespin wrote: As a separate point; If a person is considered mentally challenged, and although mainstreamed into society,can an act he commits be considered immoral if that person does not know the difference? I guess what I am asking has to do with the point of view of the person committing the act and not society as a whole. How do we judge an act done by another if we do not have all the information about that person that was available at the time the act was committed?

You are arguing about blame. The same argument as free will, if we have no free will how can we ever punish people for their actions? If someone is mentally challenged how can we blame them for their actions? Well we can't really. But would I still lock them up if they went around murdering people? Yes.

Phortis Nespin wrote: In judging others are we not implying our egotism in their act? "If it were me, I would not have done that!" Is this a form of the monstrous self? Should the morality of the act or the mental capacity of the person be considered first? Is the morality of the act of the mentally challenged make him the monster? Is there an egotistical side to this person?

Ultimately how can we ever say that what we do is right? After all we are imposing our beliefs on them; but that doesn't mean I won't defend myself.

Phortis Nespin wrote: Is egotism a form of mentally challenged?

Could we not say that about every aspect of morally positive and negative human thought.