rachMiel

Whitehead agrees with this but adds an (all-important) cherry on top: Every event arises from the totality of all previous events and adds something utterly new and unique to this totality.

The mistakes are obvious in certain fields, math for example. Subtler mistakes need further research to uncover. I engage despite the mistakes because, at their best, the LLMs are like brilliant, quirky idiot-savants, great fun!

LLMs are powerful tools and just like any tools they can be used to create-expand and to weaken-contract. I 'engage' with them quite a bit and am kinda glad they make so many mistakes, if they didn't I'd be tempted to look to them as truth engines!

See the Taoist wu wei. Both wu wei and "responding rather than reacting" promote mindful, effortless action arising from the present moment.

I like way Rupert Spira puts it: Love is the recognition of shared being. Unconditional because all entities share being.

Thanks for the explanation, I get it now. I also am unsure whether it's necessary. But I have thought, for years now, that I never developed a strong solid self and this has held me back from 'transcending' the self. Transcending a wispy ghostly half-self seems almost like an oxymoron.

Swami Sarvapriyananda says pretty much the same thing. He says it's partial identification that will give you trouble, identifying with X but not Y. I lean towards identifying with everything rather than nothing. You?

I am the sub-process of The Process. I am the tulpa and/or egregore. I am the world. I am the mirage. I am pure awareness. I am love. And the list goes on. Take yer pick! (Or better yet, open to all, pick none.)

Good way putting it. Please explain reason the ego must become dominant and what 'dominant' means here.

Advaitins are wont to say: Stand as awareness. This can be understood to mean: Identify as awareness. But this is I think a common misunderstanding. When you identify as X, you are positing (unconsciously probably) two things: a you and an X. Subject-object duality ensues. Standing as X otoh is the knowing that there is no difference between 'you' and X, there are not-two. ?

Let's say you do not identify as a human ego, what do you identify as: awareness, brahman, God?

@Breakingthewall What are you when you do not identify as a human ego?

@BreakingthewallThe ego is, by nature, self-centered, right? It may learn (be conditioned) to be kind, giving, loving, compassionate, generous. But its highest priority is always itself. Regardless of evolutionary fitness. Does that resonate with you?

@gettoefl Guess you are the wrong person to share my Enlightened Ego theory with? ;-)

@gettoefl Are you speaking from the pov of Guro-vinavian solipsism? (I'm not very familiar with.) Or gettoefl-inarian I-am-ianism?