-O-

Is it really derision?... I actually thought I was clearing up a misconception that someone said Kan didn`t know max (and posted the actually reference instead of more heresay) and also that I found his explaination of how he met him to be consistent in the vid and in other articles I've read..... hummmm, filters? Sorry if my posts have little substance, perhaps one man's substance is another man's fodder.

patterns are repeating Hold the presses - its been said here before that only Level 1 comes from Jenny and that Jenny does not teach the level 2 and 3 from her system (something to do with nobody getting there yet)... so now 1, 2, and 3 are from Jenny?

I think you are refering to this post. http://www.thetaobum...post__p__219247 ...ahhh the story of their meeting is kinda consistent with the article that Seti place did with him. I wonder though why an interview about Kan is particularly focussed on Max... doesn't he (Kan) have other things to share? ...oh I see it is a promo vid...

It is true that as understanding or awareness matures that it also simplifies (drops discriminations)... however your statement is making a discrimination on discriminations. IMHO it is placing "everything" "all things" into one big mish-mash under one label called 'mind' or you. The problem with that arguement is that I exist separate from your mind and visa versa. Unless of course you believe that I do not exist and I am a result of your habit energies.... this is only a statement regarding the subjectivity of perception and calling it the "truth of physical reality". ..and if I am wrong then this is not a message from -o-, the really real person - but a construction of your own self, which then begs the question "why would you disagree with yourself?". I guess that answer could be "you're not entirely correct" and I am the habit energy of you revealing this reality to you.

hum... this fits in well with the entire story I posted about the Colonel. There was an expectation established by the outline of the exercise... perhaps 'my invisiblity' was the result of HIS meditation

I guess its the same as Chomsky's "independant thought".

then there would be nothing to discuss

Its interesting you bring up shamanism because it is a huge topic of interest for him, personally, not professionally. He attempted for a few years to do his thesis on shamanic ritual and the benefits it could have on modern mental health but he couldn't find an adivsor which would support it. My retort to him on the sociopath idea was, having similar or no difference in behaviour/self reflection ould also be indication of a balance between both ego and alter ego rather then the suppresion of one side over the other... to which he agreed - not that I'm an example of balance. Another interesting thing is.. he has just managed to get approval to run a government sanctioned group therapy regiment based on meditation in one of hte hospitals in Toronto - not an easy sell.

Man, I could of saved allot of typing if I saw this first!

I find most of the time I am pretty much the same in and out of dreams - my psychoogist friend said this was a 'bad' thing - meant I didn't have a strong alter ego and sociopaths don't have a strong alter ego either and eventually start to become their alter ego Interesting thing... focussing on your hands (in any position ) or imaging your hands apparently leads to more lucidity in dreaming because the portion of the brain which handles the transition into sleep is also the portion of the brain which controls our hands.

What I'm saying is there is a whole realm of our reality that exists simply because of our choice to see it that way. Now I'm not saying if someone poses a different choice that it is rape of an attempt at it rape, nor am I saying that we should be rigid of stuck and should stay gaurded in that stance.... not at all. I'm surprised that you come to that conclusion. However 'green' is a sensory experience and I think I conveyed elsewhere that this is about appling systems of interpretation appropriatly... however this will work as an example and I will keep it in the context above. Say the student sees the grass as green. The teachers says no the grass is blue-grey. The student is left in a particularly tough spot... the contradition between what the teacher say and what is happening clearly in the students perception are in conflict. Now the choice has to be made between choosing what the teachers says as the reality of the grass, or to choose what is occuring with in his/her's own sensory awareness. If the student sticks to his own awareness then what is the point of having the teacher. If he chosses the teachers perception over his own awareness then were is the student left to stand? IMO they would then be dependant on the teacher as the main means to qualify their reality, at this point they have handed over the keys for the house over to the teacher. What I am saying is a teacher, lineage etc assertion that what occurs in our own expereince to be illusion or whatever is a violation of what is truly the only thing we have souvereignty over - our own awareness. And this sets the person up to begin to ignore or invalidate their own awareness and experience. Here is another example - I've seen this happen twice. Student says -"I have an issue with food and really want to work through it". Teacher says "you were molested by your father and you eat to get fat to keep his interest away from you - weight is safety to you until you face your supressed memories of you father you will not be free". Up until this point the person has never had this kind of experience with her father. She loved him. There is no experience of violation. However, if we replace green grass with 'pedophile father' and the person then picks up the teachers perspective and consider this interpretation as more valid, more real than her own experience of her father, what do you think will happen? Perhaps reinterpreting her past as her father being a preditor? When we hand over that kind of power to another person then I believe we are being irresponsible with the awareness we have been given. We can consider that the teacher is right, we can try it on, sincerely explore it etc... but at the end of the day it is I that has to decide what it is for me. So I get urked when I hear things like "you didn't experience it because you are not ready". Not because of the "not ready part" but because of this assumed authority as to what is reality and what is not. To stand with that kind of power over someone and then to blatantly qualify their experience for them I see as a violation of the highest sort so I use a strong term like rape. I am using the word soveriegn in the context of it being the independant authority over my own awareness, not of All awarenes. The truth of what or how my life unfolds for me is mine - not yours or anyone elses. However if another is proposing their take on reality as the correct, sacred, 'sovereign truth' for me then yes it is IMO.

More -O- Files The Colonel Ammendment Saying "I don't know what he experienced" is not the whole story. It is a statement pertaining specifically to the Colonel's experience. So after this happened I was left with on one hand what was my very normal experience, on the other the testimony of the Colonel. And as I said to choose one over the other was not showing any forward movement. So how could one on hand I be sitting in full view of another person and they not be able to see me? How is this possible without rewritting the laws of physics, proclaiming unintention enlightment etc. Well the purpose of the exercise we were doing was to effect the awareness of others over a distance. In my particular case the "intention" to instill in another was "You don't see me". Well what a great result to have with the Colonel hey! In short what was an interpretation that then lead to a few other great insights into awareness and consciousness was that his mind was "masked" of my presence... but the particular growth for me was more of a tactile "feel" - kind of like the begining of a mood shift - that became a precursor to know when another consciousness was present or having an effect on my own... but that is because this experience ties into other experiences and I've written too much already.

I think we should acknowledge possibilites and definatly engage them, especailly when it is a paradox or a contradiction. For me this has afforded the most growth. When I say damaging awareness what I'm getting at is.... say you ignore important information. Say I ignored the fact that I didn't directly experience what the Colonel did and if I keep doing this then there is comes a point where the interpretation of awareness becomes more of a consideration than what is in awareness. When this happens it opens a flood gate to make things out to be whatever you want regardless of what is happening in awareness... at this point the endevour changes from the persuit of truth to wishfullfillment..... An example of this for me, is what happened with philip when Max 'returned" from the dead. It was too much to bare, IMHO, and the methods he had learned for interpreting inner meditative experiences where then used to push out and protect him from an outer expereince which was painful. His interpretation insisted on adding in information that was simply not there - things like dopplegangers... as teachers this is, again IMHO, the most important thing to teach. The equinamity of all information during the interpretation.... If we don't attempt to form an interpretation then there is no possibility of growth or greater awareness. The interpretation is what brings information we were not aware of before into conscious awareness to be experienced... in philips case the new information is not being revealed but rather negated. This is a restriction to awareness not an expansion. It becomes damaging beause the mind then needs to maintain and assert the interpretation as "more real" than what is occuring with in awareness and then over time the mind will naturally not weight information from awareness as important - fantasy can then take over reality - the inner and outer are then out of balance.

What I physically experience is not necessarily indication of what is physically occurring. I have had the odd experience or two where I could not sincerely say that I could distinguish between the two by normal physical means.... meaning I could 'see' it as clearly as I see my hands on the keyboard - however I knew that it was not physically present... that anyone else in the room would see it. Like Paul said - does it occur with the viewer of the viewed. Statements like "people who are not ready won't see it" implies, although intended by the viewed, the occurrence lies with the viewer. But whether it is happening 'out there' or 'in here' isn't the only nor the most important question. There is no means for you or me to absolutely verify if it happened 'out there' (and if it happened 'in here' you could not by nature ever accomplish this type of verification)... The questions I would focus on are more along the lines of "what happened here, what are the qualities of it, what are the outcomes, how much of my interpretation is based on physical senses, how much on belief and past experience" etc and do so without editing, denying information, but also not adding information that was not there in the original event. Quite often with these types of experiences - the difficulty is in reconciling conflicting information and to generalize we tend to either add more information (make up stuff like theories) or edit out information (as denial or irrelevance) important information. For me to approach the Colonel as a goof ball hallucinating in the woods, conflicts with other information that I have of him, like he is a capable man, able to handle stress... no indications of something wrong with his brain, no indication of a driving need to assert a belief... seemed a reasonable bloke. So to say he was off his rocker is to ignore his experience of the event. However your paragraph that begins with "The exercises you were doing may have not...." I see as an attempt to reconcile these conflicts in the other direction. It is to add more properties to meditative theory to accommodate for the contradictions... I think soooooo much of new age and old age theories are just that. and these seem quite reasonable because they are observable, they are applicable... but they are also adding data onto of events where that data was not there before. In short the data added exists only in the interpretations of the events... it is the interpretation of the event that makes these theories appear to be observable. The fact is I don't know what he experienced and any theory I pose about it is just another interpretation of events by either adding or withdrawing information. If I do not edit out information and do not add information onto of the events it simple comes down to "I know what I experienced, I don't know what he did." It is the only responsible answer. To say I might have gone invisible but was not aware of it is not an honest answer because that was not my experience of events. To interpret it this way reveals no new information to me. (there is a key to interpretive systems in that statement). To hold to an interpretation which has me as either invisible or the Colonel insane disrespects and damages the awareness I have. It is to grasp some of the awareness and twist it, or push out other parts of awareness. To me this is damaging to awareness. (also I'm inclined to not believe the photos... but damn, I just can't imagine Kan or Max consciously doing that - interpreting a shadow image of a length of cordage along the bottom of an image can be forgiven as a misunderstanding but these other photos, if faked - would have to be done intentionally and that is the only point that I have a hard time with). First off, Hardyg - I have treated you poorly in the past and owe you an apology. I am sorry for calling you a 'dick' a while back. When I say "know the difference in How these two exist" is not to say that these two realms are mutually exclusive. For instance: I love my daughter. She is everything I didn't know I wanted. I thought I knew what love was before she was born (and I was partial, or mostly correct) however I can only now say, after she was born, that I truly know what love is. The moment of her birth was the moment that Love was fully and completely realized for me... my love for my daughter is as real as anything in the physical world, however it does not exist the same way that say my chair exists. They both exist, they are both equally real, not just for me... my love for her does not end at the boundary of my mind. The love for my daughter is a real, true object in the world that you live in as well. It is not a perception, nor an interpretation. It exists. It does not exist as physical matter like my chair. It is not a solid object that can be seen by the eyes, or smelled with the nose. It is intangible. If you tried to 'prove' my love for her all you would be left with is some observable behaviour that I exhibit when she is around - and then interpret that as "love" by some sort of measure.... but regardless of that interpretation this love does exist - with or without observations of others and for that matter myself. When I am not feeling love, but rather feeling frustration or anger (because I feel that too under certain circumstances) my love for her does not end, but the behaviour that I would exhibit would be very different than when I'm feeling love. To observe my behaviour with her, when I'm angry with her, as love would mean having a different way of interpreting that behaviour so that the conclusion is 'love'. Another good example is the reality of the relationship of quantities... or in shorter terms - numbers. Before anyone ever existed to be able to call nine things "nine" the quantity of nine existed. Before there were hands to pick up nine objects and collected them into one group (which we now call nine), the relationship of nine things existed. In fact it existed as soon as there were nine "things" in the universe, which IMO was a little while before there was someone around to observe "nine things". Nine does not cease to exist when we take one object way - it just changes from the actualization of nine things into the potential for nine things (and at that moment eight moves from a potential into an actualization). I agree and I am guilty of doing this in the past. This is adding information onto of events that were not present at the moment of the event. It is re-interpreting the events to allow for the collapse of inner and outer. This is how contradictory and IMO false explanations start out.... it is not born of any poor or misaligned intention - it is simply an effort to reconcile the conflict - to realize the mystery, in teacher speak. But when I say it is a collapse of the two, or an interpretation does not mean that the paradox shouldn't be engaged. We should try to reconcile the conflict - but without compromising the initial information and experience, without twisting the experience into something that it was not at the moment it happened..... If a hundred people saw me disappear does not change that this was not my experience of the event. In this case my experience was the normal one.... perhaps another -o- file might be appropriate where the experience was not so normal. I believe the Earth existed before I was around to form mental conditions and habits. I believe the earth was here before man was here to create it with habit energies. So the earth as a physical manifestation is to ignore that I was born to a world that existed prior to me becoming conscious of it. I have no indication in experience of awareness to believe differently. I am not saying you are wrong nor that you statement is not applicable in allot of ways... but "past's manifestation's". "habit energies" etc. for me would be something that needs to be created (not revealed) for the sole purpose of interpreting the inner world as the only world and that is simply not what is occurring in awareness. And those creations would exist as long as the interpretation was held.... they exist in a particular part of the inner realm, reality that exist because of choice or consensus (for example money) which are asserted as physical objects, natural laws etc. Okay - outer, physical reality of money is that it is paper with ink. Its intrinsic value as a physical object is nothing more than this. It has value to say... use to light a fire, or wipe your a@#... but we all know and live with the reality that money as a very different value. And that value exists and it is real, but it exists and is real in the realm of consensus. Whether I choose as an individual that money as no value does not change the reality of its role in society... on the other hand if society's consensus of the value of a currencey does change - then the value of it does, in reality change. Similar to this there is a part of this inner reality that exist and is real simply because we choose to believe it this way. Its sole reality lies with our interpretation and as long as that interpretation is in place then it is real in our experience.... this is what we call "meaning". What an experience means to you is soly and entirely up to you. How you interpret an experience, and what impact that has on you lies totally within your sovereignty. No one else’s. The only caveat is when we exercise this aspect of reality in other areas where it is not applicable (like in the example of the person who chooses that money has no value). This is what I mean about collapsing and misunderstanding one from the other.... and when teacher or therapist, or parent or friend has more influence (or authority) on how you interpret your life, or veto your view for their more "advanced" view is an invasion if what I believe to be our sacred sovereignty. A sovereignty that we are responsible for and need to care for and be totally responsible for - even if that means pushing back and being disrespectful to a teacher or lineage. There is far more at stake with this sovereignty then most are aware of... thus why I call it a rape.

From the -O- Files Well I'm jumping in late in the game (ran out of popcorn )... but I have a few thoughts and stories to share... RE: pictures Sorry to bring up the pictures again but... I think it is safe to say that fakery and tomfoolery regarding visual illusions in this day can be faked exactly or even better (visually) then what started this topic is a given That is not to say they are fakes. I say this, not because of some strongly held loyalties (or disloyalties), or because of some scrutiny over Photoshop but rather I find it (strongly in my gut) hard to believe that they are sitting down and consciously faking photos... I mean this is a whole other breed of nefariously stupid things to do - I find it really hard to believe; that they believe they could get away with that..... However, there are "discrepancies" of a non-photoshop type I'd like to bring up later RE: the glowing hands photo on Max's site. It think this picture says something like 'max's hands taken at a temple in nepal" or something like that..... I've held that photo in my hands. In fact I was sitting in the very chair that the picture is taken from when I saw the picture. It wasn't in Nepal but rather Max's "tea room" in the lower floor of his house at the time. I had just arrived for a visit, and it was the first time we had met face to face. We were sitting in the tea room and he reached over my shoulder to the shelf behind me and grabbed the photo. It was done with an instamatic camera - (you know where you pull them out and wave them around in the air until they develop). He said his daughter had just visited a few days before and she took a picture of his "hands" apparently this was just a day or two before I arrived.... I few years later someone I worked with came across phil’s site and saw that picture and was scoffing at me about it. I told him it was an instamatic camera so no 35mm tricks or photoshop (which was in its infancy at the time) wasn't possible. He said "oh ya! I'll show you." He came in a few days later with an instamatic camera he had. He partially pulled out the top sheet in the cartridge. Which then wrinkled up the light protective sheeting stuck on the first sheet - then took a picture. He waited a bit before pulling the picture out of the camera and blamo! - a very similar effect seen in that photo. He explained that if the protective cover is damaged or even just pulled off the top of the sheet(not broken) it starts the chemical reaction which develops the film and leaves the damaged part essentially "undeveloped " etc etc etc. RE: personal accounts of invisibility and other sundry things Story 1 Another time I was at Max's with my mom. Sshe was sitting beside me, everyone was milling around. My mom seemed pretty nervous so Max came over to her, quite close up and asked if she was okay, comfortable etc. She was a bit startled because he came around from behind her.... A few days later she tells me this story about how when Max came around and grabbed her by her shoulders that she saw this beautiful light shaped like a face. I was a bit concerned about this as I was sitting right beside her and that is definitely not what I saw. So I asked Max the next time we talked on the phone and he said in an bit of a confused tone that he didn't know what I was talking about. I believed him.... a couple weeks go by and my mom tells me how she told Max her story and that he said she was seeing "his true self - the teacher within"... Now I have no problem with the idea of me "not being advanced enough" to see these things when they are right before my eyes.... HOWEVER I have heard explanations of what happens when the body turns to light for Max and a few others - and I'm sure a few of you have read them her (I think Mantra posted it once). I've been told that "all the space between the 'sub-atomic particles' in the body collapses and the person is seen to 'shrink' away rapidly.... that there is a certain energetic vibration that is the 'glue' between all other vibrations and the bodies’ particles begin to resonate with this vibration until they become "unglued" etc etc etc.... None of these explanations account for an inability to see what is being explained as a physical occurrence, yet they are being explained AS a physical occurance.... after all this is why we are all so intrigued.... a spiritual power that will transform the physical body into pure light.... how can that not be visible physically.... so of course what follows is "it's not an explanation as much as a metaphor because this is the only way we know how to explain it".... if this is the case then this implies that it is not a power which has any effect on the physical world. Story 2 I was with another teacher (nothing to do with Max of his cohorts) with a small group of students. Part of this system included invisibility as well - so there was hub-bub about just like this. So we were doing an exercise which took place fairly early in the morning... and in a forest. We all go out into the trees and find a spot and do the practice. So I do this then return to where everyone meets. And this one guy, a Colonel in the US Army is telling the teacher how he was doing the practice when another student came and sat in a spot fairly close behind him, like four feet away. when he was done his practice he turned around to look at the other student and saw this person start to disappear. The teacher had him tell the rest of the students but not single out the person he was referring to. So he went on about how parts and sections of the person’s body would fade out and in, in sort of globules until the person was gone altogether...... Well, I was there with a buddy, who a couple hours after this, came up to me and said the "Colonel" wanted me to know that I was the guy he was talking about. He thought it would be a good "result" for my practices. To me all I did was sit in the bush and do an awareness exercise.... I didn't fade into light or become "one with the universe" or feel like I was every and all blah blah blah... etc. The Colonel's and my experiences were two very different accounts of the same set of events. Story 3.... or maybe Story 4.... nah this is way too long already

You weren't picking up on anything. You mentioned that in your expereince that you steared away from the stuff because you found that it always came back to a persons own internal issues. This genuinly peaked my interest. I found this not only interesting but to be an act or true dedication to truth and progress. IME when people have come to similar information they were not willing or open to come to the observation that you did. I actually respect the fact that you have this honesty. And was generally intersted. What I was curious about is why, IMO you only took a half step. And by pointing out that "by your own definitions" it points at internal issue only, was not to bate you ... (my god people grow up) it was the source of my curiousity into you and your stance... which appeared to be at that moment someone who could not only speak with some experience but also as one who is actually willing to "think", grow and be open to observations that might conflict with beliefs they were taught. Your reply pissed me off - if someone challenges you it is not always malice and IMO it made you look like an ambulance chaser. So while you retreat, please consider one thing - why did you jump to the conclusion that I was baiting you? I wasn't. Be well. Edit to add: my comment about people playing therapist was not directed at you, although I can see how you'd read it that way, for that I apologize... it stems from two things. One it is not a matter of intellectual hair splitting when there are people presenting themselves as healers, shamans, whatever when really what the are playing with could be very serious psychological issues that they are not qualified for... and two I was hoping that someone that may actually have the sincerity (namely you) to see their way through to the conclusion you did, could offer something that is not only worth while but I think very important to those that play therapist/spirit warrior/whatever.... As for my expereince pay attention, I offered more that enough of my experience during the kunlun thread which apparently help quite a few.

... little defensive? I will opine in any direction I choose, for that I'm not asking your permission. I ask, because all too often people are left picking up the peices after folks; who like "being the therapist" and enjoy the affection and power that comes along with it; present themselves as "spiritual warriors" defending the afflicted.... just what I've found IME.

Again - if the entity is a projection of the person then why not just approach this "entity" as "the person", as an internal influence effecting the person's perception.... and if in contact with other people with the same predisposition - etc etc.... there is no need for definitions, rationals based on external "entities", demons, angels etc. when by your own definition these are of the person who is being effected....

If they are always the result of internal issues then why continue to consider it an external influence?

Yup, that is what I am saying. A pre 2yr child doesn't have a developed ego. In order to distinguish the self from the world an number of other dinsticntion need to be in place first. Like "together/apart" etc. Ever see a child pick something up, then throw it down, then pick it up, then throw it down.... this is a little mind developing the distinctionof "here/there - together/apart" it is the process of developing the awareness of the world and a nessessary part of developing the distinction of "the world" is to be able to draw a line and say "on this side is 'me" on that side is 'world'" The rest is filler - we come into awareness of the self and then along the way we begin a more intellectual persuit of defining what that self is... the personality... So what I am saying is that spirituality is not about getting over this conditioning. That is a psychological pursuit and has to do with the personality (or the shape the self has taken)... I'm saying spirituality is about an evolution of awareness to distinctions which surpass the mechanism by which an ego is aware of the world. That is not to say that the interface of ego is not there it is but as only a precursor distiction - not the sole means to perceive. IMHO most people enter into spiritual persuits looking for answers to psychological issues, other look at indications of spiritual development whcih are really well constructed or repair personalities.... To me spirituality is neither - although bumps up against it alot and psychological insight can be gain from it.... its just not the end game. We agree we agree again.... awareness is not structured Raw awareness does not have nor does it need consciousness. But concsiousness can not be with out awareness, so consciousnes is dependant on awareness... for raw data gathered through awareness be become a conscious expereince then it is structured as you have aluded to... but there is somethig beyond that... to much to go into at the moment maybe later... but after conscious awareness has become fully developed there becomes the possibilty for direct distinction with out the struture of perception... some refer to it as knowing only, epiphany etc.... those "spiritual experieince" that people can not explain.... The structured perception is needed until the awareness makes the distinction of awareness directly - this is the "entering the stream" sort of expereince..... So after all that, can you see why I see it is important to have and use a proper term for "ego"?

Cultivate good habits. Treat others how THEY want to be treated. Still the waters.

I didn't read through the whole thread so please forgive me if this is redundant or been covered.... I have a pet peive. That being the broad use of the term "ego" when refering to "self-image", personality, egotism, unfounded confidence etc. And I do know that is alot of buddhist contexts this is how it can be interpreted. However I do believe a clear distinction of terms is crucial to growth. Consider that "ego" is the structure of of awareness, the vehicle of expereince. It is the walls of the house that define "inside" from "outside" and all of these other uses like "self-image", conceit etc. are like lamps and tables inside the house. Quite often we label something, or someones actions as "ego" when really what we mean is arrogance.... so IMHO having a clear view of "ego" allows for a clearer view of these other things.... especiall personality. So what are these walls made of... generally beliefs - but not the store bought beliefs that we can think about but the ubiquitous ones that are so pervasive to awareness that it is, by definition, inconsievable to even reflect upon them. So the beliefs we think about are the tables and lamps - not the walls. I read a quote a few years back, can't remember where or by who. It was a buddhist writing about humility versus arrogance. It was something along the lines of this: Arrogance is an effort to keep the world small, so that the self can remain "big" or be felt as "big". Humility is being in awe of the vastness of creation. In this sense humility of the sort which has ourselve keeping our self lower or less signifigant to others is then not real humility but a form of arrogance. Persistant self analysis, by this view, would then too be an act of arrogance because in both cases it takes the objects of th world and attempts to make them the "self" or pertinent to the "self" and this is how the self is kept "large" in relation to the world. By making the stuff of creation about itself and this effort hides the awesomness of creation from our eyes. People with unfaultering self-esteem - children - believe they can do things which they clearly can not - like say become super-heros.... but we parents clamour around them to protect their "esteem"... but esteem can come out of aquiring skills and becoming accompished at these skills.... so we all learned at one point to walk and I hope by this time we have become quite accomplished at this skill.. so ask yourself how often to you comment to yourself or others how well you can walk, or how better you can walk than others? Not very often I bet.... this relationship to the skill of walking is IMHO what confidence and esteem is. Our trust in our ability to walk is so foundational that it is no longer a matter of self-worth, it does not factor into the lamps and tables of our self definition or world view..... in relation to walking our "ego"(wrong use) is a ease, it is calm and quiet with really nothing to comment on.... However, when we encounter a view, skill, belief that the personality is not entirely confident on (confident like walking) then our "ego" (wrong use) generally gets a bit excited, has a few things to say - or more specifically something to assert... these skills, topics, beliefs that we pick-up over time which we then attach to the "self" (for instance "I am a Qi Gung practitioner", "I am... fill in the blank", "I am no good at kung fu") is actually an act of arrogance. It is to take these elements of creation and make them about the self. In doing so the self is a little bigger and the world a little smaller. And it is JMO from the lack of confidence that propels us to assert these beliefs (table, lamp beliefs) and the more that we have made these table/lamp beliefs about our "self" the stronger they are asserted to the world. And that behaviour is then labeled, arrogant, ego etc. Under the wraps it is actually just the opposite.

Nice sig!