Let us imagine that long ago, when literacy was for the few and far between, people who could read and write didn’t take it for granted like we do now. It stands to reason that during that time, those who were literate would read differently than we do now. Perhaps back in the day they read for overall content, content in its entirety, rather than focusing too much on context only as it pertains to a single word or sentence. Being grateful to have something to read they would have taken in what they were reading more wholly than we do now. While in the past they may have been more like to take it in bit by bit, nowadays it seems people prefer to take it apart bit by bit. We have our Google and our many videos, documents and groups full of friends we’ve never even met who agree with us. Back then they wouldn’t have had information at their fingertips, they would have had to inquire using something other than Google.
The extremely intriguing topic of ego has been coming up in various conversations of late and I have put a great deal of thought into how I see things. I have also spent a great deal of time reading what other people think as well, in internet forums. It's like the subject that just won't go away. One theme that has been repeated ad nauseam in these conversations is ego annihilation; it's not just for Buddhists anymore. Seems that the concept of killing the ego has spread to other theologies as well, it’s very en vogue right now. It seems the "Kill the Ego" thing sort of comes and goes, and it's definitely back. it will likely be followed by the philosophies and theologies that encourage embracing the ego. What is of even more interest to me though is presentation. The way that people present their point of view about ego is fascinating and most of all, ironic. The irony lies in the fact that the majority of people presenting on the “ego annihilation” front are coming from a place of pure ego, as pure as the driven snow.