[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Zinkovich (Inspired from a dialogue I had on another message board) Form does not = language, but rather the two flow into each other like two neighboring variables in some broader psychological equation. Think about it- there are many definers of our mannerisms, intuitive leanings, and "ego"/subcoincious. The only impactor here is not form, and how we impart our information to others is not the sole definer of who we are. Rather, there is some seperate internalization on our part that we often find impossible to express to one another, deeper synthetic emotions that often take concious shapes in our dreams for our perusal. There is, in fact, things in our minds that we often do not understand adequately enough to express. There are also, in my opinion, things that impact our language beyond our viewing and explication of outside forms, for we often corrupt and twist our very own preconcieved forms to some preconcieved molds in the name of something deeper concerning our egos. Indeed, that is what it means often to thoroughly "change": to reset your forms in some new light and aspect, thus impacting our ego in entirely different ways. . . . So this question is, how do you not have form/ego, and yet use language at the same time? I posit that language in and of itself dooms us to the ego, and marries us to these undeterminable psychological factors.

It seems more to me that you are describing how ego dooms us to language, and how the interaction of the two shapes our view of external forms. Language is the filter by which we understand external reality, but the screen that filtered image projects onto -- the ego -- is not flat and flawless, as evidenced by your observation of elements of the ego that defy understanding through language. That being the case, I don't see how the filter can determine our ability to change/destroy the screen; especially since the ego is the source of that language. Or am I misunderstanding, and you are saying that language is the source of the ego? If it is impossible to eliminate the ego because it is impossible to divorce ourselves from language, isn't it impossible to divorce ourselves from language because it is impossible to destroy the ego? It seems you either have a catch-22 or a redundancy, depending on whether or not it is possible to eliminate both language and ego at the same time.