The Big & Dandy Ego Death Thread

[B9]

I've certainly experienced complete ego loss & had absolutely no memory of it. I've also seen others in the same state from LSD - one guy i'm sure i could have set him on fire & he'd not have noticed - this is of course theoretical - I'm not prone to immolating people to test theories

 

[puckboy]

^
I've had that happen when I was tripping hard on LSD then smoked a few bongs of quality weed after having not smoked for atleast 12-24 hours. I literally collapsed, and when I came to I thought someone had hit me in the back of the head and I had been mugged, slowly I realised I was just tripping really hard but there was a blank spot that I had no memory of. Thank god I was in a good setting.

 

[Shakti]

I'm not prone to immolating people to test theories

Where's your scientific spirit?

 

[Ismene]

Yes, ego is like a filter, memory is like a recording system. Our ego's impart some colour onto our memories, and vice-versa

So the memory is working fine after all? We must've spent a page and a half with me saying "Surely you remember your own name?" and everyone was going "No, absolutely no way, I couldn't remember a thing. You don't understand at all".

Now we're two pages later and it's "Yeah, I remember everything about it - my memory was working perfectly".

Surely the memory is the major part of the ego? How can you have an ego or a sense of self without a memory?

Doesn't really make sense does it.

I think I'm a HE but B9 might disagree I'm actually not pissed offf, I am kinda used to arguing with Ismean- its just frustrating that he acts clever and superior all the tme, and pretty much alway has .

Come off it swil - it wasn't me who went apeshit and started throwing nasty insults around. I've no problem with you - I can disagree with someone and still like them. I'm not acting clever and superior at all, I'm simply disagreeing. If I said "You're right" would you be happy?

Moreover, I'm pretty sure that he's "lost" the argument, as he has not experienced ths state and therefore can't comment on it legitamately. Its like me describing the view from the top of Mount Everest; utterly useless as I've never been there.


That doesn't exactly follow. Thousands of people claim to have been taken aboard UFO's too. Presumably seeing as I havn't then it would be "clever and superior" of me to say I don't believe them? No, it would just be stating my opinion. Christ - there was someone in this thread claiming it was "objective truth" that he'd experienced ego death. You're not telling me you accept that are you?

 

[swilow]

Yes, ego is like a filter, memory is like a recording system. Our ego's impart some colour onto our memories, and vice-versa

So the memory is working fine after all? We must've spent a page and a half with me saying "Surely you remember your own name?" and everyone was going "No, absolutely no way, I couldn't remember a thing. You don't understand at all".

Now we're two pages later and it's "Yeah, I remember everything about it - my memory was working perfectly".

No, I made no absolute claims. Parts you remember, parts you don't.

Surely the memory is the major part of the ego? How can you have an ego or a sense of self without a memory?

Doesn't really make sense does it.

Yes, it does. Anyway, now your admitting to the existence of ego, somethng you weren't a page or two ago 8)

Come off it swil - it wasn't me who went apeshit and started throwing nasty insults around. I've no problem with you - I can disagree with someone and still like them. I'm not acting clever and superior at all, I'm simply disagreeing. If I said "You're right" would you be happy?

I don't care what you think. Youv'e been rude ths whole thread- brainfarts and cornflake boxes; is that not rude?

That doesn't exactly follow. Thousands of people claim to have been taken aboard UFO's too. Presumably seeing as I havn't then it would be "clever and superior" of me to say I don't believe them? No, it would just be stating my opinion. Christ - there was someone in this thread claiming it was "objective truth" that he'd experienced ego death. You're not telling me you accept that are you?

I don't really accept any objective truth.


Truth- this dispute doesn't bpother me. I just think your argument is wrong.

PEACE

 

[Shakti]

You have repeatedly claimed that when you are in this state you cannot remember your own name, you cannot even remember that you have taken a drug - which is a clear indication that your memory cannot be functioning.

And yet at the same time you are able to describe in detail everything that happened to you while in this state - so your memory must be in perfect working order.

Can you see the problem? How can you be experiencing and remembering something when you have no memory or "ego" to experience it with?

Simple answer. Recall and encoding of memory are very different processes. It's been demonstrated repeatedly that people with anterograde amnesia still can learn despite not being able to recall the time(s) in which material was learned.

With no ego, recalling memory is irrelevant. This doesn't prevent new memories from being encoded.

Surely the memory is the major part of the ego? How can you have an ego or a sense of self without a memory?

Doesn't really make sense does it.

Memory isn't required for ego. Ego isn't identity. Memory makes up the majority of identity, but ego is just individuated perspective. Even with no memory, there is still now and that is sufficient for an individuated perspective to exist.

 

[ebola?]

Off-topic: Nothing makes me cringe and leave a bad taste in my mouth more then psychedelic users who feel a sense of elitism and act in such a fashion

Don't worry: there should be palpable irony for those who come out on the other end of experience sans selfhood more arrogant.

Simple answer. Recall and encoding of memory are very different processes. It's been demonstrated repeatedly that people with anterograde amnesia still can learn despite not being able to recall the time(s) in which material was learned.

Actually, you are pointing to the distinction between two memory subsystems, explicit, autobiographical and other declarative memories and 'muscle memory', through which we learn how to execute procedures, and to do so unconsciously at their pinnacle. We still don't know how the brain implements storage of such memories, for either system, but particularly the first.

ebola

 

[Shakti]

No, I'm well aware of the distinction between explicit and implicit memory and that's not what I'm pointing to. Though, the differentiation of those types of memory are relevant to the specific example of the amnesiac I gave, they are not relevant to the point I was making regarding encoding and recall. The specific example I gave was simply to highlight the difference in recall vs. encoding. And, btw, those experiments have been run and repeated with tasks that are considered explicit memory tasks, such as games with elaborate rules, like card games and chess.

 

[ebola?]

And I'm saying that your use of anterograde amnesiacs as an illustrative example is improper (you still could be correct, but you need empirical data). Patient HM (correct initials? been a while...), for example, learned to play the piano effectively post-injury but continued to live each moment as if 'coming to' from unconsciousness following his injury.

The rules of games likely depend heavily on implementation of implicit memories, at least among the experienced players, as conscious engagement with all rules all of the time would be too taxing. IIRC, HM learned a few card games after the injury, but he reported not really knowing what he was doing while playing.

ebola

 

[Shakti]

The example I chose is imperfect, I admit. I don't care about the example. Forget about it for a second. Do you question the distinction between memory encoding and memory recall and that they are fairly distinct processes? This is what's really relevant to the discussion. There are a million other examples for that, the easiest and most obvious being the phenomenon of blocking; when we know we have a specific memory but for whatever reason cannot recall it at that moment.

Ok, so the example... The thing about learning rules and procedures, especially complex ones, is they require a great deal of explicit memory in the beginning before such memories get translated into automated implicit structures. How could a person learn a complex task like chess without repeated engagement of explicit memory systems, even the anterograde amnesiac? I don't pretend to know the mechanism by which this happens, but it seems clear, to me at least, that in this example the amnesiac is encoding the explicit lessons, at least on some level, but of course has no explicit recall.

 

[anthony00]

I think thier are two parts to true ego death from my exp s
1/ Losing reality in front of you--ie 'whiteout'' after the white out you can see through this illusion and see the universe is everywhere and colors are just diguises for something behind them///Think about it,your ego fights you on everything,it tells you that you need proof of another existence,if you can t see it it deosn t exist BUT in true whiteout YOU HAVE NO IDEA ,and niether deos your ego-That moment when you realize EVERYTHING you were taught was wrong,You begin to kill your ego in the trip by simply SEEING proof of something that you can t explain no idea what it is-That is just the start...The problem is I don t think you can TOTALLY KILL YOUR EGO IN SHOT I have lost mine at 2 times,,but sadly YEARS OF BAD HABITS AND NEW DEMONS that are instilled in your psyche take a few good fights to kill,plus 75%of society will have no idea what you are talking about, and will help your ego to grow.......Be careful after an ego fight..................isolate..........at least for a few days to really act on any first thought you get,,Some exp people will understand this,,,, some wont,,,Wwhen your ego is knocked out you will hear your voice/the right one/You will know it to be right The problem is nowacting on the unconsciouss thoughts you will get,,and it will seem like your life now has just started as there will a lot of tests//family loss/jobloss/temptation The balance has now shifted positive--the negative force will try to balance ,it s up to do you want 80/20-positive or 50-50thus achieving true balance---CONTROL OVER YOUR EGO--- by bieng lazy,anconforming..yOU WILL SIMPLY SLIP BACK to :::--------I have learned this to be true and will share my 2-life changing exp,,and how I fucked up twice if anyone wants )
I think ego death is the prize,enlightment=total euphoria/love/god while you are here WITHOUT using aids....only for maintence--minimally,, I speak from exp and these are some of the things I can assure I have BEEN RESEARCHING EXTENSIVLEY for the last 8 yrs on "ego death psychology"( and I m sure many others know of the LSD WHITEOUT=mAGIC,IF you don t get scarred...and FREAK OUT=) yOU NEED TO FACE YOUR EGO TO KILL IT.......many times if your an AMERICAN like me What happend to all those who hippies from the 60 s?????????Think about it---CONFORMITY IS OUR BIGGEST ENEMY, and now our planet is #2 NOW IS THE TIME
If anyone has had similuar exp s would i like to hear,and collaborate on a new field in modern day psychogy,and possible publication????????Replicating a consistent ego fight is something that needs to be discussed throughly..So what if it is to ambitous,we need to start getting some info to JOHN S HOPKINS/Psylicibin research was step one-----This is step 2..There has to be other people who have truly had these and realized putting down your ego is THE NEW HUMAN EVEOLUTION----bUT WE DO WE DO AFTER IS MY ??????

 

[Ismene]

Simple answer. Recall and encoding of memory are very different processes. It's been demonstrated repeatedly that people with anterograde amnesia still can learn despite not being able to recall the time(s) in which material was learned.

With no ego, recalling memory is irrelevant. This doesn't prevent new memories from being encoded.

The trouble with this theory is it means that while you were having the "ego-death" experience you would have absolutely no understanding of what you were experiencing - because you couldn't remember what you knew about "ego-death".

That's not what it sounds like when you hear people describing it - they talk as if they realised they were experiencing ego-death while they were experiencing it - which if you have no recall memory is impossible.

 

[Shakti]

No. Read my post again. You misunderstood and mischaracterized me again. Merry Christmas.

 

[B9]

Where's your scientific spirit?

truly I am a wimp

 

[Shakti]

^LOL, get with the program.

Ismene, I'll give you a proper response. When the ego doesn't exist, there is no mechanism of analysis of what is happening. There is no one parsing information into individuated categories, or creating strict barriers between anything and anything else. There is no one to think "oh, I'm in the middle of an ego death experience." That label is attached later. What you are aware of however, is Reality unfiltered by an individuated perspective. You are aware of the essential nature of Self and Existence. You are aware of Being in and of itself. There isn't the ego based thought recognition and type casting of the experience, but you do understand what is happening. Reality itself is abundantly clear and unobfuscated. The little ego-based label doesn't matter.

Within the experience, but more insignificant than one grain of sand is to a beach, are the individual perspectives, the identities, ego, memories, etc., but they are irrelevant without an ego. The don't manifest as objects within awareness; memories don't arise.

 

[Ismene]

There is no one to think "oh, I'm in the middle of an ego death experience." That label is attached later.

So how long after the trip do you realise you had an "ego-death"? How do you "attach the label"? Do you go and read a Tim Leary book after you come down and say "That sounds like it"? Is this the case with everyone or just you? Because when you read accounts lots of people seem to be perfectly aware what is happening to them at the time.

The don't manifest as objects within awareness; memories don't arise.

Hold on a minute, you say:

"you are aware of however, is Reality unfiltered by an individuated perspective. You are aware of the essential nature of Self and Existence. You are aware of Being in and of itself.

So you don't think having thoughts like "this is Reality unfiltered by an individuated perspective" is anything to do with your own personality and memory? It's nothing to do with remembering ideas from books you've read before you tripped for example?

 

[malakaix]

I hope you gain some considerable amount of satisfaction by the end of this Ismene.

 

[Shakti]

So how long after the trip do you realise you had an "ego-death"? How do you "attach the label"? Do you go and read a Tim Leary book after you come down and say "That sounds like it"? Is this the case with everyone or just you? Because when you read accounts lots of people seem to be perfectly aware what is happening to them at the time.

I'm totally aware of what's happening when it's happening. I'm just not attaching perspectival conceptions to the moment. Awareness isn't a thought.

Gee, how does one attach a label? How does one call a spade a spade? Label's are only important because of what is labeled. The referent gives the reference meaning. And this is the crux of our situation. You are attacking references without any knowledge of the referent. The empty vessel drums the loudest...

The don't manifest as objects within awareness; memories don't arise.

Hold on a minute, you say:

"you are aware of however, is Reality unfiltered by an individuated perspective. You are aware of the essential nature of Self and Existence. You are aware of Being in and of itself.

There is no contradiction between these statements. Until you understand why, you'll keep confusing ego for Self and the illusion of perspective for Reality.

Awareness isn't a thought. Awareness isn't a memory. Consciousness doesn't require an object of consciousness. In and of itself, it is formless.

So you don't think having thoughts like "this is Reality unfiltered by an individuated perspective" is anything to do with your own personality and memory? It's nothing to do with remembering ideas from books you've read before you tripped for example?

It has to do with both. I even though the reality of it is truly inconceivable by ordinary mind, I still have conceptions of it. It is my ego that conceives. Books that I've read influence the words that I choose because communication is inherently reciprocal; to speak of it, you must speak the language, so to speak. However, this says nothing about the nature of the experience. It transcends the mind's capacity to truly conceive of. The mind can reference it in one of the myriad ways people have learned to speak of Ultimate Realty, but the mind cannot hold it, cannot make it an object.

This is why your attempts are fucking doomed. So let's pretend for a minute that you're actually legitimately trying to understand (rather than just push your BS). Your method of inquiry is an attempt to conceive of the inconceivable by poorly picking apart superficial semantic inconsistencies between people who have never met and speak of it through different languages and traditions. What good could this possibly yield? Tell me, how can ego understand ego-death? By dieing!!!

Dude, seriously, what are you gaining from this? You've revealed your bias. You basically think everything we're speaking of is bullshit. Yet, every attempt you've made to prove that has really just revealed your ignorance and your arrogance. You're so far from understanding, because you're so stubborn in pushing your tiny agenda. You're so far from actually succeeding in advancing your view, because your attempt to attack what you would call "our beliefs" are always off the mark. We'd all be better off if you'd dispense with the arrogant inquisition and adopted a legitimate inquiry with the intent of understanding. Otherwise, just drop it and express your bullshit somewhere else.

 

[Ismene]

I'm totally aware of what's happening when it's happening. I'm just not attaching perspectival conceptions to the moment. Awareness isn't a thought.

Gee, how does one attach a label? How does one call a spade a spade? Label's are only important because of what is labeled. The referent gives the reference meaning. And this is the crux of our situation. You are attacking references without any knowledge of the referent. The empty vessel drums the loudest...

It was you who said you "attach the label later". Can you answer how you do this? It's a simple enough question.

Oh, and the empty wagon is the noisest.

There is no contradiction between these statements. Until you understand why, you'll keep confusing ego for Self and the illusion of perspective for Reality.

Come again? What definition are you using for "ego" and "self"? Your own personal made-up one? Here's the definition as everyone else on the planet understands it:

Merriam-Webster:
e·go (g, g)
n. pl. e·gos
1. The self

What exactly am I confusing?

You're claiming you have no "ego" yet are still experiencing - doesn't to experience require an experiencer?

The mind can reference it in one of the myriad ways people have learned to speak of Ultimate Realty, but the mind cannot hold it, cannot make it an object.

Says who? What on earth is "ultimate reality"? And who says that you see "ultimate reality" while stoned on acid? You do realise most rational people would view such claims as absolute bullshit don't you? You're in a very tiny minority here.

Your method of inquiry is an attempt to conceive of the inconceivable

No, it's an attempt to narrow down whether or not you are genuinely experiencing "ego-death" - which most people wouldn't even credit as existing - or are simply confusing standard psychedelic effects with it.

You're so far from actually succeeding in advancing your view, because your attempt to attack what you would call "our beliefs" are always off the mark

When you get your evidence for "ego-death" published in The Lancet then you can claim it as a fact - until then it's your belief.

 

[Shakti]

It was you who said you "attach the label later". Can you answer how you do this? It's a simple enough question.

How do you give anything a name? That's how. How did you not infer that from my last post? You're right, it is a damn simple question that makes me wonder why I bother with you.

Come again? What definition are you using for "ego" and "self"? Your own personal made-up one? Here's the definition as everyone else on the planet understands it:

Merriam-Webster:
e·go (g, g)
n. pl. e·gos
1. The self

What exactly am I confusing?

You're claiming you have no "ego" yet are still experiencing - doesn't to experience require an experiencer?

They are not my definitions. Thank you for another snide and dismissive remark. But, ego is the individuated self. Capital 'S' Self is ultimate reality, Godhead, your own true nature. Self is what is revealed when ignorance is removed.

Ego is not necessary for experience. Individuated perspective is not necessary for experience. It is ego that differentiates experiencer from experience, subject from object. I said earlier ego death occurs when the duality of subject and object is reunified and the differentiation falls away. During ego death there is no experiencer, there is just experience.

Frankly, I don't expect you to understand this. It's beyond your capacity. It takes direct experience to understand.

Says who? What on earth is "ultimate reality"? And who says that you see "ultimate reality" while stoned on acid? You do realise most rational people would view such claims as absolute bullshit don't you? You're in a very tiny minority here.

Of course I'm in the minority. The vast majority of people haven't experienced this, or even given it one thought in their entire life. Does this mean I should submit to common ignorance and shut up? FUCK NO! You realize that you're trying to win an argument by applying the logical fallacy of Argumentum ad Populum right? Who's the rational one now? If you want to speak of reason and logic dude, I'm fucking game.

You're so fucking arrogant. You presume your materialist stance to be the sum total of knowledge. You dismiss anything that doesn't fit with this narrow view. And the kicker, you don't even live up to your own standards when dealing with me. Your agenda is so fucking see-through because you don't even realize what you're doing.

No, it's an attempt to narrow down whether or not you are genuinely experiencing "ego-death" - which most people wouldn't even credit as existing - or are simply confusing standard psychedelic effects with it.

How do you propose to differentiate the two when you have little knowledge, no understanding, and no experience of ego death? You must first understand ego death to differentiate them. So, I'm still right. Your method of inquiry is an attempt to conceive of the inconceivable by poorly picking apart superficial semantic inconsistencies between people who have never met and speak of it through different languages and traditions.

Do you listen to a thing I say ever? For at least the third time, my means of achieving ego death have not included psychedelics. Got to the doorstep once with salvia, but that's it. Why do you think it's somehow your responsibility to make this distinction? Why do you care? Oh right, cuz your arrogance and ignorance has led you to dismiss all of this out of hand.

Oh crusader of righteous reason, we bow to your judgment.

When you get your evidence for "ego-death" published in The Lancet then you can claim it as a fact - until then it's your belief.

I don't need others to tell me what I know myself.