-
PD Moderators: Esperighanto | JackARoe |
Was it "ego-death" or just a confused brain?
- Thread starter Ismene
- Start date
Tunnelfission
Bluelighter
Every form of study predating science felt that it was inarguably correct, perhaps modern science is bullheaded in the same way when they are disregarding subjectivity? That is all.
Except everyone in the big ego-death thread who claimed to have experienced ego-death said that they had "No awareness of their body".
sockpuppet
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2010
- Messages
- 449
edit
Last edited:
No awareness of the body, no. But it's still nothing like an OOBE (at least nothing like the reports I've read of them) and certainly not like an NDE. You can lie in a flotation tank and have no awareness of your body but you probably wouldn't call it an OOBE. The fella "Who Lost His Body" in that doc had no awareness of his body permanently but wasn't experiencing a state of lifelong ego-death. Ego-death is just a different thing. Sockpuppet's description is a pretty good one, I'd say but - as evidenced in the ego-death thread - individuals tend to describe it differently but also tend to know when somebody else appears to be describing the state that they themselves experienced.
HeavilySedated
Bluelighter
Sounds like the old science vs spirituality/god/life after death crap. I choose to lead a life of two worlds. Science is good and healthy, but if you adhere only to it, you miss out on the great experience of being a human being. Has science ever thought anyone how to lead a happy and meaningful existence? certainly not. It's not the scientists job. To me science feels like the endless pursuit of a definite truth, one which by definition will never be achieved. This is where spirituality comes in, and it's the coexistence between those two polars that feeds my life.
Secondly, OBE and ego death are two distinct phenomena, albeit with overlapping aspects. The research you are citing tries to disprove the notion that the soul can separate from the body. But since no one understands what a soul means, much less find evidence in favor or against its existence, I find this whole research field somewhat preposterous.
Secondly, OBE and ego death are two distinct phenomena, albeit with overlapping aspects. The research you are citing tries to disprove the notion that the soul can separate from the body. But since no one understands what a soul means, much less find evidence in favor or against its existence, I find this whole research field somewhat preposterous.
DOB
Bluelighter
Ego death isnt that interesting,but what it uncovers is one of most interesting things I found in my life
malakaix
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2008
- Messages
- 3,054
I think that's because a lot of people consider themselves to be identical with their bodies. I also think that a loss of awareness of your corporeal form is necessary, if not sufficient, for "ego-death". Well, now that we're on the subject, I don't think anyone can experience the death of the ego, because your ego is your self- if your self has ceased to exist, how can you experience anything?
/off-topic philosophical ramble.
DwayneHoover
Bluelighter
So are you saying that people who report having had experiences during which they experience a continual "awareness" but their knowledge of who or what or where they are is all missing, and yet there is still SOME continuity of "awareness" present and they in this state feel at one with the entire universe... that all the people including classic authors like Huxley, Leary, McKenna, Lilly, Grof, and the thousands of others since them are all a bunch of stinking liars?
I think you just never been there so you are having a hard time conceiving what it is all about or what it is like... and so out of "sour grapes" and disappointed jealousy you are proclaiming that the state must just therefore be some kind of fiction, but you really have no idea what you are talking about.
Disrespectful of others' testimony & sad, IMO.
"Liar"? I've looked back over what I typed, and cannot for the life of me see that word. No, I think that they are wrong. If my self is destroyed, then the event is not happening to me. How then, can I remember it? If I remember it, then it must have happened to me. Given that "ego" is, IMO, a synonym for "self", it must be the case that the ego persists.
I have indeed experienced a state in which it seemed to me that the normal, obvious barriers that separate my being from the rest of reality, and my sense of self, had been dissolved. For years, I did refer to it as ego death. Then I became rather more interested, and well-read, in philosophy, and concluded, after lengthy analysis, that for a person to experience the dissolution of his own ego was in fact impossible. The sense of self is not identical to the self. The fact that one feels one's self has ceased to exist does not mean that it actually has, any more than the sensation of not having a body means that one really doesn't. I obviously have one idea, at least, of what I am talking about. I do not deny that this state exists, but I do think that it is, to some extent, illusory, and that we ought to revise the manner in which we address it cognitively and linguistically.
That's funny, I think that you are guilty of those same things, as well as being narrow-minded, presumptuous, reactionary, and incapable of engaging in intelligent debate without resorting to ad hominem and straw man arguments. If you wish to respond, please do so in a PM, there's no need to clutter this thread.
Last edited: