Ego

[Roger&Me]

Damn that post was great swilow, and I agree.

 

[Shlumpeet]

I find that when I am the most uncomfortable with myself, is when I judge others the most.

 

[BurnOneDown]

Well, presumably, the aspect of our self that we call EGO must have a physical basis- most likely in our brains. If no such structre does exist, and as yet nothing concrete has been found, we could be talking about something that is not real. I mean, it seems silly to me to place a lot of stock in ego-dissolution and egoism when we aren't yet sure they are even real, or merely linguistic interpreations of mental events. I don't think the ego is the self at all; I think the self is burdened by the unnesarcy ego-belief, a belief heightend the more you regard it, and in believeing in an ego, you make it aparently true. If anything, to me- the ego is simply the gatekeeper of thought, the first part to process information consciously, and add a tag, negative or positive to us. It could ben located within the locus coeruleus.

I've always imagined the ego to be something that emerges through a number of interconnections in the brain. And I think that there must be some significance to whatever we are talking about whether it is real or imagined. I think that the ego is part of the self to some degree. How much the ego is represented in the self or personality is something that will vary from person to person. But, in general, I don't think there is a specific physical structure that it is located within. There seems to be many parts that give rise to something that I would give no more creedence than a concept.

By the way, you guys are nuts with your multiquoting :D

lol philosophizing is serious business man.

 

[namelesss]

Your notion seems confused and unsupportable. There is science to be considered as a suplemental informant to philosophy.
All logic and science supports that the 'belief' in freewill is an illusion (believed, delusional). (See; Libet's famous experiment.) It is a 'feeling' and no more, despite the ego's need to believe.

I'm talking about the way a human feels rather than what logic suggests or what science can prove falsifiable or confirm through observation. I have found that the most effective way for me to experience 'truth' is through first hand experience rather than logic or discussion. Such measured truths have great value, but I think that the personal human experience is a much better indicator of the subjective experience of free will.

Whatever you perceive is real for you. The most 'delusional mind' is correct within it's own context. That doesn't mean that the life of one who is less delusional might be more 'responsive', more 'powerful' (as we now know how things really are/work). There might be less 'floundering around and calling it 'good' (enough). 'Knowledge is power' in many ways. YEs, the ignorant go through their lives like anyone, and we have to be who we are, so...

What is the ultimate importance of free will/determinism? It is how it affects the individual or the ego. Our feelings exist in a universe of relativity - we know how something feels based on how other things feel. An individual can feel liberated because it contrasts so pleasingly with that known feeling of personal repression. If the burden of responsibility and obligation is never known then there would be nothing to feel free of.

Exactly! Without the (feeling of) 'bondage' there would be no feeling of freedom. The ego believes that it is a little god, 'reality' demonstrates otherwise and disappointment and misery ensues. Bondage to the delusion inherent in 'pride', vanity.
Relinquishing one's delusion (belief) of 'goddom', the belief in 'freewill/choice', is freedom from painful (and pain causing) delusion.
This is exactly what the bible means in; "The truth shall set you free!"
Being 'god' is hard work!

Yes, objectively speaking, that feeling is an 'illusion'. But a person lives in a subjective existence that is unaltered by what is found to be objectively true. Therefore, the fact that Libet's experiment confirms that humans do not have free will does not mean that a human does not feel free. Reality has more value to an individual than what can be found to objectively be true.

Our reality, Now! and Now! and Now!!! is our 'educated' world view. (we can be educated from medieval texts and that will be our world view!) As we become educated, our world view is different. Again and again. The world is different according to our understanding of existence. I guess that they did ok a couple of hundred years ago with that world view, but the leading cause of death was tooth ache! Education and understanding of existence has pretty much eliminated that painful scenario. Science has introduced antibiotics and anesthetics to the constantly altering world view.

You would have a difficult time supporting both those statements.

I don't think so. Anything that is not of objective existence is of subjective existence. Nothing consistently true can be said about something with subjective existence, such as the self.

A) Is the bolded quote consistently true?
B) I don't think that it is a true statement at all.
First we have to define the 'self' of which we speak.

I mean inconsistent vs consistent self is a debate that has been going on for a long time because philosophers can't prove either side to be true.

There is no 'proving', there is logic and critical thought and evidence and interpretation of that evidence by Perspective (all of which are unique, hence, never a complete consensus, never completely proven to all...)
I do not think that it would be difficult to refute that (bolded above) statement.

All Perspectives (selves) are unique ("as they are"). Is your world that chaotic?

You said, "Imagine a world where people can allow others to be as unique as they are." I think that the presence of others prevents individuals from assuming pure self.

This isn't logic, it's emotion, ego, 'beliefs', psychology. evolution, attavistic tendencies, me, me, me!!! The 'presence' of 'others' assists in their dismissal when impeding our 'will'. It is their very 'otherness' (to the uninitiated) by which we can 'dismiss' them.

It would be quite the chaotic existence if everyone acted as if others did not exist.

'Others' are 'accepted' for the sake of appearances, and as a means to get what we want.

Quote:Originally Posted by namelesss
It can certainly 'appear' so, from certain Perspectives.

Well we certainly recognize individuals consistently over the span of a lifetime. I understand that personal consistency may be an illusory product of egoic stereotypes. In that case - What is it that is recognized about a person over the span of a lifetime?

Our memories!
It is nothing about 'them', it is us!
Some moments we appear in existence complete with the memory of knowing/recognizing someone, perhaps accompanied with a feeling that we have known them for a long time; 'memories', 'beliefs', feelings', all in the Now! and Now! If a moment arises without those memories, you would never miss them, as they would not be part of Now! Ever 'forget' something? There are moments without those memories. Memories are not a sackful that we haul around and search for what we desire, memories are Here/Now or not. We do not 'forget' something, there is nothing in memory at the moment.

Quote:Originally Posted by namelesss
The notion of 'cause and effect' is obsolete.

Obsolete in what respect?

Obsolete in that it is not a universal (law) reflection of existence as it really is. It is just a relic of Perspective.
Obsolete in that the basic nature of existence is synchronous. All moments are mutually, synchronously arising (all moments are discrete universes).
"To say that certain events are causally related is only a clumsy way of saying that they are mutually (synchronously) arising features of the same 'event'."
Holistic rather than linear.
That some Perspectives see existence linearly, and function in their little corner of reality, does not mean that linearity is otherwise 'true' of existence.
Again, if we know how a car works, we would not be helpless on the side of the road because a battery cable has come loose. The 'quality' of our life would be, in certain instances, improved. Another Perspective might well be that being broken down by the side of the road gives me and Boopsy time to 'have a picnic'! And knowledge of autos is of less importance, in that paradigm, from that Perspective.

What is the basis of your statement?

Science (QM).
Experience.

Quote:Originally Posted by namelesss
Let me clarify what I call 'self'; the perceived self, which is no less than the total of existence at the moment of perception, all inclusive.

But this defies the definition of the self.

No, this IS the definition of existing self. You cannot fully define anything, including the 'self', without defining the complete context. The entire universe is the 'complete context' of anything in it. It is necessary to include 'you' in a complete definition of 'me'!

Originally Posted by namelesss
Nothing 'differentiated' at all. 'Differentiated' self is ego-self, an 'image' of self; egoic self image; to be 'believed' or not.

Differentiated self is the only understanding of self that has communicative value.

There is reality/truth that is beyond the duality of language/words. There are other forms of communication that do go deeper, empathy, for instance.
Language also metamorphoses with new understanding. If 'something' cannot be communicated', doesn't mean that it is not truth and reality, it illustrates the severe limitations of language;
"He who knows, doesn't speak!" - Lao Tsu
"In Silence, Truth!" - Book of Fudd (1:1)

Quote:Originally Posted by namelesss
We aren't shaped by our perceptions, nor do we 'shape' our perceptions; we are our perceptions!

Yes, this is fine from a mystical perspective. But how do you explain dreams?

Nothing different for 'night' dreams than for our daily dream of wakefulness... They are nondifferent.
"As the sunlight obscures the stars by day, so does wakefulness blind us to the fact that we are still dreaming!"

Won't you say that what has been perceived shapes the dream?

Perception doesn't 'shape' anything, perception IS the thing.
Perceiver and perceived are One.
Our 'reality/truth' is exactly as perceived (uniquely by and for us!).
Add every Perspective together, and there's the definition/description of the complete universe (at that moment).

We can't just discuss that we are our perception because it doesn't have any practical value.

Really? Ask any practicing magician of practical value. That the universe is One is of immense value in understanding how it works and what we can do in it. Science is finding that the rule of the day is now 'nonlocality' as opposed to our previous 'understanding' of it as 'local'.Locality means that yu have to be, somehow, intimately connected to something to influence it; directly touch the rock to move it; directly turn the switch that sends the electricity to.. blah, blah... but now, we understand that we do not need be 'lcal' to something to 'affect' it, and not only that, we can 'affect' something on the other end of that galaxy instantly! Faster than light in a vaccuum! Instantly! Do you really see no possibilities of 'practical application'?
Truth always has it's "practicality".

Quote:Originally Posted by namelesss
There is nothing that doesn't exist. Everything exists. Existence is context/definition. There is nothing that we can 'define' that does not exist. There is nothing that does not exist that can be defined.

alright I will put it this way - The problem is giving objective definition to something that is only exists subjectively.

There is no such thing as an 'objective definition', it is oxymoronic.
For us, existence is subjective, we are as we perceive!

Quote:Originally Posted by namelesss
All existence is 'truth' by the perceived reality of it's very existence.
Every 'feature' (wePerspectives) of the truth of existence is also a truth that is a feature of the great complete Truth of existence.

Except for that which doesn't have objective existence.

Again with that "objective existence" thing. There has never been any evidence of such a thing as an 'out there', an existence beyond perception. "Things in themselves" is a fantasy, a 'belief'. There is no, nor can there be any, evidence of such.

Like a word is not a truth of existence because it does not exist.

What? Seriously? Words do not exist?
"Everything exists.
Existence is context.
In context, everything exists."
What, might i ask, are you reading? What are you typing? What are you thinking to respond, how communicated?
What fills books?
Need I continue?
Of course words exist.
Unless you wish to place some arbitrary limit on existence, but that would just be a 'subset' to the complete 'set' that everything exists.

The ego is not a truth of existence because it does not exist; it's a concept that is only recognized by other humans.

And as so, exists. Concepts exist (as Perspectives perceive them).
All that is perceived exists.

Opinions about the ego are not truths of existence because, again, they are purely imagined.

These, too, exist. If something exists in your 'imagination', that is sufficient context for existence. Imagination exists, opinions exist, dreams exist, love exists, hate exists, thoughts exist...

Quote:Originally Posted by namelesss
Nah, I can recognize ego. Perceive it. If ego cannot be perceived, it cannot exist. That which is perceived need not have any notion of 'objectivity'. Your very act of perception is subjective, and can never be other.
Existence is perception is existence.

Ego cannot be perceived objectively;

Back to this. Nothing is or was or can be, ever, perceived 'objectively' by Conscious Perspectives (us).

You cannot recognize it truly; you cannot recognize it without falsifying existence.

Nonsense. Ego exists, I am existence, it exists as I perceive it. Can you not recognize when ego is manifested in your life? Existence cannot be 'falsified'. 'Truth' is not 'falsifiable'!

Quote:Originally Posted by namelesss
Circular reasoning fallacy. Denying that anyone can walk on water, as suggested of Jesus, is not denying my ability to walk on water. I never had the 'ability' in the first place! It simply is not possible, on this earth, in the said manner, to walk on water. One can 'believe', but that only makes it so for the believer. (After the rain, I 'walk on water' all the time, but it's 1/20" deep!)

And what else is there to value? You can't interact in society and tell that there aren't moments in which you feel free. What else matters?

I have all the feelings that are available for humans to have, all in their own moments. Feelings are no more than that, feelings. They come and go. Sometimes I feel free, sometimes I feel like a creator. I enjoy the feeling, while knowing it is not a true reflection of existence. Like a dream...
Are you asking what else matters but 'feelings'? Should we kill to maintain our favorite feelings? How 'important' are they to you?

Otherwise, you can't live a practical existence. Do you walk around denying your ability to choose?

No, I 'walk around' without 'choosing'. Life happens.
Sometimes I make believe that I am choosing, but I understand what 'make believe' means.

I don't. What would be the point? What is the value in believing that free will does not exist?

Of course 'freewill/choice' exist! To/in/as the 'believers' they exist!
You wouldn't understand without the experience. Give it up for a month and see for yourself. One cannot 'explain' freedom to one who has been in bondage all their lives. 'Belief' in freewill is bondage masquerading, egoically, as something desirable; it's nice to feel like a god...

You already feel free.

No I don't. I feel liberated from the illusion (and responsibilities, and blame, and guilt, and shame, and disappointments and disillusionments, and etc...) of 'freedom'!

What else do you need?

An end to this post!
*__-

(If you wish to continue this discussion, please, just pick one focused point to discuss. This took way too much time and energy for all the line by line responses and clarifications!)
Peace

 

[BurnOneDown]

Whatever you perceive is real for you. The most 'delusional mind' is correct within it's own context. That doesn't mean that the life of one who is less delusional might be more 'responsive', more 'powerful' (as we now know how things really are/work). There might be less 'floundering around and calling it 'good' (enough). 'Knowledge is power' in many ways. YEs, the ignorant go through their lives like anyone, and we have to be who we are, so...

So my view is dysfunctional. No matter, it functions for me. It just seems that to personally believe that I don't have free will would conflict with the feeling that I do have free will to the point of suffering.

Exactly! Without the (feeling of) 'bondage' there would be no feeling of freedom. The ego believes that it is a little god, 'reality' demonstrates otherwise and disappointment and misery ensues. Bondage to the delusion inherent in 'pride', vanity.
Relinquishing one's delusion (belief) of 'goddom', the belief in 'freewill/choice', is freedom from painful (and pain causing) delusion.
This is exactly what the bible means in; "The truth shall set you free!"
Being 'god' is hard work!

It seems that we are in agreement on this. I am aware of much of the science and logic that you consider to suggest in every way that free will is an illusion. If we took this logic and science literally it would be very easy to justify reinstating slavery. But we don't. There is value to this illusion of free will that science and logic cannot discount, and I'm sure that you appreciate that value as much as I do.

Our reality, Now! and Now! and Now!!! is our 'educated' world view. (we can be educated from medieval texts and that will be our world view!) As we become educated, our world view is different. Again and again. The world is different according to our understanding of existence. I guess that they did ok a couple of hundred years ago with that world view, but the leading cause of death was tooth ache! Education and understanding of existence has pretty much eliminated that painful scenario. Science has introduced antibiotics and anesthetics to the constantly altering world view.

You seem to appreciate science much more than I do. I am infinite existence I am do not think that science can progress towards anything. Sure, I appreciate this illusion of progress. I appreciate learning and increasing my awareness. But I do not believe that one human suffers more than another. I do not believe you can change, improve on, or increase the values that make living worthwhile.

A) Is the bolded quote consistently true?
B) I don't think that it is a true statement at all. First we have to define the 'self' of which we speak.

I don't think anything can be said about the self that is absolutely true. In any case, I am sure that we will arrive to the same conclusion about the self.

This isn't logic, it's emotion, ego, 'beliefs', psychology. evolution, attavistic tendencies, me, me, me!!! The 'presence' of 'others' assists in their dismissal when impeding our 'will'. It is their very 'otherness' (to the uninitiated) by which we can 'dismiss' them.

I don't understand what you are saying. What I said had logical basis. The recognition of others defines the self. I see that even this statement defines the self as other.

Our memories!
It is nothing about 'them', it is us!
Some moments we appear in existence complete with the memory of knowing/recognizing someone, perhaps accompanied with a feeling that we have known them for a long time; 'memories', 'beliefs', feelings', all in the Now! and Now! If a moment arises without those memories, you would never miss them, as they would not be part of Now! Ever 'forget' something? There are moments without those memories. Memories are not a sackful that we haul around and search for what we desire, memories are Here/Now or not. We do not 'forget' something, there is nothing in memory at the moment.

I understand your view. Yes, there is value recognizing that the other is an illusion. However, our memories allow us to consistently and accurately recognize other individuals. And that has practical value that can't be dismissed based on a personal view.

Obsolete in that it is not a universal (law) reflection of existence as it really is. It is just a relic of Perspective.
Obsolete in that the basic nature of existence is synchronous. All moments are mutually, synchronously arising (all moments are discrete universes).
"To say that certain events are causally related is only a clumsy way of saying that they are mutually (synchronously) arising features of the same 'event'."
Holistic rather than linear.
That some Perspectives see existence linearly, and function in their little corner of reality, does not mean that linearity is otherwise 'true' of existence.
Again, if we know how a car works, we would not be helpless on the side of the road because a battery cable has come loose. The 'quality' of our life would be, in certain instances, improved. Another Perspective might well be that being broken down by the side of the road gives me and Boopsy time to 'have a picnic'! And knowledge of autos is of less importance, in that paradigm, from that Perspective.

Sure obselete based on your view. Again, there is much practical value in the notion of cause and effect. Despite the fact that you say it is obselete, I am sure you use it effectively in 90% of your conscious hours.

No, this IS the definition of existing self. You cannot fully define anything, including the 'self', without defining the complete context. The entire universe is the 'complete context' of anything in it. It is necessary to include 'you' in a complete definition of 'me'!

Not in any practical sense. I understand what you are saying. I appreciate the perspective. But to say that the self is everything does not really accomplish anything. You may say that it accomplishes everything.. Either way we live in a practical world.

There is reality/truth that is beyond the duality of language/words. There are other forms of communication that do go deeper, empathy, for instance.
Language also metamorphoses with new understanding. If 'something' cannot be communicated', doesn't mean that it is not truth and reality, it illustrates the severe limitations of language;
"He who knows, doesn't speak!" - Lao Tsu
"In Silence, Truth!" - Book of Fudd (1:1)

But we are discussing something on a forum with words. We are trying to communicate ideas that help deepen our awareness of our relationship to the world. I think the vast majority of posters on this forums understand the concept of oneness. But it does help effectively communicate to another what the ego is.

Nothing different for 'night' dreams than for our daily dream of wakefulness... They are nondifferent.
"As the sunlight obscures the stars by day, so does wakefulness blind us to the fact that we are still dreaming!"

Alright, again I understand where you are coming from. I don't even know why I asked that question. I should have expected this response.

Really? Ask any practicing magician of practical value. That the universe is One is of immense value in understanding how it works and what we can do in it. Science is finding that the rule of the day is now 'nonlocality' as opposed to our previous 'understanding' of it as 'local'.Locality means that yu have to be, somehow, intimately connected to something to influence it; directly touch the rock to move it; directly turn the switch that sends the electricity to.. blah, blah... but now, we understand that we do not need be 'lcal' to something to 'affect' it, and not only that, we can 'affect' something on the other end of that galaxy instantly! Faster than light in a vaccuum! Instantly! Do you really see no possibilities of 'practical application'?
Truth always has it's "practicality".

But that truth is already understood. The universe as One is already understood. I already knew that I do not have to be in direct contact with something to affect it. Yet, science is using practical knowledge to put these understandings to practical use. They do not use your view of Oneness to invent things of practical use. If scientists were preoccupied with a view of Oneness then they would not be motivated to catalyze progress in the world.

There is no such thing as an 'objective definition', it is oxymoronic.

Okay. I was wrong in saying that.

Again with that "objective existence" thing. There has never been any evidence of such a thing as an 'out there', an existence beyond perception. "Things in themselves" is a fantasy, a 'belief'. There is no, nor can there be any, evidence of such.

I believe that existence consists of information that exists objectively. We are one with that information. It is the one Truth. Consciousness is a subjective experience of that information.

What? Seriously? Words do not exist?
"Everything exists.
Existence is context.
In context, everything exists."
What, might i ask, are you reading? What are you typing? What are you thinking to respond, how communicated?
What fills books?
Need I continue?
Of course words exist.
Unless you wish to place some arbitrary limit on existence, but that would just be a 'subset' to the complete 'set' that everything exists.

Yes, they have a practical existence. And that has great value. But to say that words truly exist would be a mistake. There are many conditions to be met before a being can recognize the existence of a word.


And as so, exists. Concepts exist (as Perspectives perceive them).
All that is perceived exists.


These, too, exist. If something exists in your 'imagination', that is sufficient context for existence. Imagination exists, opinions exist, dreams exist, love exists, hate exists, thoughts exist...

Nonsense. Ego exists, I am existence, it exists as I perceive it. Can you not recognize when ego is manifested in your life? Existence cannot be 'falsified'. 'Truth' is not 'falsifiable'!

I can. But can a baby? Can a child? At what point does an ego achieve existence as a child intellectually matures to recognize it? Is something that exists based on specific qualifications and conditions truly exist? I don't think so.

I have all the feelings that are available for humans to have, all in their own moments. Feelings are no more than that, feelings. They come and go. Sometimes I feel free, sometimes I feel like a creator. I enjoy the feeling, while knowing it is not a true reflection of existence. Like a dream...
Are you asking what else matters but 'feelings'? Should we kill to maintain our favorite feelings? How 'important' are they to you?

This is the same exact thing that I have been saying.

No I don't. I feel liberated from the illusion (and responsibilities, and blame, and guilt, and shame, and disappointments and disillusionments, and etc...) of 'freedom'!

lol. It's funny how much we argue about things we agree on.

(If you wish to continue this discussion, please, just pick one focused point to discuss. This took way too much time and energy for all the line by line responses and clarifications!)
Peace

**********Oops hahaha................... Well feel free not to respond. I realized that we agree on nearly every point of discussion, and these last couple time consuming posts served little purpose. The vast majority of argument was over practical vs spiritual expression of the same thing. It certainly will make me think twice before disagreeing with you about something lol. Anyways thanks for the time involved with this painstaking discussion. It is much appreciated.***********

 

[daysonatrain]

wow! love the discussion. this the the kind of thing where i would respond but know i would have to justify every little thing i said, and this is not a subject that can be justified with words. the more we argue the farther we get away from the truth. but i love the arguing ive had these long discussions with friends (me being the spiritualist and them being the philosopher, and rarely do we get to the same point, but love the ride)

the ego is something that we agree to continually believe is all we are, when we are so much more.

 

[namelesss]

So my view is dysfunctional.

I never said such a thing.
I see youPerspective as a 'truth of existence'!

lol. It's funny how much we argue about things we agree on.

What fun/fruit in agreeing? If we look hard enough (in our agreement) we can find some little point that, perhaps with enough critical examination, might blossom into a universal truth. All the agreement is easy sailing, but not very productive. In the greatest agreement, we can find a kernal of something worthy of discussion, and then, who knows?

**********Oops hahaha................... Well feel free not to respond. I realized that we agree on nearly every point of discussion, and these last couple time consuming posts served little purpose. The vast majority of argument was over practical vs spiritual expression of the same thing. It certainly will make me think twice before disagreeing with you about something lol. Anyways thanks for the time involved with this painstaking discussion. It is much appreciated.***********

I have enjoyed our conversations, and I agree with you on the time consuming posts. But I'm willing to walk a mile through the mud (or sunshine) for one real pearl!
"The growth of the soul in man is as that of a pearl in an oyster, both caused by irritation." (of a little grain of disagreement) - Plato
Thanx again.
Later...