Ego

[Shakti]

Your revision is fair enough namelesss, I agree with that. How it was before seemed to exclude its opposite pair which I feel is also true. Something like:

"There is nothing but absolute reality, eternal, unchanging, timeless..." and otherwise pretty consistent.

If you can make room for that to be true as well, we are then in complete agreement on this.

 

[Roger&Me]

Well said. The final emanciaptaion is freedom from even wanting freedom I guess.

Or in more colloquial terms, "just chillin" :D

 

[Shakti]

^lol

 

[swilow]

Or in more colloquial terms, "just chillin" :D

Word %):D

 

[yougene]

((I have recently become interested in the topic of ego or, better still, detaching oneself from the ego.

I think detachment from the ego is a bad idea. You don't have to repress your ego to engage the world from your highest Self. The contrary.

I am finding it difficult to let go of my own personal judgement when it comes to people i dont like. You know, when you meet someone new or even someone you've known for years and something about them doesnt sit well with you. How do you deal with this?

The psychoanalyst would tell you to identify with this aspect of yourself and work through it. The Buddist would tell you, it's just an illusion and to identify who is it that is aware of the judgement. The two are in a way opposing currents. The Freudian concepts, "ego", and "id" are latin for I and it. The basic pronouns of all languages, "I", "We", and "It". "Super-ego" is just a fancy way of saying we. When there is an aspect of ourselves we find undesirable we tend to disidentify by pushing it out of the "I" boundary into the "We(You)", or "It" boundary. It goes from "I am anxious" to "I am having an anxiety attack" for example. This is an issue on the ego side of things. The psychoanalytic goal is to take these disidentified its and put theminto the realm of I.

Mysticism tends to take the opposite approach. If there is an issue, notice that it's ultimately an illusion and not who you truly are. It's called "spiritual bypass." Whenever life gets hard, instead of working on and developing the ego, one chooses to focus on its illusory nature. Done on its own it won't heal the ego, it'll just make you at peace with an increasingly dysfunctional one.

The language of psychoanalysis has an emphasis on embodiment. The language of mysticism has a bias towards objectification.

Do people who claim to have let go of their ego ever feel anger, frustration or dislike towards anyone?))

Ofcourse, everyone feels anger

eugene,

Oh, I guess I was responding to this, which she is requesting as to how to: let go of judgemental thoughts and behavior and aquire a more loving aproach to people, I guess she meant compassionate! Was it in regards to enlightenment? Is it part of enlightenment or have I worded it different! I guess integration is what I was thinking, but detouchment is necessary to let go of strict positioning of the ego in a place where the judgmental part has taken over. I guess enlightenment is the same as healing or awakening and is in connnection to it, but judgmentalism I believe would come from a different part of the ego-such as (perhaps not a better word) Superego, yes Fraudian. In that, one would need haling rather then enlightenment. Oh I am now confusing my self yougene!

Interesting use of voice. Who was speaking?

Yes I understand about the transient states of the ego, it is where healing takes place and integration. Was something that I stated related to this, because I miss something, perhaps I worded it wrongly?

I was sharing my thoughts about this topic in general. It wasn't particularly directed at your thread.

 

[tittysnacks74]

Learn to recognize egoic knee-jerk judgments for what they are. If you're able to catch yourself acting out of ego, you can stop yourself.

 

[namelesss]

Your revision is fair enough namelesss, I agree with that. How it was before seemed to exclude its opposite pair which I feel is also true. Something like:

"There is nothing but absolute reality, eternal, unchanging, timeless..." and otherwise pretty consistent.

If you can make room for that to be true as well, we are then in complete agreement on this.

Thank you for helping me clarify. I feel better now! *__-
It is an important clarification, as you say.
Namaste'

 

[swilow]

....this all depends on whether the ego, as a neural structure, actually exists.

 

[Shakti]

Thank you for helping me clarify. I feel better now! *__-
It is an important clarification, as you say.
Namaste'

Cool, I'm glad we could figure that out.
peace

 

[BurnOneDown]

Note: If the buddhist monk doesn't posit a self then he can't have the desires I mentioned in the previous post. That makes sense but take into consideration that at one point the monk did posit a self and had to have a reason or a desire to go into training as a monk to begin with.

In all honesty, it was unreasonable of me to try and explain this to you. It's nothing personal, it just takes a while to understand Buddhist beliefs.

I beg to differ. All sentient beings are born with an ego, it develops as the concept of identity develops. An animal is an animal and a human is a human; if we were all meant to exist on the same tier of existence (that being ego-less, animate creatures) we would all be that way, but we aren't. Let's just come to terms with our condition.

I don't understand exactly what you are arguing here. Are you saying that animals have ego like humans? I can't tell. I don't think that we are born with an ego. Like you say, it is a concept that develops.

I agree with this. All animals have an individuated sense of self. Their thoughts probably aren't dominated by words as most of our thoughts seem to be, but they have an individual perspective (ego) that is necessary for their material survival, just as it is for us.

I don't think that they have an individuated sense of self. I mean, perhaps some dolphins, whales, and chimps do. But I think, for the vast majority, they survive through conditioned responses.

Nah, I was challenging his statement. He knows that cuz we were talking about it before.

O lol. My bad for jumping in.

If you want to "detouch" (for the wrong choice of words) from that point of judgementalism towards others, it is a matter of placing yourself in their shoes so to speak, and you then develop compassion, instead of judgement. If you take an inner "step" back, from the ego part, Idealistically, you fall into the deeper part of ...the Self, which is non judgemental.

I wish more people did this. It seems like everyone is so quick to judge and hate others. Nobody wants to draw that kind of attention. I think homosexuals are a classic example. Nobody would choose a lifestyle that draws hate and criticism from so many people.

Whatever we 'do', whatever we are, the structure of the universe, at the moment, is exactly as it must (needs to) be. Complete. Balanced. One.
There is nothing in existence that is disposable (or changeable) that would not alter the entire universe if removed (or changed)!
That is why the notion of 'free-will/choice' is so laughable. The 'belief' is seeing ourselves as gods creating and altering the universe/existence at our whim (will) and desire! A 'heady' delusion, but delusion nontheless.

Your thoughts seem to be influenced by Alan Watts, as mine are. I believe that free-will and determinism are one in the same. I don't think free will is any more of a delusion than determinism. I think the distinction is almost irrelevant. In fact, an individual isn't able to feel free unless the oppression of determinism has been experienced. Absolute free-will would be the same thing as an absolutely determined existence.

When looking at the pile of moments, from a particular Perspective here and a particular Perspective there, some of those moments appear to have a linearly sequential relation in which the phenomenon of 'consistancy'; one moment resembling another where we posit 'connection'. Its a memory thing, its a thought thing. Its a Perspectival thing. Everything in life is consistant would be a life truth to a Perspective that saw things like that. Just not every life. Not for every Perspective.
Imagine a world where people can allow others to be as unique as they are! *__-

hmmm.. I'm not sure that I follow your thoughts completely. I was playing a bit of devil's advocate with that response. I too recognize the completely inconsistent self. Whether the self is a constant or an inconstant is a matter of opinion, there is no truth to something that lacks objective existence.

I think a world in which selfs are as unique as they are would quite chaotic. Or perhaps, everybody would be the same - predictably unpredictable.

'Personality' as 'self', perceived as differentiated from existence at the moment, is egoic image. The moment to moment universal 'self' (for we are no different than that which we perceive) that we perceive/are is always different, objects just look closer in the side mirrors. What never can change, who we actually are, in essence, is Consciousness (Conscious Perspective); featureless, qualityless, timeless, thoughtless, dreamless, desireless, absolutely symmetrical, ineffable...
All the hubbub of existence is no more than a momentary flash of 'Mind' into Consciousness (via Conscious Perspectives, 'us').

I have to admit lol, this response just sounds good. Yea, consistent selfs are probably no more than false stereotypes. Yet, there seems to a trend that underlies it all. A trend that reflects patterns consistent external influences that become self and determine future similar external influences that will be the self.

You have to remember that the differentiated perception of existence that you call self is first self in essence. What is percieved is what one is. So there is a certain problem in saying that you are shaped by perception when you shape the what you perceive. The problem seems to be defining something that doesn't exist.

True!
"Ego is beautiful in the (deluded) eye of the beholder of the mirror, ugly when truly perceived in others."
As much as egoPerspective is a truth of existence, so is 'ego bashing'.

I don't think any of it is a truth of existence. The ego cannot be truly perceived because it does not exist objectively. I think whatever you say about the ego is an opinion. It isn't anything so it becomes as you perceive it to be. Perceive all other egos as ugly and your ego becomes ugly.

As if we have any choice in the matter...
Lovely sentiment, though.
The 'prideful' are as much a truth of existence as a 'saint'. Just 'be' as you are Now! and Now! and Now!!! (as if you have a choice!)
(One can never know if one has 'humility'! If you think that you are 'humble', you ain't! *__-)

It is your belief that you don't have any choice in the matter. Deny the existence of choice is denying your ability to choose. Either way, it is a choice you make . And choice is the essence of the human spirit. Because between "thou mayest" and "thou mayest not" lies the story of humanity.

 

[Shakti]

I don't think that they have an individuated sense of self. I mean, perhaps some dolphins, whales, and chimps do. But I think, for the vast majority, they survive through conditioned responses.

Sure they don't sit and ponder on 'who am I?' and 'what is my place in the world?' or construct elaborate myths about their character but they have an individuated perspective and they can tell the difference between Me and It. So they have an individuated sense of self.

 

[BurnOneDown]

Sure they don't sit and ponder on 'who am I?' and 'what is my place in the world?' or construct elaborate myths about their character but they have an individuated perspective and they can tell the difference between Me and It. So they have an individuated sense of self.

This is exactly what I am saying they don't have. The vast majority of animals do not have a self concept/an individuated sense of self. They cannot tell the difference between me and it. They mindlessly react to stimuli.

....this all depends on whether the ego, as a neural structure, actually exists.

Wait.. a neural structure? Why? I thought we were all talking about the self as a psychological concept. I don't think that anybody believes the ego to exist as neural structure. Maybe I am not following your statement.

Done on its own it won't heal the ego, it'll just make you at peace with an increasingly dysfunctional one.

LOL

The language of psychoanalysis has an emphasis on embodiment. The language of mysticism has a bias towards objectification.

Wouldn't the language of mysticism have a bias towards subjectivity? Or are you saying that mysticism is explained in a way that makes it sound more logical?

 

[Shakti]

This is exactly what I am saying they don't have. The vast majority of animals do not have a self concept/an individuated sense of self. They cannot tell the difference between me and it. They mindlessly react to stimuli.

Any animal with a reptilian brainstem can look you in the eye and know you are you and other that itself. The first and most basic discernment a mind makes is I and It. All else is built off this duality.

 

[namelesss]

Whatever we 'do', whatever we are, the structure of the universe, at the moment, is exactly as it must (needs to) be. Complete. Balanced. One.
There is nothing in existence that is disposable (or changeable) that would not alter the entire universe if removed (or changed)!
That is why the notion of 'free-will/choice' is so laughable. The 'belief' is seeing ourselves as gods creating and altering the universe/existence at our whim (will) and desire! A 'heady' delusion, but delusion nontheless.

I believe that free-will and determinism are one in the same. I don't think free will is any more of a delusion than determinism. I think the distinction is almost irrelevant. In fact, an individual isn't able to feel free unless the oppression of determinism has been experienced. Absolute free-will would be the same thing as an absolutely determined existence.

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.

When looking at the pile of moments, from a particular Perspective here and a particular Perspective there, some of those moments appear to have a linearly sequential relation in which the phenomenon of 'consistancy'; one moment resembling another where we posit 'connection'. Its a memory thing, its a thought thing. Its a Perspectival thing. Everything in life is consistant would be a life truth to a Perspective that saw things like that. Just not every life. Not for every Perspective.
Imagine a world where people can allow others to be as unique as they are! *__-

Whether the self is a constant or an inconstant is a matter of opinion, there is no truth to something that lacks objective existence.

You would have a difficult time supporting both those statements.

I think a world in which selfs are as unique as they are would quite chaotic.

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

'Personality' as 'self', perceived as differentiated from existence at the moment, is egoic image. The moment to moment universal 'self' (for we are no different than that which we perceive) that we perceive/are is always different, objects just look closer in the side mirrors. What never can change, who we actually are, in essence, is Consciousness (Conscious Perspective); featureless, qualityless, timeless, thoughtless, dreamless, desireless, absolutely symmetrical, ineffable...
All the hubbub of existence is no more than a momentary flash of 'Mind' into Consciousness (via Conscious Perspectives, 'us').

there seems to a trend that underlies it all.

It can certainly 'appear' so, from certain Perspectives.

A trend that reflects patterns consistent external influences that become self and determine future similar external influences that will be the self.

The notion of 'cause and effect' is obsolete.

You have to remember that the differentiated perception of existence that you call self is first self in essence.

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

What is percieved is what one is.

As I say, "perceiver and perceived are One."

So there is a certain problem in saying that you are shaped by perception when you shape the what you perceive.

We aren't shaped by our perceptions, nor do we 'shape' our perceptions; we are our perseptions!

The problem seems to be defining something that doesn't exist.

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.

True!
"Ego is beautiful in the (deluded) eye of the beholder of the mirror, ugly when truly perceived in others."
As much as egoPerspective is a truth of existence, so is 'ego bashing'.

I don't think any of it is a truth of existence.

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.

The ego cannot be truly perceived because it does not exist objectively.

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.

I think whatever you say about the ego is an opinion.

It can certainly be seen as such. Does that notion somehow invalidate it's possible truthfulness?

It isn't anything so it becomes as you perceive it to be.

It is something, it is ego.

Perceive all other egos as ugly and your ego becomes ugly.

"We see the world not as it is, but as we are."

=namelesss]
As if we have any choice in the matter...
Lovely sentiment, though.
The 'prideful' are as much a truth of existence as a 'saint'. Just 'be' as you are Now! and Now! and Now!!! (as if you have a choice!)
(One can never know if one has 'humility'! If you think that you are 'humble', you ain't! *__-)

It is your belief that you don't have any choice in the matter. [/QUOTE]
Sorry, your assertion is in error. I hold no 'beliefs'.

Deny the existence of choice is denying your ability to choose.

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!)

Either way, it is a choice you make .

Nope, not at all.

And choice is the essence of the human spirit.

Nope, it is the essence of a vain and prideful egoic delusion!

Because between "thou mayest" and "thou mayest not" lies the story of humanity.

Sentimental error!
Nothing more than that (unless you 'believe' there to be).

 

[BurnOneDown]

Any animal with a reptilian brainstem can look you in the eye and know you are you and other that itself. The first and most basic discernment a mind makes is I and It. All else is built off this duality.

How do you know this statement is true? Why can't a snake, or even animals with higher cognitive functioning like dogs, recognized their reflection in a mirror? How do you know that the snake is not reacting to your presence via conditioned responses and evolved biological behaviors?

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.

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. 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.

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. 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.

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

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?

The notion of 'cause and effect' is obsolete.

Obsolete in what respect? I still use it everyday whenever I have a problem to solve. Any explanation is dependent on cause and effect. What is the basis of your statement?

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. I understand this from a mystical perspective, but it does not seem to help draw conclusions from logic. It just seems to confuse things.

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.

We aren't shaped by our perceptions, nor do we 'shape' our perceptions; we are our perseptions!

Yes, this is fine from a mystical perspective. But how do you explain dreams? Won't you say that what has been perceived shapes the dream? We can't just discuss that we are our perception because it doesn't have any practical value.

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.

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. Like a word is not a truth of existence because it does not exist. The ego is not a truth of existence because it does not exist; it's a concept that is only recognized by other humans. Opinions about the ego are not truths of existence because, again, they are purely imagined. Sure there is personal value in these things, but that is why it is important to understand that these things aren't objectively true. You can make them whatever they, whatever suits you best.

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; it does not exist objectively. You cannot recognize it truly; you cannot recognize it without falsifying existence. Your perception is objectified when it becomes pure. Simply communicating that perception or thinking about it subjectifies it.

It can certainly be seen as such. Does that notion somehow invalidate it's possible truthfulness?

Only its objective truthfulness not its subjective truthfulness. It's like free will in that way.

It is something, it is ego.

Objectively it's nothing. When you subjectify it through perception you recognize the ego.

Sorry, your assertion is in error. I hold no 'beliefs'.

...okie

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?

Otherwise, you can't live a practical existence. Do you walk around denying your ability to choose? I don't. What would be the point? What is the value in believing that free will does not exist? You already feel free. What else do you need?

 

[yougene]

Quote:
Originally Posted by yougene View Post
The language of psychoanalysis has an emphasis on embodiment. The language of mysticism has a bias towards objectification.

Wouldn't the language of mysticism have a bias towards subjectivity? Or are you saying that mysticism is explained in a way that makes it sound more logical?

Mysticism, at least initially, is concerned with differentiating subject, and object. Mysticism has a bias towards subjectivity in that it is concerned with embodying the pure Subject. But that also means, the ego can end up on the object side of the equation. It doesn't have to, but the semantic structures make it likely.

This doesn't have to be necessarily so, since what we are directly observing is a perspective. You can have a 1st person embodiment of ego, while differentiating that 1st person perspective from the absolute subject. This is where psycho-analysis and meditation come together like bread and butter.

 

[Shakti]

How do you know this statement is true? Why can't a snake, or even animals with higher cognitive functioning like dogs, recognized their reflection in a mirror?

I know it's true, because if an animal couldn't differentiate an other, it could not recognize something as a predator. It would not know fear. It wouldn't be very good at staying alive. IDK about the mirrors, I'm not sure how relevant it is.

How do you know that the snake is not reacting to your presence via conditioned responses and evolved biological behaviors?

How do you know that a human isn't? You think humans need to learn that others exist?

 

[BurnOneDown]

Mysticism, at least initially, is concerned with differentiating subject, and object. Mysticism has a bias towards subjectivity in that it is concerned with embodying the pure Subject. But that also means, the ego can end up on the object side of the equation. It doesn't have to, but the semantic structures make it likely.

I always considered mysticism to be a non-dualistic belief. Nevertheless, I think a lot of the disagreement arises from how the ego is differentiated.

I know it's true, because if an animal couldn't differentiate an other, it could not recognize something as a predator. It would not know fear. It wouldn't be very good at staying alive.

It doesn't recognize predators and it doesn't know fear. These are observations humans make concerning animals. Animals react to dangerous stimuli due to neurochemical responses. That is how they stay alive. But they do not understand a shared relationship or a subject object distintion. That is a product of a higher functioning brain.

IDK about the mirrors, I'm not sure how relevant it is.

It's an experiment that demonstrates levels of self-awareness in animals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

How do you know that a human isn't?

We often do.

You think humans need to learn that others exist

Yes, young children do not recognize themselves in the mirror. Ecological awareness deepens as the brain matures.

 

[Shakti]

Sure there are levels of awareness and ours' deepens as we mature. But we're talking about matters of degree and getting further from 'do animals have an individuated sense of self'.

 

[swilow]

Wait.. a neural structure? Why? I thought we were all talking about the self as a psychological concept. I don't think that anybody believes the ego to exist as neural structure. Maybe I am not following your statement.

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.

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