Just continuing this discussion... - The ego is NOT a living being in truth, in reality. It, in truth, does not exist, is non-existent, is absent. If we still feel it as something real, as some "thing" that must die, it is only because we are ignorance itself, we are a lie, as in opposed to truth, we are living in non-existence !
So, the only meaning that "...the death of the ego" has is " awakening in truth, in existence, in reality," and resuming something very ordinary, natural, and true. It is wholly strange being, but only because we have been living in non-being so far. But we have staked so much, our everything, in this non-existence and untrue... that, indeed, it is not easy, herculean for most, and impossible for the rest. Only because we simply not leave these paradigms of untruth and non-being ! On Aug 28, 11:07 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes Vam, as one continues to move up the scale, the point above > disillusionment is the death of ego itself. This more commonly is > known as the dark night of the soul. > > The path isn’t easy…but is knowable. > > On Aug 27, 7:42 pm, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Agree with everything you said here... > > > What I must emphasise however, as I believe you would too, is that ' > > violent ' nauseating experience of emptiness is not the last word on > > it. Without this perspective, and caveat I may say, despair and > > depression is inevitable... the background to the well known and > > extended debate between Sartre and Camus aired publicly ! > > > On Aug 28, 4:54 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > “Complexity is never a reason to shut our eyes, i wouldn't have > > > thought... “ – paradox > > > > IF you somehow interpreted my having said “Relativism and > > > deconstructionism do lead one into the depths of the well of > > > disillusionment.” as a call for blindness, nothing could be further > > > from the truth. > > > > Perhaps it is the semantics involved with the term ‘disillusionment’. > > > If so, in an attempt at clarification, this term to me is fairly high > > > up the ladder of levels of consciousness. In fact, it is very close to > > > where one begins to see things as they actually are. The term itself > > > means that one is no longer held by the trance of illusions. And, in > > > this context, such a realization compared to how most people apprehend > > > the world before reaching being disillusioned, can be quite painful – > > > thus the reference to depths of a well. Here, even though such pain > > > has always been part of the psyche; at this level, one who is ‘waking > > > up’ is no longer anesthetized to their ego (illusion) pain… it is > > > being felt quite strongly consciously for the first time. > > > > So here, with the awareness of pain, one actually is able to begin to > > > open one’s eyes metaphorically. > > > > As an aside, Sartre’s novel, “Nausea”, is an example of the psyche > > > reaching this particular level of consciousness. And, as most are > > > aware, Jean-Paul was opening his eyes rather than closing them. Thus > > > it can be said that this level of transition is where the awareness of > > > the emptiness of life is quite acute. > > > > On Aug 27, 10:57 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Complexity is never a reason to shut our eyes, i wouldn't have > > > > thought... > > > > > On Aug 27, 3:13 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Relativism and deconstructionism do lead one into the depths of the > > > > > well of disillusionment. > > > > > > On Aug 26, 10:50 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Nietzsche argued (in front of the bourgeois) that bourgeois morality > > > > > > was all based on the ability to use violence to recover debt. I > > > > > > take > > > > > > it his play was ironic, much as Kierkegaard on Xtianity. To > > > > > > abandon > > > > > > morality and ethics in order to do the best we can in practical > > > > > > circumstances is a move from generality to particularism and 'low > > > > > > and > > > > > > behold' the matter is somewhat ironic as we discover morality and > > > > > > ethics in the particular. We might, for instance, be generally > > > > > > against abortion, but leave this generality aside in considering a > > > > > > rape victim wanting one - indeed we should go further and wonder > > > > > > what > > > > > > role morality and ethics play in the decision that we have any > > > > > > 'right' > > > > > > to be considering a decision many of us think the woman concerned > > > > > > should be able to make and expect only our support in it - that is > > > > > > help with her distress. > > > > > > > In German philosophy after Hegel, there was much attempt to 'free > > > > > > thought' from Geist and what we might call 'socially approved > > > > > > epistemic authority' (which we might corrupt to 'moralising') - one > > > > > > can draw the line through Fichte, Feuerbach, Nietzsche and on to > > > > > > Stirner - the problem always being how there could ever be an > > > > > > association of individuals free of morals and ethics - the answer > > > > > > usually being that some subjective awareness-analysis could replace > > > > > > social authority. This is not exactly new to those of us with some > > > > > > notion of self-discipline, and notions of govern-mentality or the > > > > > > creation of 'docile bodies' worry on just hoe 'subjective' we can be > > > > > > in this sense. > > > > > > > The question is probably about how we can get into meaningful review > > > > > > of what is deeply and potentially wrongly held. A good example > > > > > > would > > > > > > be that most of us think debt should be repaid. We can hold this > > > > > > view > > > > > > with great certainty and even think it immoral not to repay. Yet > > > > > > what > > > > > > is human history on this? I can point to a recent book that > > > > > > demonstrates history is full of corrections or Jubilee on debt - > > > > > > even > > > > > > that the first word we know for freedom means 'freedom from debt' > > > > > > and > > > > > > that many religious words come from the word debt as sin - in the > > > > > > sense of freedom from it. The very notion of our definition of debt > > > > > > is historically wrong and de-politicised when it should not be. We > > > > > > can abandon what we have come to think is moral and ethical about > > > > > > debt > > > > > > and perhaps recover something 'more moral' in understanding history. > > > > > > The book is readable at Amazon - Debt by David Graeber - at least in > > > > > > its essentials. Much as we might abandon moral and ethics, we could > > > > > > abandon 'money' - though we no doubt come round to a better > > > > > > formulation in new practice. There is always some kind of 'return' > > > > > > - > > > > > > but where are we without trying our best in thinking things through > > > > > > - > > > > > > left with global poverty and indenture? Hardly much 'morality' in > > > > > > that. > > > > > > > On Aug 26, 3:15 pm, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hahahah yes Rigsy I find I can't disagree with you here at all. > > > > > > > Makes > > > > > > > a change huh! > > > > > > > > On Aug 26, 2:40 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Yes, Lee. A sense of fairness and right/wrong seems to kick in > > > > > > > > naturally in very young children- even more remarkable when you > > > > > > > > think > > > > > > > > what they are up against re adults and their siblings, but then > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > "teaching" begins "in earnest" via family, education, religion, > > > > > > > > society. Most often, humans adapt to standards and expectations > > > > > > > > because they assume it's safer and easier- they can work out the > > > > > > > > conflicts with a therapist later on. :-) > > > > > > > > > On Aug 26, 4:49 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Obvioulsy I have to strongly disagree with that. Anybody who > > > > > > > > > thinks > > > > > > > > > that morality comes from religion is not thinking straight. > > > > > > > > > > My own morality was there long before I even heard of deity, > > > > > > > > > and the > > > > > > > > > same is true for all of us. Yes yes of course religious > > > > > > > > > faith may > > > > > > > > > colour or change ones morality, but then what does not? > > > > > > > > > Culture does, > > > > > > > > > the epoch we live in does, nationality does, even age. > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 5:52 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > A guy called Max Stirner wrote an odd book with the intent > > > > > > > > > > to outline > > > > > > > > > > what being free of religion might mean. Rigsby's professor > > > > > > > > > > seems > > > > > > > > > > unaware of how old his ground is in more recent debate than > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > Greeks. My own view is that religion more or less cripples > > > > > > > > > > morality, > > > > > > > > > > both intellectually and in its practical horrors. The > > > > > > > > > > weakness > > > > > > > > > > involved in believing or pretending to believe twaddle > > > > > > > > > > hardly shows > > > > > > > > > > moral character. Ethics are what lawyers have - rules to > > > > > > > > > > protect > > > > > > > > > > themselves at the expense of others. The best we can hope > > > > > > > > > > for is some > > > > > > > > > > kind of fair-play. Our society is grossly immoral because > > > > > > > > > > so many > > > > > > > > > > people cling to religious means to suppose others immoral > > > > > > > > > > on grounds > > > > > > > > > > like active homosexuality and most varieties of > > > > > > > > > > fornication. We might > > > > > > > > > > think of ridding ourselves of morality and ethics and get > > > > > > > > > > on with > > > > > > > > > > doing our best in difficult situations that need decision. > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 5:08 pm, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Please correct me if i'm wrong, Lee; i'd be obliged. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 2:38 pm, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Heh heh that too is my understanding but the other way > > > > > > > > > > > > around! > > > > > > > > > > > > > To dictionary.com! > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 2:03 pm, paradox <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not sure i agree or fully understand your > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinctions, Lee; you're > > > > > > > > > > > > > certainly right that "ethics" and "morality" are not > > > > > > > > > > > > > "opposing labels > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the same thing", though. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To be brief, in my opinion, a thought or action is > > > > > > > > > > > > > "ethical" or > > > > > > > > > > > > > otherwise if it meets my standard of conduct; a > > > > > > > > > > > > > thought or action is > > > > > > > > > > > > > "moral" if it meets a predetermined and prescribed > > > > > > > > > > > > > (by ordination, > > > > > > > > > > > > > coordination, or cognition) system of "human" values. > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is this > > > > > > > > > > > > > latter category of behavioural conditioning that > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marks "deconstructs" > > > > > > > > > > > > > so eloquently in his article. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or so it seems to me, i may be wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 9:51 am, Lee > > ... > > read more »
