The ' ego ' denotes two things-- 1) vanity , pride , a great sense of self-importance.
2) self-sense or awareness , because you can be aware only if you have a self-sense. To rid yourself of vanity is good and can be accomplished but you cannot rid yourself of self-sense because it is an attribute of life and vanishes only with the death of the organism. You are the ' Truth ' only in the sense that everyone's essence is the Truth. You are, and everyone is because there is a reality behind Creation , and we are all parts of that Creation. On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 11:37 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 Douglas >> > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ethics vs Morality as opposing lables for the same >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thing? >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > That is not how I understand the two terms myself. >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ethics is concerned with the correct course of >> > > > > > > > > > > > > action, both as >> > > > > > > > > > > > > individuals and on a larger scale, whilst morality >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is an individuals >> > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding of what is correct or incorrect. >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > That is I may have a moral system that agrees or >> >> ... >> >> read more »
