Well, the ego is not egoism or egotism but I feel it has nothing to do with vanity or pride. I can believe in its existence because it defines the self and individual in a unique manner- perhaps it is the kernal of one's soul. It definitely is the part of us that is held accountable by ourselves and others/religion/society, etc. But religion and society are intent on reducing the Self into a manageable group so that power can be organized and efficient.
On Aug 28, 10:38 pm, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
