“Yes it is as I distinguish you from all others. Why? Because you have projected your ego driven self into words.” – rigsy
In the way you are looking at it rigsy, yes, ego does exist. Having had numerous and long discussions about this topic with Vam in the past, it is my understanding that when he (and I to some degree) say that ego isn’t real we are talking in more of an ultimate sense, not a day to day interaction way. It is more in the line that anything that is ‘real’ is something that is permanent. And, I think it is clear that all of us, or most of us at least, hold that ego does cease to exist at some point. On Aug 29, 4:25 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes it is as I distinguish you from all others. Why? Because you have > projected your ego driven self into words. > > On Aug 28, 11:16 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Vam, we are in agreement. The ego isn't real. > > > On Aug 28, 12:27 pm, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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 > > ... > > read more »
