In my cultural background the 'ego ' is the ' I ' in us which views and acts-reacts. In another sense it is ' the over-bloated self-importance ' which we feel within ourselves to a lesser or a greater degree , from case to case.
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 4:53 PM, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -
