I agree- the "I" decides and acts. Some aspects of egotism are projected from others as well as from ones faulty thinking- it is a value thing. There seems-to me- to be a real division into orders/ classes and degrees in humans so there are bound to be resentments.
On Aug 29, 9:02 am, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
