I suspected as much! Would we need an eternity if life were happier- but I guess if it exists, our happiness doesn't matter, does it?
On Aug 30, 12:35 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > "...What is an "ultimate sense"?" - rigsy > > In this context, ultimate sense implies eternal/eternity. > > On Aug 30, 6:36 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Never fear! By last evening I considered that the ego could be viewed > > as the "husk" of the soul! :-) Yes- I think in day-to-day terms though > > I can stretch, if forced. For instance, we cease to exist because we > > are forgotten and really only a grain of sand in an historical sense. > > I am thinking that birth and death and their mystery started the > > rituals- religions- philosophies- arts. What is an "ultimate sense"? > > > On Aug 29, 7:08 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > “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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
