Quoting Ant McWatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 5.6.1. SCOTT-PECKS NOTION OF THE SELF > > This view is also supported by some modern psychologists and physicists. > For instance, the psychiatrist Scott Peck (The Road Less Travelled, 1978, > p.262) notes: > > I am I and you are you. The I-entity is my identity and the you-identity > is your identity, and we tend to be quite discomfited if our identities > become mixed-up or confused Modern physicists, concerned with relativity, > wave-particle phenomena, electromagnetism, et cetera, are becoming > increasingly aware of our conceptual approach in terms of entities. But it > is hard to escape from. Our tendency to entity-thinking compels us to want > to locate things, even such things as God or grace and even when we know our > tendency is interfering with our comprehension of these of matters. > > Scott-Peck makes the important point that ego boundaries must be hardened > before they are softened (1978, p.97). The infant (as mentioned in James > description of pure experience in Section 2.5.) may not recognise ego > boundaries but that is from the (selfish) point of view that it is the > universe. A mystic, may also not recognise ego boundaries (as real) but > that is from the (selfless) point of view that the self is a part of the one > universe. Though on the surface, both points of view seem similar, there is > the full circle of spiritual growth (of the individual) between them. > > It may seem to many that the ultimate requirement - to give up ones self > makes our existence a sort of bad joke and which can never be completely > accepted. This attitude is particularly true in present-day Western > culture, in which the self is held sacred and death is considered an > unspeakable insult. Yet the exact opposite is the reality. It is in the > giving up of self that human beings can find the most ecstatic and lasting, > solid, durable joy of life. (Scott-Peck, 1978, p.72) > > When Scott-Peck states that the ultimate requirement is to give up ones > self, he is not only inferring that its metaphysically incorrect to hold > the view that the self is real but that such a belief in a self is at the > root of much psychiatric illness. Scott-Peck (1978, p.71-72) concludes, as > the Buddha originally did, that the ultimate pattern of thought which must > be given up to achieve successful transition into greater maturity is the > notion of the self.
Since Ant has cited Peck as an authority on the "self," I thought it appropriate to pass along the following quote from Mr. Peck that not only acknowledges the reality of self but suggests that "giving up of self" is an act he nor anybody else can or should do: "There is no such thing as an unselfish person. I myself am totally selfish. Strictly speaking I've never done a thing for anyone else. When I water my flowers I don't say, 'Look, flowers, what I'm doing for you . . . you ought to be grateful.' I do it because I like pretty flowers. When I extend myself for my children, it's because I want to have an image of myself as a good father. You could look at monks and nuns and think how unselfish they are. But they have decided that this is the best way to personal joy." (Bottom Line, May 15, 1991) I think it's well to remember that to become "enlightened," as seems to be the goal of many here, is itself a selfish, individual goal. Instead, I agree with many Buddha masters that "your everyday and ordinary consciousness, that is the Tao." (The Spectrum of Consciousness, Ken Wilber, p.298) No dreams, drugs or other altered states required. Regards, Platt ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
