Obliteration of the ego

by logansrun 59 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Narkissos

  Is it:

  "A question seeking to see beyond concepts can not be answered by the conceptual machinery of the minds vocabulary and imagination"

  Or:

  "A question seeking to see beyond concepts can not be answered"

  Trevor's traffic example made me think the other day. I guess there are different kinds of "ego" involved in a traffic jam. Some people easily get mad and others smoothly adapt to the situation. Only the former will need to escape their unadapted self to make it without a heart attack.

  I think religious experience (in the broadest sense of the term) implying some "obliteration of the ego" (whether conversion or enlightenment -- as I said elsewhere I prefer the word ecstasy) is acutely needed and happily found by some at some stage in their lives, whereas others won't ever understand what the heck it is because they really don't need it. The problem of religious dogmatism is that it makes the way of some the only way for all -- raising generations of bigots and hypocrites and endless misunderstandings.
• 

  Terry

  A question seeking to see beyond concepts can not be answered by the conceptual machinery of the minds vocabulary and imagination. It's like a scientist silently and intently looking into the depths of an uncharted Martian ocean to see if any life exists there; he/she, could theorize about it forever, but until there is an active investigation which allows the Martian ocean to reveal it's secrets, little if anything at all comes of it.

  So what you are telling me about comes to you from a NON CONCEPTUAL source?

  Or is it hidden? Who hid it? Is "it" an it?

  The scientist who looks into the depths of an uncharted Martian ocean is using his telescope and his eyesight and relying on the photons bouncing off and his computer that records it. All tangible items.

  The "active investigation which allows the Martian ocean to reveal it's secrets" would presumably be done______how? With what?

  Are you merely saying there is a non-cognitive source of information and you cannot trust the conscious rational mind to find it? It would then follow that one is being asked to turn off their McAfee Viruscan, turn off their firewall and download from a non-licensed website a very large file and open it eagerly and accept what it is in it. At least to me it sounds like that.

  I suspect......please correct me if I'm wrong.....that all this is about is MYSTICISM.

  Now I have to confess I've been forewarned abut Mystics. It becomes taking candy from strangers.

  My definition of a Mystic is anybody who claims THEY can tell you about a better way of life if you will invalidate your rational mind and follow their instructions (the source of which cannot be seen, felt, touched or measured by science).

  However, this comes so close to my definition of nonprovable hypothesis that I have to wonder how it differs from Snake Oil?

  What has a Mystic ever done that gave us anything the equivalent of science?

  Who is the greatest Mystic? How did He find out what he "knows"?

  You see, my problems are all rooted in the SOURCE of your information. It sounds purely like imagination at work.

  How does it differ from imagination?

  Terry
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Terry,

  Read the essay link I gave you It is part of a book written by Rudolf Steiner I think that will give you a better idea of where a lot of us are comming from. The link I gave you is the 7th capter I beleive but you can read the book on the net,,I think it is quite good.

  What is YOUR SOURCE of information? Are you positing a mystical source of more accurate data? If so, how do you succeed in NOT conceptualizing it into a rival to the ego?

  No source in particular,,there is alot of info on the net. You may think of it as mystical,,many claim to have experienced consciousness outside the confines of a thought conceptualizing mind beyound what the five senses can reveal. That's why they have a hard time trying to describe what they experienced because it is not possible to do so just like you can not accurately discibe electrons and protons but only give a dim conceptualization. Knowing the ego, is all conceptualization never accurate only pointing in the direction.
• 

  LittleToe

  Didier:

  I think religious experience (in the broadest sense of the term) implying some "obliteration of the ego" (whether conversion or enlightenment -- as I said elsewhere I prefer the word ecstasy) is acutely needed and happily found by some at some stage in their lives, whereas others won't ever understand what the heck it is because they really don't need it. The problem of religious dogmatism is that it makes the way of some the only way for all -- raising generations of bigots and hypocrites and endless misunderstandings.

  Now there's something I can sign up to
• 

  LittleToe

  Terry:

  I suspect......please correct me if I'm wrong.....that all this is about is MYSTICISM.

  Some might view it that way. Others would use other definitions.
  That works for me, though

  Now I have to confess I've been forewarned abut Mystics. It becomes taking candy from strangers.

  So you have a previous supposition, before entering into this debate, and it particulary surrounds being warned about charlatans?

  My definition of a Mystic is anybody who claims THEY can tell you about a better way of life if you will invalidate your rational mind and follow their instructions (the source of which cannot be seen, felt, touched or measured by science).

  What about the "solitary practitioner"? Methinks your pre-supposed definition is too narrow.

  However, this comes so close to my definition of nonprovable hypothesis that I have to wonder how it differs from Snake Oil?

  One man's poison...

  What has a Mystic ever done that gave us anything the equivalent of science?

  What do you have against Leonardo Da Vinci?

  Many "mystics" have been involved in art.
• 

  logansrun

  Terry,

  Have you read much of Ayn Rand? Your philosphy and her's are similar indeed.

  Did you know that Martin Gardner once called himself a "Platonic mystic"? If you don't know who Martin Gardner is, shame on you.

  B.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  LT,

  On the subject of art and mystics. I hear some artist totally get lost into the art they are making sort of like being totally present. I read somewhere that they may start a painting in very illogical start but every thing come out beautifully just the same.

  I read a book that had quotes from famous musicions at some of their most unforgetable preformances,,some claim to have completely been outside themselves watching them play.
• 

  ezekiel3

  What is YOUR SOURCE of information? Are you positing a mystical source of more accurate data? If so, how do you succeed in NOT conceptualizing it into a rival to the ego?

  Terry, JT's point of view is closely related to base Hindu & Buddhist concepts. You can investigate further in that direction, although JT is an excellent spokesperson for the philosophy.
  

  We bounced around the definition of ego on another recent thread. Your definition of "ego" omits other common meanings:
  

  e·go n. pl. e·gos
  

  1.) The self, especially as distinct from the world and other selves.
  

  2.) In psychoanalysis, the division of the psyche that is conscious, most immediately controls thought and behavior, and is most in touch with external reality.
  

  3.) a. An exaggerated sense of self-importance; conceit. b. Appropriate pride in oneself; self-esteem.

  The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

  JT's definition of ego would most closely the first or primary definition of ego.

  Even in scientific terms, considering our bodies a separate from the cosmos is a bit academic, while trying to define the location and finity of our consciousness also defies quantifying. It all boils down to: "I think, therefore I am," the last clutching grip our ego can claim.

  Are you ready to consider we are all part of the same soup?
• 

  JamesThomas

  Thanks ezekiel3, for your kind comment, but I feel a more accurate description than "excellent spokesperson", would be: inept foolperson.
  
  I would like to make it very clear that I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. The only think we can help change in others is beliefs and ideas, and this is not about that.
  
  Everything in this thread is mental and conceptual expression; as would be everything believed about a personal self that could be laid-out within the most detailed autobiography. Concept, rather than actual reality is simply a group of various flavored and colored ideas splashed upon conscious-awareness to form an interpretation of self and reality.
  
  When identity is earnestly questioned, when conscious-awareness silently watches the mind, it can be seen that everything believed about the personal "me" is only thought. What then?
  
  When there is no conceptual thought interpretation and story going on, there is no tight little ball of "me". There is no sense of future or past. There is however what REALLY IS. There is pristine Consciousness which without break or tear extends seamlessly out into the present moment of Life expression. Without distraction, or filter, or fear. There is intense aliveness impossible to describe.....and who would want to, for to verbalize only takes consciousness away from Reality and places it in the tiny anesthesia filled pod of the mind; which may be necessary once in a while, but why dwell there? The infinite expression of Conscious Life, is what we really are. Identification with a small fragment is only a conceptual mistake.
  
  This is meaningless.
  
  The consciousness which is reading this, has to see for itself, or not at all. To believe any of this is just more ego. Mystic bull shit.
• 

  Terry

  Terry,
  

  Have you read much of Ayn Rand? Your philosphy and her's are similar indeed.

  Did you know that Martin Gardner once called himself a "Platonic mystic"? If you don't know who Martin Gardner is, shame on you.

  B.

  I'm impressed (in different ways) by both Rand and Gardener.

  Rand for her precision of thought. Gardner for his reaching out to the laymen in easy language.

  Rand fell victim to repression. Gardner has theistic leanings he cannot explain although his profession is being an explainer!?

  Rand repressed her emotions and paid the price. She also attracted people who were mostly her intellectual inferiors (Greenspan) who kissed her ass. She was starved for an intellectual equal and thought she found one.(Nathaniel Branden) Her affair of the heart (because of the mind) destroyed her credibility.

  Gardener is a wonderful fellow; a debunker and an all round swell person.

  T.