I ask because I have lost count of the number of individuals who’ve independently brought up the subject with me recently ... and without knowing that I was thinking about it too. As a conversation seems to want to happen, I’m happy to begin it—but between truffle-making and other work to be done before undertaking some travel, I may not be able to give it the attention I’d like.
My guess is that many people still associate the term “ego” with Sigmund Freud; but in trying to determine if he did actually coin the word, I’m coming up blank. The Merriam–Webster dictionary is mute on the point; the Online Etymology Dictionary offers a little more, but just barely. [And how geekily cool is it that such a site exists? That discovery brightened my day considerably!] It is sufficient to rule him out as the originator of the concept, however.
I suppose at its root, “ego” is a shorthand for “self concept”, but not all people agree on that, let alone the details of it. What comprises the ego? How does it develop? In a healthy (viz., not brain damaged, chemically unbalanced, emotionally traumatized, etc.) person, is it generally a positive force, or a negative one?
In my book review, I plucked a couple of Wayne Dyer’s seven primary ego characteristics out for quoting. Here is the entire list (from pp.179–186):
- Ego is your false self.
- Ego teaches separateness.
- Ego convinces you of your specialness.
- Ego is ready to be offended.
- Ego is cowardly.
- Ego thrives on consumption.
- Ego is insane. (Dyer continues, “My definition of an insane person is someone who believes that they are something they are not and acts on that belief in the world.”)
Some of those points hold a grain of value for me—I certainly have fallen into that “easily offended” chasm more often than I care to admit—yet others are highly problematic. It seems to me that, however one conceptualizes it, ego is a nontrivial element of the self: so how can it be absolutely false? Similarly, it is true that each of us is unique ... yet I think we often overemphasize our specialness (this ties in to a point I’m saving for another exploration).
In order to have meaningful relationships with others, each of us needs to have some vision of our selves. That may include many things, depending upon how one defines it; but it is crucial not only for interpersonal relations, but also intrapersonal relations. I think everyone who reads this can call to mind at least one person who seems to dislike himself (or worse), as well as another who has a grandiose self-view. Given its necessity, I do not see how it’s helpful to cast the ego as even mostly negative, let alone completely negative as Dyer does.
O’course, I imagine his retort would be that of course I reject that: it’s my ego that’s driving my thinking! Well, maybe: but I have done a lot of introspection and tweaking under the hood, and while my ego does get the best of me sometimes, I don’t think it’s always in control.
But enough of my ramblings. What think you?
Dr. Wayne Dyer
Hello Sunni, long time...
I think Dr. Wayne Dyer wrote some very important works - at one time. I'm referring to material like "Pulling your own Strings" and "The Sky's the Limit".
However - more recently I'm inclined to cringe when I read more current material or hear him speaking. In brief - and without getting into much analysis - he went all 'woo-woo' and entered into (imo) much more speculative realms.
"The Sky's the Limit" was a very useful book to me - but that was around 20 years ago. For anyone wishing to learn more about the mechanics of manipulation - I would still recommend some of his early works - but I could not say the same for anything of his that was more contemporary.
If - for all of his statements about ego - he'd included "could be" or "can be" - I could more easily follow his points. Understanding the nature of ego is a worthy study - and potentially a lifetime project - but there are other means to this study.
For myself - regarding ego and other aspects of living - I found a study of buddhism useful - the non-congregating, non-dues paying sort. My own inclinations led me towards buddhism as it morphed into what's commonly known as 'zen buddhism' - but that's just what worked for me. My studies into this area have consisted almost entirely of historical literature - with very little interaction with other adherents or institutional hierarchy - and very little self-identification. Personally - I couldn't recommend buddhism or zen as an institution - only as a means of personal study.
To understand the dimensions of ego can be a useful thing - but on the basis of how Dyer defined this - I'd say he's using a steam roller where pinking shears would be more appropriate.
Vaughn
Positive
I don't have time to properly attack this entire thing today, but I can't help myself. I simply have to say something on the subject (ego much? probably).
I think ego is a positive force, to a point.
As far as your quoted list goes...
Hm. I think some of that is flat out wrong. And I think some of it is only partially right. And I think a few are 100% right on.
Why? What is false about ego? If we are to believe Dictionary.com's definition (not that believing dictionary.com is a must. Just sayin', that's where I'm coming from), then I find absolutely nothing wrong, or false about "ego". Dictionary says that ego is...
What's false about "I"? My self is not false. Unless all that I am is inherently nothing without the approval of others. While I find Existentialism interesting, I don't find it necessary to be validated by another source before I approve my own worth (although, as I write that, I think about my own blog, and I wonder how honest I am actually being).
My initial response to this is, "So what?" I was brought up to fear collectivism, so I see anything that brings forward (at least) an opportunity to teach about separateness as, if nothing else, a good teaching opportunity. It is perfectly okay to recognize your self (I separate that word on purpose) as a separate entity from "the populous". I believe that we are all interconnected, of course, and I am a firm believer in balance, and respect. But I do not believe that I am a rock. Or a wolf. Or a sea anemone. I am me.
Maybe. I don't see a problem with that either, though. I don't think (for even one second) that I'm any more special than any other person. But I do think we are *all* special. Very special. And to convince ourselves otherwise is dishonest, and (to me) reeks of subjugation by a primary source (outside of our "self," or, "ego").
I don't know that that's true. I was ready to accept it on the terms that to offend something is to insult, or disrespect it. But if you respect yourself, you will inherently act out of respect for the rest of the human race, and in so doing, you are incapable of offending ego. But on the other hand, to "be offended" is to expect others to act according to one rule or another (for example, to act against social mores will offend some traditionalists). And I think that those who respect themselves and their humanness will agree that there is no way to logically expect any other human to understand, or agree with all (or any) social mores. So on that point... I think the statement, in and of itself, is valid. Ego is ready to be offended. It is sure of itself, and is not afraid to stand up for the respect that it is owed. But in order for the offense to actually happen, one must work hard for it, I think.
That's an outright lie. Ego and cowardice are antonyms. It takes far more courage to be "I" than any other thing I can imagine. To become one of the fold, or to fall in line with what "everybody else" believes (to walk off a cliff, because everybody else is doing it) would be far, far easier than standing up and saying "no".
Consumption of what? Not consumption of external strokes, certainly. We become full of righteous ego by creating wonderful things, and recognizing their wonder. If to create wonder, we consume materials... Well that's the way of the world. But it doesn't take force, or pain, or theft, or destruction to create beauty and wonder. It takes ingenuity, desire, drive, and ego.
I disagree. I think that one who acts as though they are something they are not is not full of ego. I think they are full of bluff and bluster. Full of false bravado. Full of hot air. Full of crap. Not righteous confidence.
Now... None of this is to say that I think that ego is a great idea in excess. Most of those who believe that they can stop the motor of the world are wrong. They're inflated with the sense of being a very big fish in a very small pond, when they are not even big enough to be a small fish in a very large pond. I think self honesty is important, and in fact, is wholly necessary in the development of ego (which I think Dr. Dyer has muddled with a sort of bullying pretension that I don't think has a name, but which I've seen in several people who others might call "egotistical," but whom I don't think are anything of the sort).
-Wolfie
Reading list
Wolfie,
Your post is interesting. I would love to see what you would have to say in response to Eckhart Tolle's book, "A New Earth." If you have the time and inclination, I think you might find it a fun read, and I'd love to see your thoughts afterwords. In fact, I'd venture to say that your post is almost like a worksheet for describing Tolle's thoughts on the ego. I think he presents his thinking with clarity and depth of understanding. Perhaps you will see it differently than I. (Or maybe your ego will see it differently than mine does! )
- NonE
Oooh, books! nom nom nom
A New Earth, eh? I'll check it out, and let you know when I have read it. :) Thanks!
Dyer
This is totally off topic, but then, what would you expect from me?
All of my recent interactions with Wayne Dyer via National Socialist Wallscreen have made my skin crawl. He's smarmy and self-righteous and ... well, that's insulting enough. I enjoyed some things he wrote long ago, but now all he does is preach and does so with condescension in his demeanor. (preach and condescension are redundant, aren't they?) His arrogance offends me. Err... I feel a sense of ... well, I'm out of practice at Non-Violent Communication. I might oughta take this as a message.
That's probably my ego speaking (to desperately try and make this post some-how-or-other relate to the topic.)
- NonE
addendum: Speaking of Wayne Dyer and ego, anyone who places the word "doctor" before his name for other than notification of his field of study and/or practice is an example of the ego's attempt to raise one's self up by putting others down. This is not the action of one who is comfortable with himself and loving towards others.
A brief (FAPped) reply ...
Vaughn! I am positively delighted to hear from you again—I put on some Tom Waits the other day, which always sets me to wondering how you are.
Before I address your—or anyone’s—comments on the subject, I should make it clear that I didn’t intend for the conversation to become a Dyer-bashing fest. I included his seven points because I’d mentioned some of them in my book review, and that was my most recent exposure to a more formal presentation of ego and its functioning.
I’m not familiar with that book; I read Your Erroneous Zones and Pulling Your Own Strings and found each quite useful. But, like your book, those are deep in his history now.
One might reasonably think or hope that such phrases would be found in the supplementary text that spans his 9.5 pages of discussion, but I just checked again—and they aren’t there. Many more declarations too (some of which might suprise one based on these seven statements).
What a beautifully apt way of expressing it! You are spot on. Perhaps in the not too distant future we can converse more about zen and buddhism here ...
Quoth the Wolfie:
Dyer’s schtick is that we have a sacred self, a “God force” that is eternal, and is our true self. He ties the ego to the physical self (but doesn’t really explain why), and that’s why it’s false.
That was one philosophy I actually read a little about way back ... it was a short-lived infatuation, though. And I know you know there are lots of levels and sources of validation, and they aren’t all equal, so with that in mind I don’t think you’re dissembling.
I don’t have the time nor inclination to amplify each of his seven points, but if you—or anyone else—would like to borrow the book to read it for oneself, I’d be happy to share it.
Dyer explains this in the next sentence,thus: “Your ego thrives on convincing you that you are separate from God.”
Good points. The line between well-earned and fully justified self-confidence and “egotistical” seems to be one of those that shifts depending upon who’s observing/judging whom.
From NonE.:
It’s interesting that you bring this up—I was struck, as I was creating the accompanying book list for the Salon review, that every one of Dyer’s books for adults features a photo of him on the front.
Ooooooh
Said the Sunni...
*face dawns with enlightenment* And upon that bone, I cannot argue. Unfortunately for me, I think I've (once again) found myself in a conversation where I don't belong. I know nothing about God Forces. I suppose, before I went and responded at all, it would have been a good idea to read the book and discern the context myself. D'oh!
I'll not admit to bashing Dyer though. I don't know him or his books at all (obviously). :)
I disagree
Your responses to his 7 characteristics broadened my thinking about ego some; and if you had waited to read the book first, they would’ve been quite different. So that makes two of us who’ve benefited from your contribution here.
Et In Arcadia Ego
Three. :-)
Confession: I feel like that almost all the time here. Which is why it took me so long to register, and why I don't post many comments. But I'm going to barge in, uneducated hick style, and blurt out some ideas anyway, because my ego needs exercise. Anyway, with the warning that I haven't read Freud, have never heard of Dyer, and haven't even yet clicked on the link to Sunni's review...
Two things. One, it's the sense of self as distinct from non-self. (But I don't think about that much, because I've got only a faint understanding of what it feels like to have that distinction break down.) And two, it's the sense of self-worth, which often seems either too large or too small or both simultaneously, in myself and apparently in many other people.
Well, that leads right into the question of how do you judge what is the right level of the sense of self-worth. I can't figure out the right level for myself, but I'm more than happy to tell you if someone else is an egomaniac. That makes sense, doesn't it? :-)
I think this ties in with "All men are created equal". There's no objective and/or widely-recognized guideline to weigh the value of one soul against another. So Jefferson & Co advise us to treat everyone as if they were worth the same, and although this is given as political advice, it's probably good personal advice too, for anyone who is feeling tiny and worthless, or big and important.
It oughtn't to be necessary to be "validated by another source," and maybe somewhere out there, there is a Buddha/Galt who can dispassionately and accurately judge his own self-worth. But it's really nice to get reaction from other people. It's like a navigational aid. Maybe it's what remains of our flock/herd/school instinct -- if no one individual has all the knowledge needed to make a sound judgement, then maybe the rest of the herd can provide some guidance.
I suppose that sounds anti-individualistic. But valuing your self isn't quite the same as valuing your self-made sculpture or your personal ditch-digging ability. In the latter cases we're happy to let the whole herd (the free market) value our products or services. For self-worth valuation, we can be more selective about whose opinions we consider. My wife, a few good friends, some family members, some respected people alive and dead who I know only through their writings -- that's about it for me. (In theory. In reality, it's hard to ignore the fact that "the herd" doesn't respect my political/philosophical ideas, my religion (or lack thereof), or my career (ditto). Herd instinct, yuck.)
Ah, a distinction between the immortal soul and the physical body. Gosh, I don't think I've ever heard that concept before! :-)
But, you know, when I'm feeling stressed about mortality, trying to grasp how my consciousness and my ego might not exist beyond some future timepoint, sometimes I tell myself a comforting story. You've heard that line about "My whole life flashed before me." Suppose that is a glimpse of what's eternal. If only we weren't distracted by being alive, by the passage of time, that's how our lives would appear to us, as a timeless 4-dimensional whole. And (extending the comforting story well into science-fiction), suppose my own 4-D life isn't a separate thing, but just an inflated balloon in a network: threaded back to my parents via a free-living sperm and egg; wrapped around my earthly acquaintances; linked indirectly to my near and distant cousins, to the chimps and gorillas, the trees and the pond scum, and by the thinnest of threads to the rocks and air and dark matter and black holes, one big big web of... something.
If that's what my "insane" ego is preventing me from seeing...? Well, as I said, it's a comforting story.
Have you ever?
Have you ever had the experience of watching yourself and saying (to yourself), Wow, that's interesting... why am I acting this way? The first time it happened to me it was astounding. I was being a total ass about something or other, and WHILE I was being this ass, another part of me was watching the performance and saying to itself, "Damn, you're really being an ass. I wonder what that's all about?" And at the same time the part of me that was being an ass continued right on with his performance. But I was never quite the same afterwards, as I was aware that I could be aware of myself as if an uninterested observer.
The reason that I bring this up is that most of what I've read here on the ego seems to miss the point. If you can relate at all to the scenario I've painted above, it is the observer who is the real me, and the ego who is being the ass. (Please don't worry, I'm not so advanced that there is any hope that I'll stop being an ass on a regular basis.)
It's kinda like the ego is the story we've told ourselves about ourselves, while the real us is a disinterested observer. We are always there, but so often we don't even know it because the ego is putting on this HUGE god damned show and being a total drama queen.
It's really great when you can see your own ego (as it is often so easy to see another's) and just relax and let it melt away into it's own insignificance. I obviously have not perfected this practice but to be fair, the fact that I'm aware of it is a huge step along the way.
- NonE
For me ...
I had a similar sort of revelation, but it was more focused on judgment (I wasn’t being an ass at the time). I noticed I could observe my self,and critique my behavior or attitude ... and thus was born my Inner Voice. For the longest time, though, it didn’t even point me toward something I wanted to become—it was focused on an unattainable perfection. Nowadays it’s hard for me to sidestep that self-questioning of which you spoke.
It wasn't focused.
I must say that my experience was not one of being "focused" on perfection or anything else. Instead, it was simply an observer without judgement. For whatever that's worth.
- NonE
addendum: As I look at the above it appears confusing. I mean to say that while I observed that the behavior was "assish," I was not in judgement of myself, but rather was looking at it (at myself and the behavior) as a curiosity, kind of going, "Isn't that interesting. I wonder what that is all about."
Hmmph.
What? I submit that anyone who can come up with a subject like yours is not an “uneducated hick”; he can hold his own on a wide range of subjects. [Besides, you’re the first person—including me—to directly answer my question. That always earns bonus points.]
Your answer is intriguing, Mr. Bill. Particularly regarding the self-worth component, I wonder how a traditionally-raised Chinese individual might differ from us egotistical Westerners. And no, you don’t sound anti-individualistic; it seems to me you understand well the complexities between individual, and group dynamics. You’ve given me a few things to ponder; thank you.
Cultivating the inner hick
Well, shucks, ma'am, that's durn nice o' you. :-)
But about that "disinterested observer" or "Inner Voice" thing: yup, I've got that too. It had a few things to say to me while I was writing my "Et In Arcadia Ego" post, e.g. You're just showing off with that subject line, aren't you? and What's with the "poor dumb hick" stuff when you know damn well you're not writing like one?
Heh. Yeah, the observer can be a real pain in the butt.
I think the observer is something that comes with maturity. (I don't mean that as a wholly positive thing. Gray hairs and ulcers come with maturity too.) I think -- I hope -- that most reasonably self-aware adults have some of this. Wolfie obviously does: it's all over her post above:
But I think I've got to partially disagree with NonEntity here:
I think that both personality-fragments are part of the "real me". I can't really trust my observer to be impartial; it has a rather self-deprecating attitude. My wife has often complained about her own observer, which is like a composite of all the disapproving people she's ever known, a real wet-blanket. I can't believe that this is the "real her", and all her enthusiasm and creativity is just false ego.
So my working hypothesis (as of ten minutes ago, when I figured it out) is that, in the general case, this split is between the "do-er" personality fragment and the "reconsider-er" fragment. In some people that will divide up as "drama queen" vs "disinterested observer", in others it might be "enthusiast" vs "wet blanket", etc., but both are parts of the "real" self.
And... uh, didn't Captain Kirk run into a problem with this once, thanks to a transporter malfunction?
You hick!
Hey there Mr. Bill,
I see what you're saying and I understand the point you are making, and all that I can say is that the observer you speak of is not the one to which I refer. I, of course, may be totally full of shit. It happens often. But I think I'm talking about a different form of consciousness here. But whatever, I'm glad you're here poking holes in things and generally trying to foment trouble. We need more stirring of the shit to make life fun and exciting! ;-)
- NonE
My answer to the question
It’s interesting to me that, even though I asked the question well outside of an academic context, I cannot seem to get my mind to wander beyond that area when considering my question. Even so, Mr. Bill’s response yesterday helped some pieces to fall into place better, so here I go.
When I first encountered Freud’s model of personality (id, ego, and superego), it was presented somewhat derisively; and, picking up on that, I adopted that position too. It helped that I was strongly attracted to the humanist approach of Carl Rogers, which cast the ego very differently than Freud did.
But a few more years of experience, and introspecting more deeply, led me to question my dismissal of Freud to some degree. I discovered that I had pushed some memories out of my awareness; but they persisted in lower levels (what he would label “the unconscious”), and moreover, from there they still influenced my life in significant ways. I still am not fond of some of the implications “unconscious” holds for me and likely others; so I use the much more cumbersome, but more accurate “below conscious awareness”—because what’s there may influence us without our knowing, and it can enter into our awareness more directly, if we’re willing to take the risks associated with uncovering what’s in there.
Okay, so here’s my current take on ego: it is a dynamic and (usually) slowly-evolving construct of one’s self. It can include both past aspects of one’s way of being, as well as goals for self-improvement; and in part because of this, many people have elements of a Critic, a Disinterested Observer, and an Aspirer. Some individuals’ selves are highly dependent upon others’ evaluations, even casual acquaintances, while some seem impervious to almost all outside judgment. Some individuals are more aware of all this than others; some find their selves more malleable than others; and while usually awareness helps aid change, the overlap between those two groups is not as great as it might at first seem.
Is that so broad that it’s useless?
and another thing...
Hi Sunni,
Took some time to look back at this post and the comment thread - saw something and just wanted to comment.
Your use of the word 'construct' in the post above might allow me more simply to describe the utility (to me) of what's usually referred to as 'zen buddhism'. It was/is a means - one of many - to examine this 'construct'. Eternally hopeful - I always figure that if I can take something apart, and then put it back together - I might be able to make it 'work'. (McLuhan says - "if it works, it's obsolete"!)
So - aspects of this 'zen buddhism' are to me a type of calisthenics to aid in the viewing of this 'construct'. I again stress - I've never congregated under the label - only studied old texts.
Here's an online example of an early collection of koans - word puzzles - cognitive exercises - that's considered a basic starting point: It's commonly called "The Gateless Gate".
Not everyone wants to jump down the rabbit hole you've pointed towards when you brought up this question of 'ego' - but it probably is one of the most longstanding rabbit holes of the human condition!
Later in this thread NonEntity offers some quotes from a book called "Mindfulness in Plain English". This part caught my eye:
"Buddhism as a whole is quite different from the theological religions with which Westerners are most familiar. It is a direct entrance to a spiritual or divine realm without addressing deities or other 'agents'. Its flavor is intensely clinical, much more akin to what we would call psychology than to what we would usually call religion. It is an ever-ongoing investigation of reality, a microscopic examination of the very process of perception."
This part of the quotes works for me. The very next sentence sets off the warning bells for me:
"Its intention is to pick apart the screen of lies and delusions through which we normally view the world, and thus to reveal the face of ultimate reality."
"The screen of lies and delusions" - a wide brushstroke. "Ultimate reality" - the hair begins to rise at the back of my neck! Pardon my saying - but the Vipassana Meditation(tm) folks have something to sell - and they'd even like one to congregate. I notice that it's over the details of what they present that a bit of discord comes into the thread. The 'bait and switch' tactic of some spiritual groups is a whole 'nother topic - but I'm glad to see it received a strong visceral reaction here.
Organised Buddhism is as vulnerable to corruption as any other spiritual organisation - and there are hoardes of people who willingly clank coins into their respective coffers. That is not the buddhism I've been speaking of.
Sunni - I jokingly call myself an amateur anthropologist - it seems the best way I know to describe some of my most intense interests. I'm always interested in the various platforms one could utilise to view this 'construct'. This thing called 'zen buddhism' is just one of many platforms.
Methodologies
P.N.O. sed:
I'm not sure that I see the connection. Is not the methodology of the science the same? I cannot imagine anything wrong with seeking to find clarity and deeper understanding. As I am reading the material I pointed to, it appears that the author is promoting a process by which one may gain greater clarity. He is not promoting any given ideas. At least, if he is, I've not gotten to that part yet, and I would not be blindly accepting ANY ideas from anyone, so if you think that is my message, I've failed to be clear. If
youone is looking for another to provide the answers to life's questions it would seem to me a guarantee of insufficiency at the very least. For unless one has done the examination one's self, how can one begin to know whom to trust with one's soul, or whatever you want to call it? There simply is no other way than to examine the world for one's self.That, it seems to me, is the message.
- NonE
P.S. Love your nym name!
re: methodologies
NonE - the primary issue I took with the quote were the words "ultimate reality". That is a tall order - I can only take words at their meaning - so an "ultimate reality" certainly implies the be all and end all of... well, everything.
I'm more of an opinion that 'the more one learns - the more one discovers that there is to learn'. Ultimate reality implies a stopping place in learning/being. (unless what I just said was The Ultimate Reality!)
I didn't think you were blindly accepting ideas - I took the quotes as supplemental material - an example.
You say:
"As I am reading the material I pointed to, it appears that the author is promoting a process by which one may gain greater clarity. He is not promoting any given ideas."
I differ on this with you - but this may just be semantics. I'm more inclined to think that every communication does involve the presentation of ideas. As example - using that sentence I found 'troublesome'.
"Its intention is to pick apart the screen of lies and delusions through which we normally view the world".
As I'd said earlier - a wide brushstroke - assuming and implying many things. I suspect that it is a screen of many things through which one might view 'the world' - lies and delusions very likely being a part of that - but not necessarily being the primary elements.
A common notion in some eastern spiritualities is sometimes referred to as "duality". I took a quick look for a supplemental link for this and at first glance - the Wikipedia definition at least offers some of the varying views of what this is. What I find more of note is all the various interpretations of duality there.
I'll give a quick but incomplete version of definitions of duality as it's sometimes been presented to me. Duality is the sense of viewing the "I" or the "ego" as something separate from 'the world at large'. Duality might be my not getting that I'm inextricably a part of a greater whole. Duality might be my not perceiving that "I" and my "ego" do comprise a whole.
I could go on with that - but my point really is that the notion of "duality" can be applied much like card tricks that rely on elimination of groups and individual cards to arrive at - "the card you picked". Something the 'mark' in that sort of card trick doesn't always notice is that there's not always a clear correlation between the cards they select - and what the handler does with those cards - i.e. - discard or leave as part of the pot.
Something that's interesting about some approaches to religions or spiritualities is that they both present or create schisms or dissonance - and they also advertise to resolve schisms and dissonance.
That earlier sentence about the lies and delusions of the world seems a schism inducing way of putting the matter - yet ostensibly the goal is integration - wholism. At least that's what I'd interpret "ultimate reality" to mean.
Here's a conjecture on my part... zen buddhism could in some ways be seen as a response to traditional Buddhism - as it traveled from India with its vedic roots. Doctrines of duality had become entrenched in the mainstream and the goal of zen buddhism was to confront these dissonances - particularly as presented in mainstream. To go 'beyond' - the idea was to become adept at the conundrum of duality - rather than that to use it as in the card tricks I referenced above.
I felt - in that earlier quoted sentence - that a dissonance was introduced arbitrarily - and that dangling "ultimate reality" after that was the equivalent of "the card you picked".
Ultimately...
P.N.O.
Just saw your post. Thanks. Yes, I understand your position and don't really have any problems with it, I don't think.
Let me say that I think part of the disconnect is that I was not intending to promote that particular form of Buddhism or meditation when I pointed to the book. The reason I pointed to the book was that I found the introductory material to be well presented as to the discussion of ego and the whole person. There seems to be a sense in the general discussion here that the ego and the person are one and the same. Or that is the sense I'm getting. I don't have that experience. I am able to stand aside (metaphorically as it were) and watch myself, or watch my ego, in action. The one who is watching is not the same as the one who is running away on his ego trip.
The description this book has was, I thought, particularly good at helping describe the process of making that mental separation and in so doing, helping the reader to grasp that the ego is not all there is to the person.
I hope that may give some clarity to my intent and meaning in the post.
- NonE
Let me add that I often find wonderful bits of wisdom in places where I have serious disagreements with other ideas. Ayn Rand is an example. I have major problems with her thinking and yet at the same time I think she was hugely beneficial in getting a lot of people to see the world from a perspective they'd never had their eyes open to before. So just because I point to something and say I find it interesting or of value does not mean that other things which are connect with or even perhaps follow from the ideas I point to, are things with which I agree.
Paraphrasing you, I think, the more I learn, the more I realize how very, very little I know. At the rate I'm going, if I study as hard as I can for as long as I can I may end up knowing nothing at all!
Worth a read
A friend sent me this link to an interview with Eckhart Tolle. I'm finding the ideas to be extremely well expressed. Anyone who is interested in this thread may want to check this article/interview out.
- NonE
The very Process of Perception
I've commented upon Tolle's "A New Earth." In looking over the readers' comments on Amazon, one person pointed to this book, Mindfulness in Plain English, and I chased it down. Here are a couple of quotes which some may find of interest. The entire book is available as a free PDF.
From page 4 (Introduction):
(emphasis mine)
From page 23:
Nice word that: Choice.
- NonE
Choice?
I don't seem to be following well here. This strikes me as a call to the collective, the hive, the borg.
I spent a number of years in serious contemplative life, and the connection was never about our unique contributions as individuals, but simply a melding into the collective... which is one of the big reasons I left that life.
In the beginning I thought I needed to make that connection, but found it was deadly to my individuality.
We are created as individuals, with individual experiences and histories. I can empathize or sympathize and attempt to understand other individuals with all my heart, but that can never change the fact that I am unique and sovereign to myself. I think that is right, good and as it should be.
Ah the dichotomy of it all.
Take note, Mama, the very idea of choice confirms that the individual is making that choice.
And may I point out that the sense I get from your posts about your new home in Wyoming is one of community with others, others who respect individuality.
As we used to say in a different time and place, "It's a real mind fuck, isn't it?" (Id'a said it another way, but I couldn't think of a better way to say it.)
- NonE
Community
I still don't get it. To be part of the community of sovereign individuals here, making choices to work together voluntarily - or do things on their own - does not require that I discard the "me" and "I" at all. The contention (as I understand it) is that the me and I are somehow false or unnecessary - or should be merged into some cosmic "connectedness," per what you have quoted here.
That is what I object to.
There is no other possible "me" or "I" except the one that forms through my experiences, my thoughts, and my preferences. I can contemplate my navel, other people's navels, or do anything else at all - and it will influence that "me," of course, but only from my unique perspective.
We can't really get outside of ourselves, except perhaps if we deny our very existence as individuals. We can certainly let others in, to some extent, but we see them through our own eyes, not theirs.
I guess the difference is that I do not find that to be a problem. Do you?
Don't discard anything
I'm not asking you to discard anything. I'm simply suggesting that there is more to who we are than the image our ego has of ourselves. It's a "Yes... and," not a "Yes, but..."
- NonE
There is a big difference
There is a big difference between seeking to better ourselves and calling what/who we are "false." Of course there is "more" than just my self, but my "self" is the only basis I have for understanding or adopting that "more."
I'm all for broadening my horizons and learning whatever life brings me. But I accept and appreciate who I am in order to do that.
This other at least borders on self hate, which is terribly destructive. I've been dealing with the consequences of that in myself and my patients/clients for a very long time. This self hate/distrust is the breeding ground for all sorts of mental/emotional ills and physical disease.
I began to heal when I was able to forgive and love myself as I am - an ever changing, ever growing person who will never reach perfection.
Alas,
The depth of your anger is a thing to behold.
- NonE
No Comment
NonEntity, given the positive content and searching tone of Mama's comment, I find your accusation that she is full of anger to be completely unjustified.
It's just a comment. To
It's just a comment.
To say that having an open mind and being inquisitive borders on self hate...
I don't find that meaningful dialog.
- NonE
It isn’t meaningful
But I don’t think it’s accurate, either. I’m having problems finding, much less following, any thread of ideas through these recent exchanges, in part because of the abundance of vague relative pronouns.
But, in order to try to bring something of value to the conversation, I’ll highlight this:
and observe that is precisely what I was trying to express in my ramble on the tyranny of self.
Not angry
I'm not angry. My comments were directed strictly to the idea that our "self" was somehow false, and to the concept that we must somehow all be "connected" in some cosmic sense (Buddhist meditation style) to have any validity.
Please forgive me for attempting to discuss anything with you. I should know better by this time. I won't make that mistake again. :(
Growing
Yes! You need to start somewhere in the never-ending search for improvement, and where can that be if not from yourself?
Alan Watts "I'ing"
This is a snippet of a talk Alan Watts gave wherein he points out that the ego is not "I." You may find it of interest to contemplate. This is a part of much larger talk and that is part of a larger series of talks, so this is taken out of context, but I don't have the time nor inclination to transcribe the entire thing. But I think it does help to open the door to the idea that the ego is nowhere near the totality of the "I."
- NonE
Another view on the "I" distinct from the ego
Thanks to (I think it was) Sunni, I've RSS subscribed to Arthur Janov's blog where this morning's nibble into his mind presented another perspective on viewing the "I" separate from the ego. I point it out for those who may find this view more revealing.
- NonE
And another...
from another of Janov's posts (discussing the difference between consciousness and awareness, similar to Eckhart Tolle's, Alan Watt's, Buddha's, etc. ideas, yet framed in a different mindset):
see the entire post for greater context...
- NonE
Janov and Watts
I’m (barely) familiar with Janov’s blog, so I doubt that I deserve the credit for pointing you there.
And as a result of a recent used-bookstore prowl, I now have two books by Alan Watts awaiting my attentions: The Wisdom of Insecurity and In My Own Way. As others are higher in my queue, I’d be willing to lend them out, if anyone’s interested.
My humble apologies to Jorge
You're right, Sunni, it was Jorge who led me into the mind of Janov. Thanks, Jorge!
- NonE
Taking a Trip
Some may find this of interest and/or pertinent to Sunni's original inquiry:
Taking A Trip Through The Brain,
Exploring the 8-Circuit Model of Consciousness
by James Leroy Wilson
March 12, 2009
- NonE