Leggo My Ego

my questions are simple enough if we choose to abandon all our ego-needs such as:
My name
My thread
My post
My thoughts
My life
My idea
My past
My wife/husband/kids
My house
My pain
My beliefs
My sharona
My situation
My feelings
My experiences
My money
My religion
My future
My body
My dream
My grief
My goals
My world
My truth
My opinion
My love
My philosophy
My death
My problem
what are we left with nothing. is enlightenment the absence of all these things? or can we have a happy medium?
namaste

reply to post by gaurdian2012


I certainly Do agree, the Ego can only hold one back from their true potential. The Wise man can often seA through foolishness for what it is anyhow. One with an ego looks kinda silly no? Maybe it's just me? Regardless, as long as one's ego is not directed at me 'personally' so Be him/her. They will learn the hard way or the soft way. I prefer the soft way; with Advice. To learn from the mistakes of 'others' is surely preferable to reriding the chariot of another.....off one's cliff.

reply to post by schrodingers dog


I am not quite sure i understand but i do get what you are saying as i have always preached on false identification of the self.
Seriously tho...if we had nothing to go on,we would have nothing to do,say,or think,unless we have personal experience which defines you as a human being.
People behave based on the experiences they have and not everybody has the same experiences...if you have no experience then what should i think and what would you think??

On a side note...egos are great with butter and syrup.
Leggo my ego!!


[edit on 1-9-2010 by DrumsRfun]

Originally posted by argentus

argentus,
i know you may have been joking around, but you do point out something i consider paradoxical.

my post,

et

let me re-phrase that. it could be read in a way i did not intend.

argentus,
i know you may have been joking around, but you brought up a point about the psychoanalytical theory i consider to be paradoxical.

the part of us that is unconsciously on auto-pilot, derived from instincts and dna, which is the Id.

hope this makes more sense and seems less abrasive,
et

[edit on 1-9-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]

Originally posted by gaurdian2012
my questions are simple enough if we choose to abandon all our ego-needs such as:
....
what are we left with nothing. is enlightenment the absence of all these things? or can we have a happy medium?
namaste

mirriam websters has yet to provide definitions for words to describe it i think. and if there is none of those things then:

"what are we left with nothing."

key word: we

the absence of "alone".

there are portions of our inner selves that are interconnected i think.
hidden in the Id, the source of psychic energies. a new empathy, as of yet undefined, and whole new acceptance and understanding of emotions, and emotions we do not have words for yet, imo.

i concede, i may be wrong. and i reserve the right to change this hypothesis pending further information my experiences and environment introduce me to.

[edit on 1-9-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]

WhewEE.....time to dis-connect.
Later folks.

[color=414141]^star for et please?

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

Think honestly for a second of how you react if your post gets a star, or if your thread gets a flag, or if a staff member is nice enough to applaud you.

i like getting stars very much. so much so that sometimes i even incorporate subliminal text right under the star bar to remind people i like them. (do not highlight this post).

why do i like the stars? god knows i can't collect the flags.

but, honestly, people star posts for different reasons, personal tastes.
and yes, stars on posts do make me feel like i may have accomplished something, even if it was only sharing a thought. it lets us know our posts are being read, and letting us know people are receptive to the ideas or thoughts we share.

stars,
et


p.s. : star?

Id, ego, and super-ego are the three parts of the psychic apparatus defined in Sigmund Freud's structural model of the psyche; they are the three theoretical constructs in terms of whose activity and interaction mental life is described. According to this model of the psyche, the id is the set of uncoordinated instinctual trends; the ego is the organised, realistic part; and the super-ego plays the critical and moralising role."

Even though the model is "structural" and makes reference to an "apparatus", the id, ego, and super-ego are functions of the mind rather than parts of the brain and do not necessarily correspond one-to-one with actual somatic structures of the kind dealt with by neuroscience.

en.wikipedia.org...

The ego is what keeps us together, allows us to survive, it functions in a positive and negative way. The biggest problem is not allowing it to get in the way of critical thinking, most who are ego driven have a hard time making the right decisons, it always goes back to "MY".

Thank you for another profound thread SD.

reply to post by Esoteric Teacher

your Id did it? But .... according to the theory of psychoanalytical theory, the Id is completely unconscious???

It seems somewhat clear to me that your id has different issues than mine; not necessarily worse or better, just different.

Mine chooses to define itself within context of my own experience, to the exclusion of others' definitions.

Besides, the id club has stringent rules and perilously high dues. Frankly, I just can't afford it.

reply to post by argentus


outstanding response. however, allegedly we share more than 99.7% of the same dna, the same instinctual patterns.

so the margin of difference with the Id must lie within the 99.7+% of our internal mechanisms which are .... dare i say .... identical.

[edit on 1-9-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]

reply to post by Esoteric Teacher


i meant to quote part of that post. instead i totally edited it by mistake.

what was originally there was the dictionary definition of Id according to webster and how i think it doesn't make too much sense for the Id to be "completely unconscious".

sorry for that goof up. i got to step away for a few. busy house stuff.


sorry about that blunder,
et

reply to post by Esoteric Teacher


Surely our unconscious desires, dreams, aversions and whims are more predicated upon unique and personal learned behaviors and other subjective experience than mere DNA?

Do apes dream of sandy beaches and ice cold beer? I'm inclined to guess not -- at least unless they've enjoyed and then been deprived of the above. Neither do I, ET, but many of my furless peers seem to.

I think you touch upon the juxtaposition of the concept of "soul/spirit" in relation to the mechanisms of self-awareness.

OR, I could just be full of crap -- always a viable option.

That's all I could think of after reading your OP Sdog.

I think possessiveness is a natural trait that develops at about 2 years old. Think of the child that grabs something and yells "MINE".





[edit on 9/1/2010 by whatukno]

I think you make an excellent observation regarding the ego.

But the ego exists to cause us to temporarily own things.

And because we enjoy possessing, we personally hold onto these things.

For example, I have read many books. I love reading. The other night, I was looking in my closet and I saw a book that I read last summer.

I do not remember any names from that book. Why? Because I took from it what I needed and got rid of the rest. Why do I need to be able to regurgitate that book?

What I remember from that book in particular is that time travel is most certainly a ridiculous thing (if I didn't already realize this).

As well, what if I am to make a mistake? I made a thread the other day about the Western Night Sky thinking I saw a moving object.

And, in my reality, I DID... but the object is actually Messnier 5, a globular cluster 40 degrees counter-clockwise of the Big Dipper. I remember this because I felt like such a fool for thinking it was an independently moving object.

So I still have slight ownership of my mistake, because I have pointed it out. But now I can just let go of it because the mistake doesn't matter anymore. I have learned the truth of it and I don't even need to remember it is Messnier 5 from now on if I don't want to because it's simply useless to me (as far as I can tell).

The hypocrisy within me is astounding though.

I am known for being full of plenty of useless knowledge and trivia. I am known for dissecting the little things in life. My ego desires greatly to be satisfied. But at the same time, I have no problem being humiliated, being called wrong, being wrong, being the target of offense. I might feel bad for a second or two, but I get over it quickly because I immediately recognize the vanity for what it is.

What I mean to say is that we should be careful to think that we should completely ignore the ego. Yes, we should tame it, for sure...

But if we shut down the ego, then we will forget how to identify and have personal relationships. We might forget to take responsibility for our actions, claiming that the me of yesterday is not the me of today... but it is all the same day.

It's just that the me that has passed is never the me that is to come.

An interesting thought...

What if there is an ego that owns our "egos"? (Is it more accurate to say, "our sumus"?)

What if the ego is the means by which we spiritually communicate and we don't recognize the ego as the voice coming through the amplifier that is the hearing part of the brain which is the receiver/transmitter of all signals - from God, from other brains?

Hmm..

Well, I think if I continue to dissect, I'm gonna carve my way into the medulla oblongata. No way out there.

ok, i'm back.

Originally posted by argentus
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher

 

Surely our unconscious desires, dreams, aversions and whims are more predicated upon unique and personal learned behaviors and other subjective experience than mere DNA?

i really do enjoy the ATS dialogue better when the mods engage freely.
thank you for your participation in discussions. Mods should be free to enjoy their ATS, too.

but, that was a loaded question i was just asked. a simple yes or no is not really a logical option. there are many variables to consider, all of which are not always exact for all situations.

i have often been accused of having multiple posting styles. But, in my defense, i am not always speaking to the same individual, and i often do not post with everyone in mind. Many of my posts are targeted.
Sometimes i may be talking to a senior citizen war veteran, and other times i may be addressing a teenager. if i were to talk to either like they were the other, i might insult one, and lose the other in the intent of my words.

Surely our unconscious desires, dreams, aversions and whims are more predicated upon unique and personal learned behaviors and other subjective experience than mere DNA?

it depends upon how big or small the observer's ego is, among other variables as well, i think.

peoples' opinions are malleable. meaning in this context: capable of being altered or controlled by outside forces or influences

desires, dreams, aversions, and whims .... learned behaviors meaning: taught behaviors. aka: social engineering. aka:

Definition of SUPEREGO
: the one of the three divisions of the psyche in psychoanalytic theory that is only partly conscious, represents internalization of parental conscience and the rules of society, and functions to reward and punish through a system of moral attitudes, conscience, and a sense of guilt — compare ego, id
source: www.merriam-webster.com...

thousands of years ago mankind began to "domesticate" the wolf.
over the generations we managed to genetically engineer the wolf into the dog. then we used the dog to guard the sheep, effectively turning the wolf against the wolf.

who "domesticated" and/or "tamed" humanity?
who turned man against man?

rules of society, perhaps? and how many rules are there? can i hope to learn the number of them before i die? how many mandatory expectations (laws) does the super-ego (governments/religions) place upon every child?

Surely our unconscious desires, dreams, aversions and whims are more predicated upon unique and personal learned behaviors and other subjective experience than mere DNA?

it depends upon how big or small the observer's ego is, amongst other variables, i think. other variables being everyone elses egos, and their opinions, and how many of them i can incorporate/accomodate into my personal conscious experiences.

Do apes dream of sandy beaches and ice cold beer?

disregarding my ego for a moment, and all the labels and names and catagories, and boundries, and borders, and seperations that my ego serves to mediate between as i adapt to a changing reality...

i am a primate. i've been a primate far longer than i have been a human (if we account for all the dormant instincts in our completely unconscious Id). i am an ape. i dream. and at times i dream about things my conscious mind cannot accept, perhaps due to my ego.

my... um ... a dog that lives with me dreams. i may have some intuition as to what Fido dreams about, but he does dream. he barks more in his sleep than he does when he is awake, a lot more. i hear him bark during his waking hours maybe once every two weeks. but he barks every night when he sleeps. his paws and legs moving like he is running. his tail wags. but he is asleep. dreaming about beer and sandy beaches? i don't think so, but i may be wrong.

can either of us claim with absolute certainty that we know what all our dreams mean? do we know what it is we are dreaming about?

I think you touch upon the juxtaposition of the concept of "soul/spirit" in relation to the mechanisms of self-awareness.

OR, I could just be full of crap -- always a viable option.

that second sentence says a lot about one's character. the strength to admit we may be wrong, but only because of our accumilated experiences, and our interpretation of what they mean to us, and to others.

we are living our autobiographies.

argentus,
your life is your autobiography. a book without pages. i can only help proof read your autobiography, but ultimately you are the editor.

esoteric teacher,
my life is my autobiography. a book without pages. others can only help proof read my autobiography, but ultimately i am the editor.

tptb use psyops. tptb use neuro linguistic programming. tptb use social engineering tactics. there may be more than the "generalizations" of ego, super-ego, and Id. the cyber-ego that is our ATS is a relatively new entity to enter the fray of our human experience. an interesting time to be experiencing the human conditions.

i'll give what you said some more thought. but these are just some of my thoughts about that doozy of a question you asked me. i have been know to be wrong in the past. i have been known to be "over-analytical" at times, also. and i reserve the right to claim i have been absolutely incorrect about any of the ideas i have shared in this post pending future information my senses and experiences provide me with. in other words:

I could just be full of crap -- always a viable option.

i would quote the above according to the copyright laws and plagiarism, but that would only serve to empower the ego, and the superego. both of which i do not always agree with. especially if they are being used by tptb to supress my Id, the source of psychic energies. aka: my/our/your fullest potentials.

and i don't own words, and words do not own me. (i think?)

thanks,
et



edited to fix a few spelling errors, change the word "you" to something else in a few places. and add two sentences.

[edit on 1-9-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]

reply to post by schrodingers dog


Thank You for the post. I wish there were more. Maybe you've heard of Eckhart Tolle, it sure sounds like it. Or maybe just "Eastern Philosophies".

I have been immersing myself (SELF LOL) into getting back into the concepts of being aware of the Ego and thoughts, and remembering the present moment.

It helps greatly in my interactions with others and the world seems to get smaller when I stop listening to the madness.

I feel though that the search for truth and "denial of ignorance' should still be maintained, even if it becomes a cerebral entity.

Buddha also said something on the lines of "Believe no one, nothing, until you have confirmed it for yourself to be true". His version of denying ignorance?

A perfect society that I envision is one where ignorance is frowned upon yet being present and living a less ego driven life. Maybe one day, or maybe it is happening now. Maybe more threads about it will inspire others.

Thanks you for the thread

I think a good point is that there is nothing about "me" that does not change, except maybe awareness. I dont have the same thoughts, or the same body that I did as a child. These temporal things can't define "me", can they?
Here is one of many satsangs with Burt Harding on youtube.
If you haven't watched some of his videos, check him out

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by schrodingers dog

"A feeling of aversion or attachment toward something is your clue that there's work to be done." - Ram Dass

Many think that what Ram Dass means are things, like your home, job, car and even people, it is much more then that, thoughts are things, by our thoughts we set ourselves up for success or failure, more times then not for failure, it seems that when we are on the verge of something great we sabotage it with our thoughts without realizing it and end of blaming someone else. You all know that saying, becareful what you think, you may just get it.

First of all I want to say that I am in awe of the responses you nice (and very funny) people have shared thus far ... I am not ignoring them, I am at the moment just sitting silently with them and trying to formulate coherent expressions to respond.

And many of you give me too much credit and are way too kind ... I'm trying to communicate something that is actually simple but oh so difficult to put into words and convey. Words are approximations, describing concepts that they themselves are abstractions. So it is difficult to pinpoint what I'm trying to touch on with precision ... also waves dissipate as they flow farther from the origin, and since I am by no means the origin all I can do is attempt to amplify, and in the process often miss.

So I will take some time to put it all together and try to clarify the thought, but for now I just wanted to touch on a couple of elements that have been brought up.

The word "ego" is a indeed a very heavy one, it is heavy like "god" and other such concepts which through time have taken such an overwhelming nature, so far have they strayed from their original meaning, that they have become all but meaningless ... meaningless even for words.

As such, if you care to look at the OP once more, the only time I used the word "ego" is in the silly wordplays in the title and 'degonstruction.' Yet I probably shouldn't have used the word at all for it has to some degree become the overwhelming and rather unintended focus of this thread. This isn't really a problem per se, just lesson learned on this side.

It was not the intention to communicate that the ego should be thrown away, that it should be rejected, or that it is in any way unwanted. This process only touches on allowing things to just be without having to own them and the relief, lack of suffering, and peace that such a disposition often manifests as a result.

Think of it this way ... even the ego doesn't have to be MY ego.

If you observe it, you won't believe the amount of time and energy it takes to maintain such mental constructs, unnecessarily possessing one's thoughts and everything else, having to defend them because they belong to me, getting upset at others' thoughts because they aren't like mine ... I mean all that takes a whole bunch of effort to maintain, and that's just one thing, there are also others. (threads pending)

The point, such as it is, was in the depersonification off all 'things' in order to liberate them and you so that both may exist without personal resistance.

Anyhoot, I just wanted to briefly touch on that, and to thank you all for sharing 'your' thoughts ... seriously, thank you.


[edit on 1 Sep 2010 by schrodingers dog]

wow is this part of THE GAME???...how could i possibly tell somebody a story about my family without saying my family....that doesn't make any sense....am i suppose to say my wife's name and my daughter's name and assume that the person i am talking to automatically associates those names as being my wife and daughter...come on...this doesn't make any sense...