projected your ego driven self into words.
On Aug 28, 11:16 pm, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Vam, we are in agreement. The ego isn't real.
>
> On Aug 28, 12:27 pm, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> 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 <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com>
> > 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 <atewari2...@gmail.com> 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 <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> 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 <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Complexity is never a reason to shut our eyes, i wouldn't have
> > > > > > thought...
>
> > > > > > On Aug 27, 3:13 pm, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Relativism and deconstructionism do lead one into the depths of the
> > > > > > > well of disillusionment.
>
> > > > > > > On Aug 26, 10:50 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> 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 <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Hahahah yes Rigsy I find I can't disagree with you here at all. Makes
> > > > > > > > > a change huh!
>
> > > > > > > > > On Aug 26, 2:40 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Yes, Lee. A sense of fairness and right/wrong seems to kick in
> > > > > > > > > > naturally in very young children- even more remarkable when you think
> > > > > > > > > > what they are up against re adults and their siblings, but then the
> > > > > > > > > > "teaching" begins "in earnest" via family, education, religion,
> > > > > > > > > > society. Most often, humans adapt to standards and expectations
> > > > > > > > > > because they assume it's safer and easier- they can work out the
> > > > > > > > > > conflicts with a therapist later on. :-)
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Aug 26, 4:49 am, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Obvioulsy I have to strongly disagree with that. Anybody who thinks
> > > > > > > > > > > that morality comes from religion is not thinking straight.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > My own morality was there long before I even heard of deity, and the
> > > > > > > > > > > same is true for all of us. Yes yes of course religious faith may
> > > > > > > > > > > colour or change ones morality, but then what does not? Culture does,
> > > > > > > > > > > the epoch we live in does, nationality does, even age.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 5:52 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > A guy called Max Stirner wrote an odd book with the intent to outline
> > > > > > > > > > > > what being free of religion might mean. Rigsby's professor seems
> > > > > > > > > > > > unaware of how old his ground is in more recent debate than the
> > > > > > > > > > > > Greeks. My own view is that religion more or less cripples morality,
> > > > > > > > > > > > both intellectually and in its practical horrors. The weakness
> > > > > > > > > > > > involved in believing or pretending to believe twaddle hardly shows
> > > > > > > > > > > > moral character. Ethics are what lawyers have - rules to protect
> > > > > > > > > > > > themselves at the expense of others. The best we can hope for is some
> > > > > > > > > > > > kind of fair-play. Our society is grossly immoral because so many
> > > > > > > > > > > > people cling to religious means to suppose others immoral on grounds
> > > > > > > > > > > > like active homosexuality and most varieties of
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comments:
Post a Comment