Enlightenment Finally

[Carl G]

David Quinn wrote:

The main difference and Gurdjieff and myself is that his aims were more limited.

How so? In what way?

[Dave Toast]

Give me an example of a non ego based emotion.

Come on Dan, you know there are examples of emotions which need not be necessarily ego based, whether clyde goes to great pains not to name one or not. Certain instances of disgust, for example.

You'd be far better off reiterating your definition of ego based emotions.

[Dan Rowden]

How is any form of disgust not ego based? Can you give an example?

[Dave Toast]

In the same way that eating need not be ego based. You know what I mean Dan, don't make me write an essay.

[Dave Toast]

For example, a starving buddha tries some hitherto unknow berry which turns out to be the most astringent berry in nature - reacts with disgust.

[Dan Rowden]

Oh, right, well, I don't accept that as an example of emotion. It's just a sensory response. I mean "disgust" as in moral disgust.

[David Quinn]

David Quinn wrote:

The main difference and Gurdjieff and myself is that his aims were more limited.

How so? In what way?

He didn't really attack the foundations of the ego enough. His understanding of reality was fairly undeveloped - that is, intuitive and henid-like, rather than fully conscious and comprehensive. His understanding of things never really developed beyond the mystical stage. His conception of what it meant to be "awake" was therefore limited. He got away with a lot simply by having a forceful personality.

Having said that, he did a lot of good in his life. Much of what he said, particularly when it came to the current state of humanity, was particularly effective. So I don't want come down too hard on him. I would place him in the same category as Osho - a mix of good and bad, stirred together by a waste of potential.

-

[maestro]

I think Gurdjieff will make the same point about you, that you have focused too much on the intellectual center, and neglected all else.

[David Quinn]

It is out of the intellectual centre that everything else comes. As Gurdjieff himself said, nothing can be done effectively without understanding.

-

[Carl G]

He didn't really attack the foundations of the ego enough. His understanding of reality was fairly undeveloped - that is, intuitive and henid-like, rather than fully conscious and comprehensive. His understanding of things never really developed beyond the mystical stage. His conception of what it meant to be "awake" was therefore limited. He got away with a lot simply by having a forceful personality.

Having said that, he did a lot of good in his life. Much of what he said, particularly when it came to the current state of humanity, was particularly effective. So I don't want come down too hard on him. I would place him in the same category as Osho - a mix of good and bad, stirred together by a waste of potential.

I don't believe you.

[maestro]

I found a quote by him in the Fourth way:

It is necessary to develop consciousness and this will bring with it the possibility of using better organs of perception and cognition. Without these centers we cannot do much and this is why philosophy is not of much use. It can invent certain theories and then it stops. It does not develop the higher centers which alone can understand the ideas fully. Philosophy does not touch them

Maybe that is the reason you have trouble in grasping his ideas as you have neglected the development of these higher centers.

[clyde]

Dan;

A quick search (See Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion .) lists 6 basic emotions: anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, and surprise. An infant, which cannot form a psychological or mental construct (that is, they cannot yet form an ego which I defined as a psychological or mental construct), may exhibit all 6 emotions.

But perhaps you do not accept that.

OK. What about the rest of my post?

And even if one accepts that all emotions are ego-based, there is no basis to believe that psychological and/or mental constructs will not arise in an enlightened person (Why wouldn't/couldn't they?), so even an (temporary) ego might arise which might be the basis for the arising of emotions. Finally, why project a 'perfection' on an enlightened person? How does that benefit you?

clyde

[Diebert van Rhijn]

A quick search (See Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion .) lists 6 basic emotions: anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, and surprise. An infant, which cannot form a psychological or mental construct (that is, they cannot yet form an ego which I defined as a psychological or mental construct), may exhibit all 6 emotions.

Yes, it's how you defined ego. But really an infant at the stage you're implying is nothing but identification and attachment with feelings, impressions and the 'extended body' including but not limited to the mother. A child is the center of its own diffuse universe and only mental development (including "realities of life") will force it to reconsider this unlimited egotism.

Later it develops a stronger ego which amongst other things causes more control over emotion and less attachment to the immediate environment, the breaking away from the mother. This is the normal development.

So it seems to me your assumption that a young infant 'cannot form a psychological or mental construct' is flat our wrong. It's just weaker and its attachments (and 'need') therefore stronger, its emotions louder and less complicated. To deal properly with this ego a way longer journey awaits ahead, not a crawling back into the womb. One cannot overcome the final remains of attachment and desire without first growing ego, stabilizing and ripening it - in itself already a rare event to behold.

[divine focus]

Yes and that is why I am skeptical of their grand claims that the emotions do not arise in them at all.

If you can show me an instance of any of us making this "grand" claim I will never post to GF again. Emotions don't/can't arise in a perfectly enlightened person; none of us have ever claimed to be such a person.

But you do claim to be knowledgeable about enlightenment, when in fact there is no demonstration of experience of the path from you or the other admins. I would suggest you and the others refrain from speaking of the subject at all. This way, you may become unattached to your views and experience some growth.

Give me an example of a non ego based emotion.

All emotion may be non-ego based.

A quick search (See Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion .) lists 6 basic emotions: anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, and surprise. An infant, which cannot form a psychological or mental construct (that is, they cannot yet form an ego which I defined as a psychological or mental construct), may exhibit all 6 emotions.

Yes, it's how you defined ego. But really an infant at the stage you're implying is nothing but identification and attachment with feelings, impressions and the 'extended body' including but not limited to the mother. A child is the center of its own diffuse universe and only mental development (including "realities of life") will force it to reconsider this unlimited egotism.

Later it develops a stronger ego which amongst other things causes more control over emotion and less attachment to the immediate environment, the breaking away from the mother. This is the normal development.

No. An infant has no ego as defined within spiritual development. He or she has only a predisposition to developing ego as a facilitator in the physical world. Infants are not identified or attached in the way ego is; they experience physical and psychological needs that may or may not be provided for by their environment. They are identified with all, but physically they are only a baby. The ego develops for physical self-sufficiency.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

An infant has no ego as defined within spiritual development.

Well, the call to become like a child means that we indeed 'attach' ourselves in a similar way as a child does to a womb or a mother but as developed spirit our womb becomes the wholeness of nature itself - it has become extended far beyond any earlier childhood dream about what we and our world constitutes.

The point is that ego is natural, it comes natural as we start to learn, to interpret and to experience. There's no enemy here unless not seen for what it is. Then it might run amok, lost as it is in its own hall or mirrors and mirror-images that are themselves needed to witness anything at all.

Infants are not identified or attached in the way ego is; they experience physical and psychological needs that may or may not be provided for by their environment. They are identified with all, but physically they are only a baby. The ego develops for physical self-sufficiency.

No, they're not identified with 'all' - they identify with their more immediate non-verbal world which is limited to reacting on surrounding and sensation. For them 'all' has become the mother, their food, fingers, toes or a shiny object. Don't confuse their inability to engage in more complex and far reaching identifications as a lack of identification. Infants don't embrace the world as a whole - they merely have reduced the world to be merely the vicinity of a 'womb' (its sound, smells, movements and food supply) and would experience this low definition world as 'all there is'.

If anyone still wants to insist a baby doesn't have an ego: raise a kid, or two! They're manipulating sobs from the get-go. Adorable of course too, that's another means to 'self-sufficiency', a way nature gave them to deal with reality: enchanting their care-takers into extra care and attention. For the child, it's all about the prospering of their being and nothing else. It comes all quite natural for the ego. Not a 'construct' that is made after lots of intellectual labor. Ego doesn't need the intellect to flourish, not at all. It only engages in over-intellectualizing as a means to subvert reason, any truthful reflection that could lift its robes.

Having said that, it might be clear that in my definition of ego there's no need to get 'rid' of it completely. It needs only to re-orientate - some call that death of ego but what is meant can also be called transformation of its functioning. Therefore I do agree with your description of it being part of self-sufficiency. Only that doesn't exclude the youngest infants - quite the opposite actually.

[David Quinn]

I found a quote by him in the Fourth way:

It is necessary to develop consciousness and this will bring with it the possibility of using better organs of perception and cognition. Without these centers we cannot do much and this is why philosophy is not of much use. It can invent certain theories and then it stops. It does not develop the higher centers which alone can understand the ideas fully. Philosophy does not touch them

Maybe that is the reason you have trouble in grasping his ideas as you have neglected the development of these higher centers.

These higher centers have long been explored by me. Anyone who begins to wake up from their slumber starts having mystical experiences and higher states of consciousness as a matter of course. It is very much a feature of initially breaking out of the rigid conceptual frameworks of one's upbringing and conditioning.

Yet such a stage is temporary for those who value truth above all else and who are constantly developing their minds away from ordinary consciousness.

If I were to create a scale in which ordinary consciousness has a value of 1 and fully-enlightened consciousness a value of 10, then I would place the higher centres that Gurdjieff talked about at around 2 or 3. It definitely represents progress from ordinary consciousness, but it is still a long way short of the ultimate goal.

This is probably my main gripe with someone like Gurdjieff. He focused too much on contrasting himself with ordinary folk (hence his constant talk of humanity being in a slumber) and paid too little attention on contrasting himself with absolute perfection.

-

[maestro]

If I were to create a scale in which ordinary consciousness has a value of 1 and fully-enlightened consciousness a value of 10, then I would place the higher centres that Gurdjieff talked about at around 2 or 3. It definitely represents progress from ordinary consciousness, but it is still a long way short of the ultimate goal.

And where would you, Kevin and Dan fall on this scale?

[clyde]

If anyone still wants to insist a baby doesn't have an ego: raise a kid, or two!

Diebert;

I have raised a child. It was (and remains) my observation and opinion that newborn infants do not have egos (are unable to form constructs), but do exhibit emotions. We may disagree on this point. My other points (to Dan) remain unaddressed.

clyde

[Tomas]

.

-david-
If I were to create a scale in which ordinary consciousness has a value of 1 and fully-enlightened consciousness a value of 10, then I would place the higher centres that Gurdjieff talked about at around 2 or 3. It definitely represents progress from ordinary consciousness, but it is still a long way short of the ultimate goal.




-maestro-
And where would you, Kevin and David fall on this scale?

David - 4.3

Dan - 3.9

Kevin - 5.7

Maestro - 1.9*


* - ADJUSTED FOR GRADE INFLATION :-)


.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I have raised a child. It was (and remains) my observation and opinion that newborn infants do not have egos (are unable to form constructs), but do exhibit emotions.

I'm not aware of any definition in psychology or spiritual tradition that describes the ego as ability to 'form constructs' or anything remotely similar. And even if we'd run with your definition: wouldn't be anger or sadness a construct of some kind too? Assuming you were present during raising the child you must have been aware that the child had a pretty good idea about what is was getting and how? It points to the observation that newborn infants are 'adrift' in a low definition world containing big impressions. It still has to navigate this - establishing neural pathways as it goes with a diffuse, weak but rather enlarged ego.

Although you can hold on to your view of the ego, if you want to understand what is meant by Dan with 'ego-based' emotion it might be beneficial to review your logic and observation again. The problem is often that people conflate feeling with emotion or include lower level mechanisms as reflexes. It appears to me your idea of emotions that are not ego-based will fall in two categories: not being an emotion proper or still ego-based but not the ego as you define it.

[divine focus]

Infants are not identified or attached in the way ego is; they experience physical and psychological needs that may or may not be provided for by their environment. They are identified with all, but physically they are only a baby. The ego develops for physical self-sufficiency.

No, they're not identified with 'all' - they identify with their more immediate non-verbal world which is limited to reacting on surrounding and sensation. For them 'all' has become the mother, their food, fingers, toes or a shiny object. Don't confuse their inability to engage in more complex and far reaching identifications as a lack of identification. Infants don't embrace the world as a whole - they merely have reduced the world to be merely the vicinity of a 'womb' (its sound, smells, movements and food supply) and would experience this low definition world as 'all there is'.

If anyone still wants to insist a baby doesn't have an ego: raise a kid, or two! They're manipulating sobs from the get-go. Adorable of course too, that's another means to 'self-sufficiency', a way nature gave them to deal with reality: enchanting their care-takers into extra care and attention. For the child, it's all about the prospering of their being and nothing else. It comes all quite natural for the ego. Not a 'construct' that is made after lots of intellectual labor. Ego doesn't need the intellect to flourish, not at all. It only engages in over-intellectualizing as a means to subvert reason, any truthful reflection that could lift its robes.

You are right that ego is a natural reaction to the present world for the sake of survival, but it does need intellect. Infants are not simply dim-witted pieces of flesh waiting to develop higher reasoning. They have access to much information, although to us within ego it appears they are "not doing much." The ego reaction divorces itself of these "magical" avenues of information in alignment with beliefs learned from the environment. Children learn the ways of the world, and in doing so, forget the ways of the self.

"For the child, it's all about the prospering of their being and nothing else."
True! This is the way of it. The self knows instinctively it is all. Without help, intellect confuses itself.

[clyde]

I have raised a child. It was (and remains) my observation and opinion that newborn infants do not have egos (are unable to form constructs), but do exhibit emotions.

I'm not aware of any definition in psychology or spiritual tradition that describes the ego as ability to 'form constructs' or anything remotely similar.

Diebert;

My point was NOT that ego is an ability to form constructs, but that ego IS a pychological or mental construct. So, if one is unable to form a psychological or mental construct, then it follows that one cannot construct an ego. And I am not aware of any tradition that posits that ego is anything other than a construct.

clyde

[Leyla Shen]

I have raised a child. It was (and remains) my observation and opinion that newborn infants do not have egos (are unable to form constructs), but do exhibit emotions.

Though I cannot say how this affects the particular context of this thread (I haven't been keeping up with it), I agree in principle with this statement.

The infant has a direct Id relationship with its environment and lacks the superego/ego filter. This explains the fragmentary nature of infant memories as points of the getting of ego---the beginnings of “consciousness”; the recognition of pain and pleasure.

[Faust]

the fragmentary nature of infant memories is most likely explained by their developing and changing brain, and how do infants not recognize pain and pleasure?

[Leyla Shen]

the fragmentary nature of infant memories is most likely explained by their developing and changing brain,

Nevertheless, the nature of infant memories, where they actually exist, remains fragmentary. Taking this to the extreme, who among us grew up with any memory of the pain experienced during and/or just after labour shortly after it occurred, for example. I bet mum remembers a good deal more of it than the kiddies do.

…and how do infants not recognize pain and pleasure?

It depends on what you mean by recognition. By it, I do not mean instinct. I mean cognitive, abstract recognition. If there were such recognition in infancy, then as soon as the infant were old enough to discuss such matters (after the introduction of language, that is) one would imagine they might more or less immediately do so, no? How many do? Instead, they easily discuss matters of pleasure and pain occurring to them subsequent to language; that is to say, they recognise pleasure and pain itself precisely when memories become memorable and the ego develops to avoid pain and seek pleasure--with the introduction of language. Until then, there’s no observable, in memory or otherwise, morality, no values, no judgement---it’s all stimulus response.

It doesn’t really matter whether you choose to essentially explain it in terms of ego/superego filters or the more concrete, apparently, developing and changing brains, does it? Both ideas are, at the very least, pointing to the same thing.

A kid learns “good/bad” and “pleasure/pain” by abstractions and associations in the present. Even if you were to demonstrate that some painful aspect of his present environment was rooted in his infant past, the recognition that occurs enabling memory from that point onward is in the identifiable present---and he can talk about it.