Enlightenment Finally

[Diebert van Rhijn]

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.

Who's constructing the ego then or how would you call it. I'm getting the feeling you have not yet even considered how deeply seated the ego function might be and how much further it goes then being some mental construct made by an intellectualizing brain. This is because the ego function is expansive and inclusive; since everything becomes its interface, boundaries seem to disappear and all we're left with is the tip of the iceberg of consciousness to put the ego-flag on.

Back to the crying baby: the emotion is born out of a build-in desire for self-sufficiency. To make this work a self is created first and whatever Freudian or Buddhist notion one takes, one cannot go around this 'sense of self' element that is the ground of its functioning.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

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 context for now is the link between emotions and ego, or how certain emotions are identified and as such how ego would be defined. Since it's hard to deny a newly born expresses emotions, the questions rises where the child's ego comes into it.

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.

I'm not sure about this "superego/ego" filter. If you want the Freudian IT to play along you still need a mediating process relating to the realities of an 'external' world. An external entity which in this situation replaces the demands of the 'superego' for the child who hasn't one developed itself.

The ego might be as weak and underdeveloped as the child's body or better even: like its cranial sutures. But it doesn't mean it hasn't ego. Actually what I'm proposing here is that its very structural weakness is the cause of an unrestrained emotional expression in the same sense an animal is more direct emotional and can be so direct as the demands for negotiation between ID and world can remain rather simplified - so the ego remains simple, less defined and behavior remains intensely selfish when not overruled by sacrificial instincts.

[clyde]

Diebert;

Causes and conditions arise within and without the newborn infant, and over time an ego arises. It is not the result of an “intellectualizing brain” though it may be one of many causes.

You state: “the emotion is born out of a build-in desire for self-sufficiency”. But all living organisms have a built-in response for survival which is the fundamental desire for self-sufficiency. Are you positing that all living organisms have emotions?

clyde


p.s: Do you agree that the ego is a psychological or mental construct? If not, what do you believe it is?

[Leyla Shen]

The ego might be as weak and underdeveloped as the child's body or better even: like its cranial sutures. But it doesn't mean it hasn't ego.

Sure, but I think that’s a simplified conception of ego. :)

Lacan, for instance, places the beginnings of the self/other split (the makings of ego) at between six and 18 months---the “mirror” phase of development. At this stage of development, the conception of self as separate to something other than self (usually the mother) occurs, whereupon the subject simultaneously conceives an ideal “I” and spends the rest of its life attaining to it as well as an accordingly problematic conception of self as a whole/complete, separate entity. It's problematic because, at this stage of development, the child is not, in fact, "whole." It cannot exist independently and without assistance and, clearly even to itself, does not have full physical control.

Actually what I'm proposing here is that its very structural weakness is the cause of an unrestrained emotional expression in the same sense an animal is more direct emotional and can be so direct as the demands for negotiation between ID and world can remain rather simplified - so the ego remains simple, less defined and behavior remains intensely selfish when not overruled by sacrificial instincts.

Do you think a newborn experiences guilt? How about anxiety outside of that “anxiety” ordinarily attributable to immediate environmental stimulus---like, for instance, being really hungry? How about regret, self-abasement, vengeance, moral indignance and shame?

These are the characteristic signs and symptoms of ego, and he attempts to balance them with love, faith, wisdom, righteousness, piety, individuality, self-confidence, worth and pride.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

You state: “the emotion is born out of a build-in desire for self-sufficiency”. But all living organisms have a built-in response for survival which is the fundamental desire for self-sufficiency. Are you positing that all living organisms have emotions?

Please read a bit more carefully. If I'd have said: "Hitting someone over the head with a stick is born out of a build-in desire for self-sufficiency" would you have asked me if I'm positing that all living organisms are using sticks and stones? There are many animals that obviously display emotions and it's easy to connect them with their sense of self in relation to for example a herd or an intruder.

p.s: Do you agree that the ego is a psychological or mental construct? If not, what do you believe it is?

It's not a construct, only when objectified mentally in an attempt to frame it. In other words it can appear as construct and thereby creating a new delusion if one equals the construct with the ego function and especially when one thinks an 'ego' is somehow addressed if only a mental construct or mirror image is temporary dealt with. This is why I described earlier the ego as being "lost as it is in its own hall of mirrors and mirror-images that are themselves needed to witness anything at all".

[clyde]

Diebert;

Do those animals which you accept as displaying emotions have egos?

And if ego is not a psychological or mental construct, what is the ego?

clyde

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Do those animals which you accept as displaying emotions have egos?

Since you seem most comfortable with Buddhism let me ask this:

Do these animals have a form, feeling, some level of perception, intention and consciousness? To the extend they have this, ego will start to manifest.

[clyde]

Diebert;

Yes, animals have form and sensations (they react to their environment), some animals have perceptions (they have nervous systems), and some animals have consciousness. At what point in the evolutionary scale do you believe consciousness arises and hence, according to your view, ego arises? Mammals? Amphibians? Birds? Fish? Sponges? etc?

But you have not answered my question: Is ego a pychological or mental construct, and if not, how do you define ego and what is it?

clyde

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The ego might be as weak and underdeveloped as the child's body or better even: like its cranial sutures. But it doesn't mean it hasn't ego.

Sure, but I think that’s a simplified conception of ego. :)

I constantly simplify :)

Lacan, for instance, places the beginnings of the self/other split (the makings of ego) at between six and 18 months---the “mirror” phase of development. At this stage of development, the conception of self as separate to something other than self (usually the mother) occurs,

Yes, that's why I used the word 'diffuse' a lot. What happens at some stage is more like a contraction of ego, not a creation. There's no real clear line to draw between "no-ego" and "ego" during its formation, here only various stages are discernible.

In the end, a baby cries because IT is hungry or feeling uncomfortable. That it doesn't conceive itself yet consciously in such way is not the issue. The underlying mental process is already in place and is why I call it a natural process to develop ego, it's how a complex organism has to work with the complexity of signals and self-maintenance, to put it in a bit chilling mechanistic way. A self-image is constructed - our boundaries are defined way before one starts consciously exploring it, if it's ever explored at all.

Do you think a newborn experiences guilt? How about anxiety outside of that “anxiety” ordinarily attributable to immediate environmental stimulus---like, for instance, being really hungry? How about regret, self-abasement, vengeance, moral indignance and shame?

Guilt and the other emotions you name would be typically more complex social emotions that would need a stronger, more developed ego and a lot more experiences to occur. The restrains and requirements of the external world and 'superego' demand a way more subtle approach; if crying would help I'm sure it would be used a way lot more.

Then again a child is not exactly a tabula rasa and might come with certain behavioral blueprints attached but only in potential.

These are the characteristic signs and symptoms of ego, and he attempts to balance them with love, faith, wisdom, righteousness, piety, individuality, self-confidence, worth and pride.

Perhaps it would be interesting to examine what's behind shame, blushing, vengeance and regret as emotion. Would it really be something else than the primal emotions displayed by the young child? Is it perhaps just more developed, answering to more rules. Are they really something substantially different?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

At what point in the evolutionary scale do you believe consciousness arises and hence, according to your view, ego arises? Mammals? Amphibians? Birds? Fish? Sponges? etc?

Where lies the importance of your question? Do you really want me to think about sponges and if some of them might be a genius of their kind?

But you have not answered my question: Is ego a pychological or mental construct, and if not, how do you define ego and what is it?

It's what you are. Here it lives in semantics and constructs but it's not really there. One can only identify by its fruits.

[clyde]

At what point in the evolutionary scale do you believe consciousness arises and hence, according to your view, ego arises? Mammals? Amphibians? Birds? Fish? Sponges? etc?

Where lies the importance of your question? Do you really want me to think about sponges and if some of them might be a genius of their kind?

I want to know which animals you believe possess consciousness and ego. It will help me understand your view of both consciousness and ego.

But you have not answered my question: Is ego a pychological or mental construct, and if not, how do you define ego and what is it?

It's what you are. Here it lives in semantics and constructs but it's not really there. One can only identify by its fruits.

Are you positing that we are (equal) ego? Or do you mean that along with other attributes (body and mind, etc.), ego is an attribute of us? If the later, then you have not defined what is ego and how it is differentiated from the other attributes.

clyde

[David Quinn]

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?

That's for others to decide, if they're interested.

What we talk about concerns the high end of the scale.

-

[maestro]

That's for others to decide, if they're interested.
What we talk about concerns the high end of the scale.

Seems a bit shallow to judge people on a scale of one to ten. Other than that I cannot fathom how Gurdjieff can be so low on awareness given that he knows and explains the workings of the mind with such amazing clarity (as I have not even seen elsewhere even from luminaries such as the Buddha)?

So who are the people on the higher end of the scale?

[Carl G]

It may be that Gurdjieff is on a different scale altogether from QRS. After all, the basis (mental logic vs. mystical teaching) and aims (enlightenment vs. evolution) appear to be different.

[maestro]

Carl, enlightenment is fundamentally an Indian teaching and it is intimately connected with mental unification (yoga) and the end of suffering (moksha or nirvana). Gurdjieff is not teaching anything else, only that his material is very clear, while I guess the other material has both been obscured by time/ cultural context and language, and the loss of Indian culture and learning in the middle ages (through Islamic invaders).

[David Quinn]

When it comes to truthfulness and depth of understanding, everyone can be judged on the same scale.

Examples of those higher up on the scale include Kierkegaard, Hakuin, Chuang Tzu, Diogenes, Huang Po - profound Zennish thinkers of that type.

-

[maestro]

And I have not seen such clarity about the mental process expressed by any other famous contemporary teachers. Many of them only make vague and mysterious pronouncements without going in depth in the nature of suffering, the ego and the path of unification. It gives the outsider an impression that teachings related to enlightenment must remain vague and mysterious. It makes me doubt whether any of these people even know what they are talking about.

[maestro]

David:
I cannot for a moment believe that a man who knew so much about the mind, will not go to the very end. Nothing seems powerful enough to stop him. How can he be just a rung above the common human at Level 2.

[Carl G]

When it comes to truthfulness and depth of understanding, everyone can be judged on the same scale.

Examples of those higher up on the scale include Kierkegaard, Hakuin, Chuang Tzu, Diogenes, Huang Po - profound Zennish thinkers of that type.

-

You say everyone can be judged on the same (your) scale, you place those with "profound Zennish" thinking higher up on the scale. The QRS philosophy favors Indian (Buddhist) and Oriental (Chinese-Taoism)(Japanese-Zen) systems of thought, to go with Grecian Logos. Gurdjieff's background is in esoteric Christianity, Sufism, Egyptian, and Tibetan along with basic psychology.

Now, Gurdjieff did say that at root all religions are the same, and I do believe that. However, I'm starting to think the QRS brand of philosophy, and perhaps philosophy in general, may be somewhat different.

I must say the term 'enlightenment' is still quite vague to me. Gurdjieff, so far as I know, never uttered it. I'm wondering if it means different things to different people and to different sects or groups. So far as I can tell, as defined by QRS, it has to do with logical knowledge, primarily about reality. It is focused on the mental center. It is about somehow -- it is still unclear to me how -- removing all delusion from one's being through knowing what is logically universally true. Gurdjieff's emphasis, so far as I know, is almost nothing like that. Either I am a poor translator of what QRS speaks of, or there is a genuine difference there, and hence two scales, not one, by which to measure.

I realize there are many smiling gurus and serious philosophers who bliss out in the Infinite based on logic and Buddhist koans. Ultimately, yes, we are all one and there is no intrinsic "I". No argument there. However, there are also schools of thought that suggest that we can know and do more than this.

[maestro]

I would say In all its forms I have seen enlightenment is about unification and end of suffering. Logic and such is merely used as a tool and not an end, it is connected with the internal and not so much the external.

QRS style of enlightenment is the most unique one, where they have juxtaposed western messianic style philosophers such as Nietzsche and Diogenes along with the eastern masters. This combination is a bit hard to swallow. Their main emphasis seems to be on definitional truths and misogyny, which is again very curious. None of the classical enlightened figures had such contempt for women, and a penchant for deducing everything through definitions. They (the masters) more relied on observations and refining the observing instrument (the mind) and used approximate analogies to merely point towards certain possibilities.

[David Quinn]

David:
I cannot for a moment believe that a man who knew so much about the mind, will not go to the very end. Nothing seems powerful enough to stop him. How can he be just a rung above the common human at Level 2.

It isn't simply a matter of knowledge and mental power. Things like character, courage, purity, commitment to truth, etc, also come into play.

Look at what Kierkegaard says about it in his Journals:

- This is how one rises in the world, when a person has reached one rung of the ladder, he hankers and tries to go higher. But when a person has become involved with God, so that God truly has hold of him and uses him, this is how he rises: at every higher rung he is supposed to climb, he begs like a child to be exempted, for he well understands that, from a human point of view, suffering and wretchedness and spiritual trial mount on the same scale. How often an apostle has pleaded for himself in this way.


- Man has the natural tendency to think that if he only makes an effort he will be victorious. Christianity says that downfall is being victorious. Know this - if you manage to reach merely a modest degree of perfection, your downfall is certain; and the more you succeed, the more certain your downfall. To turn over thoughts like these for only one hour is more exhausting than enormous efforts in the hope of being victorious.

It is just as if Christianity would kill all courage, all delight, every hope in a man. Yes, all spontaneous courage and delight and hope - this is called dying to the world.


- When one preaches Christianity in such a way that the echo answers "he is mad", know then this signifies that there are considerable elements of truth in his preaching. But perhaps he is not pressing hard enough, either by his oral preaching or by the preaching of his life.

But when one preaches Christianity in such a way that the echo answers "Away with that man from the earth, he does not deserve to live", know then that this is the Christianity of the New Testament.

Gurdjieff never tackled higher-order issues like these, and that is because he kept his focus firmly away from the higher end of the scale.

So while the mental skills he taught were good for helping people break out of ordinary consciousness to some extent, and even open mystical modes of perception, he didn't possess enough love of truth to even begin contemplating the sheer scale of what's involved in trying to eliminate delusion and egotism altogether.

But needless to say, maestro, you must follow what you think is right. You don't have to justify it to me, or to anyone else.

-

[maestro]

It seems to me Kirkegaard is at a mere spiritual infant's level, where more consciousness is causing him to suffer more. At higher levels more consciousness has the opposite effect.

But I can see why you exalt him, Nietzsche and Diogenes. All these played the role of the great-wise man shunned and hated by society whose pronouncements against the exising wisdom are not valued and ridiculed. You are identified with this image, and think it is the same with you.

[Carl G]

David wrote:

Gurdjieff never tackled higher-order issues like these, and that is because he kept his focus firmly away from the higher end of the scale.

So while the mental skills he taught were good for helping people break out of ordinary consciousness to some extent, and even open mystical modes of perception, he didn't possess enough love of truth to even begin contemplating the sheer scale of what's involved in trying to eliminate delusion and egotism altogether.

Ah, this tells me you haven't studied Gurdjieff in much depth.

Thanks for the Kierkegaard quotes, though. I first read Kierkegaard through a link at your site, David, and appreciated him at once; reminded me of Gurdjieff.

[David Quinn]

David wrote:

Gurdjieff never tackled higher-order issues like these, and that is because he kept his focus firmly away from the higher end of the scale.

So while the mental skills he taught were good for helping people break out of ordinary consciousness to some extent, and even open mystical modes of perception, he didn't possess enough love of truth to even begin contemplating the sheer scale of what's involved in trying to eliminate delusion and egotism altogether.

Ah, this tells me you haven't studied Gurdjieff in much depth.

Thanks for the Kierkegaard quotes, though. I first read Kierkegaard through a link at your site, David, and appreciated him at once; reminded me of Gurdjieff.

Do you have links to any of Gurdjieff's material that is comparable to Kierkegaard's?

-

[Jason]

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?

That's for others to decide, if they're interested.

Oh come on, don't play all humble now. Also kinda odd given the general stance you hold regarding the value and problems in trying to guess the attainment of others.