Enlighened Indifference

[Ryan Rudolph]

It seems to me that an enlightened person doesn’t mind what happens. They accept loss, hardship, disease, death, destruction, and any type of negativity as an inevitable part of causality.

An enlightened person doesn’t become upset because the ego has totally vanished, and all emotional investment in future outcomes has ended with the end of the ego.

That doesn’t mean that one cannot have preferences, but when those preferences are emotionally driven, then the ego has crept back into consciousness.

Any thoughts?

[HUNTEDvsINVIS]

What you are saying makes sense ( theoretically ) but I doubt the ego can ever totally vanish. It is a subconscious entity, therefore you don't really have control over it.

[Carl G]

It seems to me that an enlightened person doesn’t mind what happens. They accept loss, hardship, disease, death, destruction, and any type of negativity as an inevitable part of causality.

An enlightened person doesn’t become upset because the ego has totally vanished, and all emotional investment in future outcomes has ended with the end of the ego.

That doesn’t mean that one cannot have preferences, but when those preferences are emotionally driven, then the ego has crept back into consciousness.

Any thoughts?

Indeed your references to ego are problematic. First you say the ego has "totally vanished." This seems imprecise logically; the ego disappears? It fails to appear? Where has it gone?

Then you say "the end of the ego." All right, it hasn't simply disappeared or fails to appear, it actually ends. This sounds like finality, the death of the ego.

But then you say "the ego has crept back into consciousness." So then it hasn't ended. Or it has and then it is somehow reborn?

Please clarify how you see the ego -- as a permanent fixture (capable of being inactive and active) or removable -- in the human mechanism. And based on what do you surmise this?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Ryan, I agree.

What you are saying makes sense ( theoretically ) but I doubt the ego can ever totally vanish. It is a subconscious entity, therefore you don't really have control over it.

As far as I understand it, the philosophical use of the word "ego" and the psychological use of it are two slightly different things. The ego, as the psychological use of the term goes, can never disappear. The ego, as philosophically described, can. The important difference being that the philosophical use of the term "ego" includes emotional attachment, and the psychological definition ends at "sense of self."

Carl - not to speak for Ryan, but since I agree with him - I see the ego as like cancer. When doctors remove the tumors, do the chemo and radiation, at first (correct me if I'm wrong) they say that the cancer is "in remission" until you appear cancer-free for some period of time, then you are considered cured. That does not mean that you will never get cancer again, though.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Carl,

Please clarify how you see the ego -- as a permanent fixture (capable of being inactive and active) or removable -- in the human mechanism. And based on what do you surmise this?

I see the ego as something that can come back into consciousness, as it is the nature of the biological body and brain to identify with form, and then invest emotion into it. Such investment is the birth of ego, and the negation of emotional investment in form is the death of ego. Both are possible at any stage of life. I don’t see the human mind being absolutely enlightened, as there always seems the possibility of relapses into insanity.

However, if there is consciousness, and the ego comes back, there is much more space to observe, and space to step back from delusional cognitive activity. Basically, the vast space of consciousness increases the chances of overcoming a relapse of ego if one has lived without ego for a long period of time.

[HUNTEDvsINVIS]

Elizabeth is correct, the ego may be defined in different ways, but my point is that there will always be forces of the unconscious that control us: I quote AllPsycheOnline:

"Freud believed that the majority of what we experience in our lives, the underlying emotions, beliefs, feelings, and impulses are not available to us at a conscious level. He believed that most of what drives us is buried in our unconscious. If you remember the Oedipus and Electra Complex, they were both pushed down into the unconscious, out of our awareness due to the extreme anxiety they caused. While buried there, however, they continue to impact us dramatically according to Freud".

For example: You may emotionally detach yourself from object A whilst unknowingly having done so in order to own object B, which is a new emotional attachment.

I would also like to know how you define "an inevitable part of causality". We interfere with causality and shape it. It's not something given and unalterable that must be accepted. And when we, for example, feel bad about causing an accidant, this emotion of guilt or helplessness spurs us on to adjust our behaviour in order to act better to help fellow man and ourselves in the course of evolution etc.

[bert]

also wrote: enlighened indifference, but with capitals

Any thoughts?

some acedia has this merit: while so, we are seldom predatory and interfering, and, perhaps like many, indifferent to much, thinking that succes these days is no more desirable than failure.

[Ryan Rudolph]

HUNTEDvsINVIS,

"Freud believed that the majority of what we experience in our lives, the underlying emotions, beliefs, feelings, and impulses are not available to us at a conscious level. He believed that most of what drives us is buried in our unconscious. If you remember the Oedipus and Electra Complex, they were both pushed down into the unconscious, out of our awareness due to the extreme anxiety they caused. While buried there, however, they continue to impact us dramatically according to Freud".

Freud makes the unconsciousness sound far too unreachable, Basically, I believe that honest reasoning and self-reflection can expose the contradiction, insanity, and emotional madness of our unconscious drives. The unconscious comes to the surface when the suffering it causes forces us to reexamine ourselves in a more direct and honest and manner.

We interfere with causality and shape it. It's not something given and unalterable that must be accepted. And when we, for example, feel bad about causing an accident, this emotion of guilt or helplessness spurs us on to adjust our behavior in order to act better to help fellow man and ourselves in the course of evolution etc.

That is a poor example. I don’t agree with your assertion that guilt is an adequate moral compass. For instance: if I cause an accident through a moment of inattention, feeling guilty isn’t going to cause me to always be attentive to what I’m doing in the future. Actually, perhaps being guilt ridden could plague my mind the next time I’m out on the road, and then I get into another accident because my mind was lost in guilt-ridden thoughts. In my opinion, the emotions control thinking to the point where we lose attention, and that is the birth of inattention, which is the cause of carelessness.

Moreover, if someone ran me over dead on the street by accident, I wouldn't want them feeling negative emotion because I already dead - that is the fact. And being emotional isn't going to change that fact. In an enlightened society, events wouldn't cause negative karma like misery and guilt. Basically, when someone dies, just throw away the body and move on, no funeral, no ceremony. Just dig a hole, and get rid of it, and get on with life.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

That doesn’t mean that one cannot have preferences

There appear to be many activities in life which require great perseverance and dedication to succeed. If someone would be so non-attached to the outcome, what could generate the necessary drive, the stubbornness, the faith, the denial that is born out of willing?

For example, why would an explorer cross a mountain range or an ocean, if not for a strong belief that prevents him from giving up and surrender to the 'inevitable' looking failure? Or why would an inventor sacrifice day and night, even his health and any personal development just to come up with something that will improve life, his status or the world at large?

So could not the case be made that losses and hardship can be just as well accepted through emotional investments, a total commitment to the outcome?

[Shahrazad]

Ryan,

I don’t agree with your assertion that guilt is an adequate moral compass. For instance: if I cause an accident through a moment of inattention, feeling guilty isn’t going to cause me to always be attentive to what I’m doing in the future. Actually, perhaps being guilt ridden could plague my mind the next time I’m out on the road, and then I get into another accident because my mind was lost in guilt-ridden thoughts. In my opinion, the emotions control thinking to the point where we lose attention, and that is the birth of inattention, which is the cause of carelessness.

Actually, guilt does help me pay attention when I'm driving. I have ADHD, which means I am easily distracted, but I have learned to concentrate when I drive. All this as a consequence of "guilt", plus the desire to stay alive.

My daughter just totaled my car while driving drunk. Her actions have already had a lot of consequences, and yet she may be unable to feel guilt. If she doesn't soon reflect on what she did, it will happen to her again, and again, until she is not so lucky and kills herself.

IMO, guilt is necessary for responsible living.

[bert]

Ryan,

I don’t agree with your assertion that guilt is an adequate moral compass. For instance: if I cause an accident through a moment of inattention, feeling guilty isn’t going to cause me to always be attentive to what I’m doing in the future. Actually, perhaps being guilt ridden could plague my mind the next time I’m out on the road, and then I get into another accident because my mind was lost in guilt-ridden thoughts. In my opinion, the emotions control thinking to the point where we lose attention, and that is the birth of inattention, which is the cause of carelessness.

Actually, guilt does help me pay attention when I'm driving. I have ADHD, which means I am easily distracted, but I have learned to concentrate when I drive. All this as a consequence of "guilt", plus the desire to stay alive.

My daughter just totaled my car while driving drunk. Her actions have already had a lot of consequences, and yet she may be unable to feel guilt. If she doesn't soon reflect on what she did, it will happen to her again, and again, until she is not so lucky and kills herself.

IMO, guilt is necessary for responsible living.

man is either a automaton without sin,responsibility etc.,or he is partialy rsponsible and creates evil. in her efforts to create her own Ego-image she necessarilly deviates(we all do!); her lies, pretensions, fallacies become the hyle, and ar not evil even though she would rather satisfy herself on illusions than facing the difficulties of reality. these are creative qualities, but man is a forgetter. everything he generates returns to its origins; the past never sleeps. ability is aquire over long periods of experience of all kinds.

[Steven Coyle]

The alien in us requires us to deviate, though we're back again through our ability to utilize our auxillary function ('judgement here). But, in order to remedy the deviation paradigm and safely secure it, one must turn berseker and build an interface module (fiber optics).

[Blair]

Why did the genius cross the road?


'cause...


Why did he cross back?


for effect.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

We interfere with causality and shape it.

We are part of causality, so we can not "interfere" with it. We contribute to cause just as we were caused. Guilt or whatever, which are effects of causes, can also contribute to other effects on us - again, examples of links in the chain of causality.

[Shahrazad]

Well put.

[bert]

We interfere with causality and shape it.

We are part of causality, so we can not "interfere" with it. We contribute to cause just as we were caused. Guilt or whatever, which are effects of causes, can also contribute to other effects on us - again, examples of links in the chain of causality.

the garden of the 'Ids' must be the travesty of horticulture
:-)

[bert]

The alien in us requires us to deviate, though we're back again through our ability to utilize our auxillary function ('judgement here). But, in order to remedy the deviation paradigm and safely secure it, one must turn berseker and build an interface module (fiber optics).

listen well, there is our Third eye is! "- let not the right eye seeth what the left seeth" would be a 'distinction wityhout much difference', except! for our willful blindness to all committed self-deceptions; they are recorded by the inner eye. you may delude your fore-conscious but not what is far beneath.

[Carl G]

The alien in us requires us to deviate, though we're back again through our ability to utilize our auxillary function ('judgement here). But, in order to remedy the deviation paradigm and safely secure it, one must turn berseker and build an interface module (fiber optics).

listen well, there is our Third eye is! "- let not the right eye seeth what the left seeth" would be a 'distinction wityhout much difference', except! for our willful blindness to all committed self-deceptions; they are recorded by the inner eye. you may delude your fore-conscious but not what is far beneath.

fabulous, fabulous! The underarch of subway unconscious commuter parade, why do they not see God's graffiti on the walls? it is on the upside, above blinkered automaton vision, the deviate needed is a world departed from their workday headlong.

am I getting it now?

[Steven Coyle]

The alien in us requires us to deviate, though we're back again through our ability to utilize our auxillary function ('judgement here). But, in order to remedy the deviation paradigm and safely secure it, one must turn berseker and build an interface module (fiber optics).

listen well, there is our Third eye is! "- let not the right eye seeth what the left seeth" would be a 'distinction wityhout much difference', except! for our willful blindness to all committed self-deceptions; they are recorded by the inner eye. you may delude your fore-conscious but not what is far beneath.

ah, the fore-conscious is the manner in which many animals forego temporarily (crows, birds, cats, many dogs, horses) - to only energize what is far beneath (method of omniscience).

[Ryan Rudolph]

Diebert,

For example, why would an explorer cross a mountain range or an ocean, if not for a strong belief that prevents him from giving up and surrender to the 'inevitable' looking failure? Or why would an inventor sacrifice day and night, even his health and any personal development just to come up with something that will improve life, his status or the world at large?

You make a good point regarding the nature of motivation, long-tern vision, dedication and perseverance, which are all admirable in certain circumstances. However, a great inventor can still be successful without ignoring his health, and other essential activities. I think it is all about a balance between focus and being multi-tasking enough to do the other pragmatic affairs of life. Many times, great men are too focused, and their health and their other relationships and interests suffer. It doesn’t seem very balanced to me.

Shez,

My daughter just totaled my car while driving drunk. Her actions have already had a lot of consequences, and yet she may be unable to feel guilt. If she doesn't soon reflect on what she did, it will happen to her again, and again, until she is not so lucky and kills herself.

Perhaps guilt won’t help her through, perhaps there are other causes of her behavior that guilt will not be able to overcome. For instance: perhaps she is immature for her age, constantly thinking about boys, parties, and so on. Perhaps future pleasure dominates her thinking to the point where someone crossing the road will not enter into her mind’s eye. And guilt cannot radically change a person’s daily thought patterns, only wisdom can do that. That is my point.

[Shahrazad]

Ryan,

And guilt cannot radically change a person’s daily thought patterns, only wisdom can do that. That is my point.

Guilt can get a person to stop and think about what they're doing, and whether they want to continue down that path. It can lead to maturity.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Shez,

Guilt can get a person to stop and think about what they're doing, and whether they want to continue down that path. It can lead to maturity.

But the emotion guilt is not necesssary, and usually only makes matters worse. One can observe ones behavior logically, and determine if it is morally unacceptable. Guilt is still a movement of the ego. In my opinion, An enlightened mind doesn't need it in order to be moral. One just needs to observe ones thoughts and actions honestly.

[1otherS]

I just want to say "realising the delusionary nature of your emotions" more likely than not makes you an EMOTIONALLY STUNTED person.

Concrete proof:

-Leyla Shen calling a heterosexual male a "woman", " misemotional twit", and a few other names because of a showed disagreeance.

General proof

-The QRS ONLY responding in sarcastic comments whenever someone disagrees with them NO MATTER how detailed the counterpoint given.

[Dan Rowden]

Wasting precious time on poorly conceived nonsense would be a true sign of being emotionally stunted.

[1otherS]

Wasting precious time on poorly conceived nonsense would be a true sign of being emotionally stunted.

You're wasting time when you only concentrate on a limited set of metaphysics that fit your ascetic wordview you can't even live up to.

Develop some sympathy for your fellow human being, go play sports, laugh a little when people poke fun at you( at least if it's done tastefully).

You seem to be nihilistic about everyone and everything EXCEPT yourself-You joke cynically about the forumers but react like a pitbull when someone challenges your beliefs.

Don't give up your philosophy if you really favour it, but don't make it the sole pursuit of your life.

Kierkegaard: "the man who remains in the world is superior to the hermit."