The Sexes

[Orenholt]

So, in psychological terms, what do you call the part of us that holds to the notion of an "I", an inherently extant self that experiences loss and gain and from which all sorts of desire emanates? That's we I call call "ego". But what do you call it?

I call it the concept of ego, not ego itself.

[Russell Parr]

That's like saying the ego exists beyond our conception of it.

[Orenholt]

That's like saying the ego exists beyond our conception of it.

That's because it does. The ego is basically the reward system in the brain. But the concept of "self" is just a concept.

[Leyla Shen]

That's like saying the ego exists beyond our conception of it.

That's because it does. The ego is basically the reward system in the brain. But the concept of "self" is just a concept.

No it isn't. It's the identification system in the brain. Is that part of your brain missing?

[Dan Rowden]

Ok, Orenholt, so the concept of self is just a concept (I'm not sure what isn't a concept, actually). Do you agree it is a false and therefore delusional concept? Do you further agree it generates all sorts of psychological phenomena?

[Dennis Mahar]

I call it the concept of ego, not ego itself.

That's getting closer somehow.

To experience nondual awareness (enlightenment) is grokking the workings of the dual mind.


the duality here is man/woman
apparently polar opposites.

you're supposed to be over here on the man side to 'have' something
if you're over there on the woman side you 'have' nothing.
so, there's a good/bad/right/wrong caveat in every situation.

between the opposites there's supposed to be a scalar event or degrees of man/woman.

its all projected in a story of opposites generating a boogey man.

anyway the prime duality is bondage/freedom.
if someone's trying to put you in to bondage with a Story about identity and difference,
watch them spinning.

[Orenholt]

No it isn't. It's the identification system in the brain. Is that part of your brain missing?

If the ego is simply the "identification system" how does that cause suffering?

Ok, Orenholt, so the concept of self is just a concept (I'm not sure what isn't a concept, actually). Do you agree it is a false and therefore delusional concept? Do you further agree it generates all sorts of psychological phenomena?

Yes, I do agree that the concept of ego is a false concept because we are all just manifestations of the universe.
Yes, I do agree that the concept ego causes all sorts of psychological phenomena.

I think what the break down in communication here is that there are 2 different things that are being called "ego".
1.) the concept of self
2.) desires/suffering

[Dan Rowden]

I think what the break down in communication here is that there are 2 different things that are being called "ego".

That's absolutely the case. I'm basically trying to discern whether there's any real basis for discussion given this fact.

1.) the concept of self
2.) desires/suffering

I'm only interested in desire and suffering that arises from the deluded notion of self. We can differ about other forms of desire and suffering all we want but it's pretty much a distraction from the central theme here. Basically, the focus of that interest on things relating to the deluded notion of self matters because they are capable of being removed/transcended - whatever term best floats your boat. Basic biological functions like eating when you're hungry or trying to warm yourself when you're cold don't actually interest me that much - until such time as the ego gets involved and delusional psychological dynamics enter the picture.

That extra step happens by default for humans because that reality almost invariably arises during our mental development.

[Orenholt]

I'm only interested in desire and suffering that arises from the deluded notion of self. We can differ about other forms of desire and suffering all we want but it's pretty much a distraction from the central theme here. Basically, the focus of that interest on things relating to the deluded notion of self matters because they are capable of being removed/transcended - whatever term best floats your boat. Basic biological functions like eating when you're hungry or trying to warm yourself when you're cold don't actually interest me that much - until such time as the ego gets involved and delusional psychological dynamics enter the picture.

That extra step happens by default for humans because that reality almost invariably arises during our mental development.

Well what would you say are some forms of suffering that are caused merely by having a concept of self that differs from the idea that "I am the universe"?

Just because you are the universe doesn't mean that you wouldn't want to listen to beautiful music or look a beautiful statue every day in your own home.

[Dan Rowden]

No it isn't. It's the identification system in the brain. Is that part of your brain missing?

If the ego is simply the "identification system" how does that cause suffering?

I nearly missed this. You don't see how that identification system relates to all manner of unsublimated desire, which constitutes suffering? Look at the whole gamut of interpersonal dynamics for an example.

[Orenholt]

I nearly missed this. You don't see how that identification system relates to all manner of unsublimated desire, which constitutes suffering? Look at the whole gamut of interpersonal dynamics for an example.

Ah yes, I do see how that could be the case for some people now that you point it out that way.
But there could still be desires regardless of that.
If you think "I am the universe" then you could still think that certain people are unhealthy for society and wish to execute them.
It could be seen as "cutting off a finger to save the hand".
But yes, if you see yourself as "just my body" it makes you think less of the consequences for the whole and ignores a lot of causality.

Maybe I'm wrong here but that's what I think.

[Russell Parr]

So you believe that the self inherently exists beyond our being conscious of it. Assuming this is true is useful to a degree, like believing that our bodies were in bed throughout the night while we slept (assuming we aren't sleepwalking). But as far as ultimate truths go, observance of how consciousness works show us that the existence of any and all things depend solely on perspective. For example, while you may observe your computer screen to be exactly that, a computer screens, in reality it is no more a computer screen than a conglomerate of atoms. But for practical purposes, due to the way we interact with reality, it is more fittingly a computer screen for our perspective, but we have no qualms in seeing it for its true nature in relation to reality.

Enter the ego. While it's easy to see how the above certainly applies to the ego, as the same is true for all things we conceive, this truth isn't particularly useful in moment by moment interactions with reality, at least on the surface of it. There is no doubt that we experience the self, as sure as we experience consciousness. But what are the dangers of this? Emotional attachment to the self causes thinking that is inconsistent with the what is ultimately true about it, for it it really an attachment to a specific conception. This can be seen as a hangup, or clogging, in our thinking. From this, egotistical desires become more "real" to our perspective, and can take over a great deal of thinking. If we know the truth about reality, that it is perfect in every way, there is no loss, or anything to be gain, we can see how this is delusional thinking.

[Dan Rowden]

I'm only interested in desire and suffering that arises from the deluded notion of self. We can differ about other forms of desire and suffering all we want but it's pretty much a distraction from the central theme here. Basically, the focus of that interest on things relating to the deluded notion of self matters because they are capable of being removed/transcended - whatever term best floats your boat. Basic biological functions like eating when you're hungry or trying to warm yourself when you're cold don't actually interest me that much - until such time as the ego gets involved and delusional psychological dynamics enter the picture.

That extra step happens by default for humans because that reality almost invariably arises during our mental development.

Well what would you say are some forms of suffering that are caused merely by having a concept of self that differs from the idea that "I am the universe"?

Just because you are the universe doesn't mean that you wouldn't want to listen to beautiful music or look a beautiful statue every day in your own home.

How do you believe aesthetic judgments/needs arise?

[Orenholt]

So you believe that the self inherently exists beyond our being conscious of it.

I never said it exists inherently. The existence of the self depends on everything else in the universe.

There is no doubt that we experience the self, as sure as we experience consciousness. But what are the dangers of this? Emotional attachment to the self causes thinking that is inconsistent with the what is ultimately true about it, for it it really an attachment to a specific conception. This can be seen as a hangup, or clogging, in our thinking. From this, egotistical desires become more "real" to our perspective, and can take over a great deal of thinking. If we know the truth about reality, that it is perfect in every way, there is no loss, or anything to be gain, we can see how this is delusional thinking.

It's impossible to make any "choice" without putting value on one choice or the other and value is subjective.

How do you believe aesthetic judgments/needs arise?

A person experiences something they like (for example a beautiful statue) then they want to experience it again and again so they want to have it in their own house so the can experience it every day. It's their ego/desire that wants to experience the appeal of it again. It could be that the statue reflects something else they enjoy in life in a symbolic way. It could just be a novelty that the person likes.

[Russell Parr]

I never said it exists inherently. The existence of the self depends on everything else in the universe.

Believing that any thing exists beyond conception is the same as assuming it inherently exists.

It's impossible to make any "choice" without putting value on one choice or the other and value is subjective.

Yes, but our choices are ignorant to the degree that the ultimate truth about them isn't also held in our decisions. For example, boredom is the result of an illogical attachment to the experience of having fun, whereas in reality, any fun we have experienced wasn't real in any ultimate sense.

Similarly, the beauty you observe in a statue is no more real than the ugliness the next person observes in the same statue. But because you are attached to the beauty of it, egotistical suffering arises in your 1)believing that the experience was more real than otherwise and 2)wanting to continue to experience such a perception.

[Orenholt]

Believing that any thing exists beyond conception is the same as assuming it inherently exists.

Hmm.. Can you explain how that is the case? Doesn't "inherent existence" simply mean that it would exist without other things or causes?

Yes, but our choices are ignorant to the degree that the ultimate truth about them isn't also held in our decisions. For example, boredom is the result of an illogical attachment to the experience of having fun, whereas in reality, any fun we have experienced wasn't real in any ultimate sense.

But if all values are subjective what's illogical about having fun if it makes you feel good?
The value may be imaginary but the good feelings are actually being experienced.

Similarly, the beauty you observe in a statue is no more real than the ugliness the next person observes in the same statue. But because you are attached to the beauty of it, egotistical suffering arises in your 1)believing that the experience was more real than otherwise and 2)wanting to continue to experience such a perception.

I think it's more of a case of 2 than 1. In fact I don't see how 1 is valid at all.

[Russell Parr]

Hmm.. Can you explain how that is the case? Doesn't "inherent existence" simply mean that it would exist without other things or causes?

Things are things only when we conceive them. Otherwise, they only exist as an indescribable abstraction (which is still thing).

But if all values are subjective what's illogical about having fun if it makes you feel good?
The value may be imaginary but the good feelings are actually being experienced.

The experience of fun isn't bad in itself, it's the egotistical attachment to it is when the suffering of boredom arises.

I think it's more of a case of 2 than 1. In fact I don't see how 1 is valid at all.

#1 alludes to being attached to the perception and leads to #2.

[Orenholt]

Hmm.. Can you explain how that is the case? Doesn't "inherent existence" simply mean that it would exist without other things or causes?

Things are things only when we conceive them. Otherwise, they only exist as an indescribable abstraction (which is still thing).

But can things not be real even when we don't conceive of them?
Like ultraviolet light. We had no conception of it until the machines were made to be able to see it.
But ultraviolet light has always been real despite our inability to know about it.

But if all values are subjective what's illogical about having fun if it makes you feel good?
The value may be imaginary but the good feelings are actually being experienced.

The experience of fun isn't bad in itself, it's the egotistical attachment to it is when the suffering of boredom arises.

I didn't say "bad" I said "illogical" ;)

I think it's more of a case of 2 than 1. In fact I don't see how 1 is valid at all.

#1 alludes to being attached to the perception and leads to #2.

No, at least for me it's purely the second one.

[Kelly Jones]

Russell to Orenholt: So you believe that the self inherently exists beyond our being conscious of it.

Orenholt: I never said it exists inherently. The existence of the self depends on everything else in the universe.

You're not there yet.

That dependency is causality. Think of it this way. A building is made of lots of elements pinned together, and creating strength as a mass. If certain elements are missing, including the ground it rests on, the building could collapse. The building exists only as interdependent elements.

But this is a false picture. Look at the very thing called interdependence. Where is it? If an interstitial force, or causal boundary between elements, is also a causal element helping to tie a thing together, then there are no elements at all. There is only causality. Or rather, there is nothing one can grasp or separate into intrinsic things --- and thus, no causality.

What causality actually means, is that there are really no things there at all. Nothing that could come and go, nothing to hold onto, nothing to gain or lose. There is no self nor everything else there at all. That is what is meant by lack of inherent existence. That is why desire for things, including fun, excitement, satisfaction, fulfillment, or distress, disappointment, etc., is delusional and illogical.

"Ugh", says Woman. "That sounds terribly boring, and therefore illogical."


.

[Orenholt]

Russell to Orenholt: So you believe that the self inherently exists beyond our being conscious of it.

Orenholt: I never said it exists inherently. The existence of the self depends on everything else in the universe.

You're not there yet.

That dependency is causality. Think of it this way. A building is made of lots of elements pinned together, and creating strength as a mass. If certain elements are missing, including the ground it rests on, the building could collapse. The building exists only as interdependent elements.

But this is a false picture. Look at the very thing called interdependence. Where is it? If an interstitial force, or causal boundary between elements, is also a causal element helping to tie a thing together, then there are no elements at all. There is only causality. Or rather, there is nothing one can grasp or separate into intrinsic things --- and thus, no causality.

Well I did go on to ask Russell this:
Hmm.. Can you explain how that is the case? Doesn't "inherent existence" simply mean that it would exist without other things or causes?
Which means that I do understand that causality is a factor in it.

What causality actually means, is that there are really no things there at all. Nothing that could come and go, nothing to hold onto, nothing to gain or lose. There is no self nor everything else there at all. That is what is meant by lack of inherent existence. That is why desire for things, including fun, excitement, satisfaction, fulfillment, or distress, disappointment, etc., is delusional and illogical.

"Ugh", says Woman. "That sounds terribly boring, and therefore illogical."

That's completely silly. That's like saying when you realize everything is caused it is illogical to eat food anymore.

[Russell Parr]

But can things not be real even when we don't conceive of them?
Like ultraviolet light. We had no conception of it until the machines were made to be able to see it.
But ultraviolet light has always been real despite our inability to know about it.

It was only real as an abstraction before we had machines to perceive them. Causality dictates that conscious conception of a thing is required for that thing to exist. Otherwise, how can ultraviolet light be identified as such?

I didn't say "bad" I said "illogical" ;)

Then change "bad" to "illogical" in my statement :)

No, at least for me it's purely the second one.

Then I'm afraid you still don't understand the distinction between suffering like hunger, and egotistical suffering like boredom or hatred.

[Orenholt]

t was only real as an abstraction before we had machines to perceive them. Causality dictates that conscious conception of a thing is required for that thing to exist. Otherwise, how can ultraviolet light be identified as such?

It was still real. It just didn't have an appearance to us. Personally I think conflating "existence" with "to have an appearance" is kind of silly. The dictionary definition of "exist" is "to have actual being". Emphasis on the word actual.
Seeing something isn't required for it to actually be.

I didn't say "bad" I said "illogical" ;)

Then change "bad" to "illogical" in my statement :)

"The experience of fun isn't illogical in itself, it's the egotistical attachment to it is when the suffering of boredom arises."
Interesting. Does that mean that you disagree with Kelly Jones? She says that fun is delusional and illogical.

No, at least for me it's purely the second one.

Then I'm afraid you still don't understand the distinction between suffering like hunger, and egotistical suffering like boredom or hatred.

I get that one is primarily physical and one is primarily psychological but in the end they are both driven by the psychological.
If I wanted to I could simply imagine the beautiful statue in my mind every day but the only problem with that is that my memory could fade. I would need to actually see it to be able to have a clearer perception of the statue and be able to enjoy it more thoroughly.

[Russell Parr]

It was still real. It just didn't have an appearance to us. Personally I think conflating "existence" with "to have an appearance" is kind of silly. The dictionary definition of "exist" is "to have actual being". Emphasis on the word actual.
Seeing something isn't required for it to actually be.

The dictionary definition isn't useful in consideration of the ultimate. While we can determine that ultraviolet light existed before our perceiving of it, it still nonetheless exists as ultraviolet light strictly due to our perceptions. Otherwise, there is no ultraviolet light. (Remember my computer screen/conglomerate of atoms example.)

"The experience of fun isn't illogical in itself, it's the egotistical attachment to it is when the suffering of boredom arises."
Interesting. Does that mean that you disagree with Kelly Jones? She says that fun is delusional and illogical.

I'm pretty sure that Kelly is alluding to egotistical attachment to fun as well.

I get that one is primarily physical and one is primarily psychological but in the end they are both driven by the psychological.
If I wanted to I could simply imagine the beautiful statue in my mind every day but the only problem with that is that my memory could fade. I would need to actually see it to be able to have a clearer perception of the statue and be able to enjoy it more thoroughly.

All things are psychological perceptions, in the end. If you experience the beauty of a statue, to the degree that you ignore (i.e. are unconscious to) the reality that beauty is an illusionary projection, you are prone to the egotistical suffering of longing for that experience. Full implementation of this realization would likely lead to you ceasing in using such illusionary projections onto objects.

[Getoriks]

concepts distinguish

Indeed.

they don't not-distinguish

Well, that what my point, Dennis. Non-duality means non-distinction, and yet, non-duality is a concept, and concepts distinguish.

orenholt 'gets' causality in her way

No, she doesn't get it. That is why she is here to learn.

what's the rush to kill her

You mean to bring her to life?

too much to handle

For who?

there's no real reason why the sobriquet 'woman' is parlayed as unconsciousness

There is a real reason: it's true.

[Getoriks]

"Ugh", says Woman. "That sounds terribly boring, and therefore illogical."

Right. The point is not to like it, but to accept that it is logical and true. That is all one needs to do at first. One need not try to accept it. For once the mind considers it an absolute certainty, it will naturally begin subconsciously reforming itself. One's character structure and thought patterns begin to change without them even noticing!