Pinpointing the Ego

[Orenholt]

I have had a long struggle with the question of "why would I do anything if I am enlightened?" and "why would I do anything if I didn't have an ego?" because my concept of the ego was false. I was under the impression that ALL feelings were egotistical but in reality it is only one emotion. Fear.

It was in Star Wars all along!

Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.



Anything that's motivated by fear is egotistical. The only thing I can think of that's NOT motivated by fear is agape love.

Agape love is the kind of love that is for everything and without expectations or conditions.
Romantic love, platonic love, motherly love... they all have expectations and are conditional.

[Pam Seeback]

Since emotions are so often associated with the idea of self and attachment, I too struggled for a long time with how feelings "fit" into wisdom of the infinite.

It is also my experience that wisdom of the infinite expresses itself in the feeling realm as agape or unconditional love. I cannot imagine living without this spiritual treasure.

[ardy]

Since emotions are so often associated with the idea of self and attachment, I too struggled for a long time with how feelings "fit" into wisdom of the infinite.

It is also my experience that wisdom of the infinite expresses itself in the feeling realm as agape or unconditional love. I cannot imagine living without this spiritual treasure.

It is a fine thing, but not easy to live with in this world. The inability to discriminate between people as they all are under the spell of unconditional love can cause a lot of problems in a world where trust cant be handed out like confetti. Well it can be but prepare yourself for incoming....

[ardy]

I have had a long struggle with the question of "why would I do anything if I am enlightened?" and "why would I do anything if I didn't have an ego?" because my concept of the ego was false. I was under the impression that ALL feelings were egotistical but in reality it is only one emotion. Fear.

It was in Star Wars all along!

Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.



Anything that's motivated by fear is egotistical. The only thing I can think of that's NOT motivated by fear is agape love.

Agape love is the kind of love that is for everything and without expectations or conditions.
Romantic love, platonic love, motherly love... they all have expectations and are conditional.

At the base fear and greed, at the top action for the good. That is why most Americans have only fear and greed to drive them, they are very potent weapons in a world where most people want to just sit down, do nothing but get paid for it.

[Orenholt]

At the base fear and greed, at the top action for the good. That is why most Americans have only fear and greed to drive them, they are very potent weapons in a world where most people want to just sit down, do nothing but get paid for it.

Greed is a manifestation of fear. Why do people want cool cars? Because they want to impress people.
Why do they want to impress people? Because they're afraid of being alone or unliked.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.

Star Wars appears to be an attempt to look at sages with their quest for "immortality" and delving into the dark side as something horrible, to resist. Fear as well as shame are the unavoidable by-products of any birth of consciousness. But fear can also lead to awareness and caution, just as shame can lead to modesty and introspection. To pinpoint it as fundamental drive of some kind is not telling us much yet, same as with the pleasure principle.

That being said, I think at the deepest levels human beings are driven by a hatred for and rejection of reality, like the narcissistic disposition. Not the mundane stuff (unless projected upon) but more like any wider view of the "real" situation as far as our brain could even get to that. Open hostility, actively blocking: ego as false construct to hide the situation with the purpose to participate with greater ease in the larger social constructs or, sometimes, to be able to hide from them. Perhaps not a good idea to remove that ego then? Pity on those who might fall into that unsuspectingly.

This means our lives are not only built on illusion but we are still in many ways strongly depending on it at the more fundamental level. As I said, enough reason to fear and even more reason to suppress that fear. Unless you want to be a fool...

[Orenholt]

Here's a little blog entry I wrote to go along with this thread...

Fear is one of the most powerful emotions and wears many disguises. Fear motivates nearly every aspect of our lives. If you look at Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs you will see this.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ds.svg.png

The bottom most section represents physiological needs. The needs in this section must be fulfilled to continue existence (though sex is arguable, procreation would be more accurate). The next three sections represent the more egotistical desires, safety, belonging, and esteem. Safety refers to a need for safety nets and feelings of security rather than safety from physical harm which would be in the bottom level. Belonging refers to yet more feelings of security, the security found in the social form of acceptance. Esteem refers to even more feelings of security still, the security found in emotional validation from others. The top most level however, self actualization, is not about getting things from others but giving things TO others and are usually minor expressions of our capacity for agape love.

Inverting the meaning of this triangle we have a hierarchy of giving. Giving others physiological needs is one of the most basic ways that we can care for one another, whether donating canned food to the poor or paying into social programs with taxes. Giving others feelings of security in the categories of safety, belonging, and esteem allows them to more easily reach their highest potential at which point they begin giving things to others in the level of self actualization.

So by eliminating fear in the self we can more easily eliminate fear in others and nurture their feelings of empathy and their desire to help others. However, once a person has met the top of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs they may realize their full potential in agape love at which point they no longer depend upon constant reassurance of safety, belonging, and esteem because they can give these things both to themselves and others.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Any reason to put any faith in Maslow's pyramid scheme? It seems more to reflect his own utopian values and social mores. That whole outdated self-actualization psychological religion. But like with all religions, one can learn from its imagery of course or from how it can propel someone along some line.

However, once a person has met the top of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs they may realize their full potential in agape love at which point they no longer depend upon constant reassurance of safety, belonging, and esteem because they can give these things both to themselves and others.

And all the while subconsciously, fears of losing his safety, belongings and esteem keep driving him, like Nietzsche wrote, every instinct that seeks domination, but is placed under a yoke, needs as support for his self-assurance, as reinforcement, all beautiful names and approved values...

[Diebert van Rhijn]

As for charity and self-sacrifice as morality, let it be clear that these do not come from ones own wretched, loving heart. These are coming from the mob, they are social mores, to maintain the state of affairs as well as the wars surrounding it. Although indeed the poor "will always be with us", just like the ill and down-trodden, society cannot afford letting them become a pool of disease, despair or crime: a duty is born in every citizen born into that world. Otherwise the cost is just too high, the resulting destabilization is too high - or so reasons the mob. Millennia of "civilizing" men has maintained the inclination to help those at the bottom just enough so they don't cause trouble but not that much as to upset the precarious balance of things in society, local as well as global. This also explains why most of the world's charitable programs do help at the bottom but soon hit a "glass ceiling", as if it were built into the effort itself.

What the modern man calls "higher" values and generally praises as being the highest spiritual aim, are at the base still the morals of the group, the common denominator, not even born in the individual but etched in our mind and heart from birth, following us around, whispering notions of guilt and duty in our ears: serve your country or family, give back to the "world" or at least look as if you care and the "highest" of all: give away your life in service of other who don't have chance or hope. Or at least serve family and the needy in this structure.

My point here is not that these values are "wrong", they actually appear to be highly rational from the perspective of a certain type of society, but one needs to understand their origin, how they have little to do with the philosophical "love thy neighbor as thy self" and truest forms of "compassion" simply because we're dealing with social mores laid upon you by your collective neighbors. Not God, but your own group structure is then loved above else and by these means its security and stability would be guaranteed by a seemingly random selection of good deeds performed by various members of the group, all "driven" to do so. Especially when having the time and the means to do so, to be available for the task.... mysteriously...

[Orenholt]

Any reason to put any faith in Maslow's pyramid scheme? It seems more to reflect his own utopian values and social mores. That whole outdated self-actualization psychological religion. But like with all religions, one can learn from its imagery of course or from how it can propel someone along some line.

It just found it was a convenient model to use. If I were going to change it at all I'd take the middle 3 parts and combine them since they're all basically the same thing, various forms of "security". I originally was inspired by a thread on another forum which asked "why do we want things we can never have?" to which the obvious answer of "fear" popped into my mind. It was then that I realized that the ego IS fear. Then I remembered that a characteristic of enlightenment is agape love. What better way to have agape than through empathy? So I made a thread and wrote a paragraph about that explaining how fear is the source of all unenlightened motivation and that fear takes many forms disguised as other emotions. In the process someone asked me to explain how fear could be responsible for that many things. And then I got the idea to look up Maslow's hierarchy of needs (which I suddenly and vaguely remembered from high school psychology) to back up my argument. Then low and behold it made perfect sense with what I was saying so I decided to put my idea together with Maslow's hierarchy of needs as a visual aid.

However, once a person has met the top of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs they may realize their full potential in agape love at which point they no longer depend upon constant reassurance of safety, belonging, and esteem because they can give these things both to themselves and others.

And all the while subconsciously, fears of losing his safety, belongings and esteem keep driving him, like Nietzsche wrote, every instinct that seeks domination, but is placed under a yoke, needs as support for his self-assurance, as reinforcement, all beautiful names and approved values...

Nope. Notice that I said they MAY realize their full potential in agape love. Enlightenment is not guaranteed by any means but I do believe that it's a lot easier to accomplish when you have those needs met. Is it possible to become enlightened without those needs? Maybe but I think that if you're caught up in insecurities it's going hinder your progress because it'll be a distraction.

[Orenholt]

As for charity and self-sacrifice as morality, let it be clear that these do not come from ones own wretched, loving heart. These are coming from the mob, they are social mores, to maintain the state of affairs as well as the wars surrounding it. Although indeed the poor "will always be with us", just like the ill and down-trodden, society cannot afford letting them become a pool of disease, despair or crime: a duty is born in every citizen born into that world. Otherwise the cost is just too high, the resulting destabilization is too high - or so reasons the mob. Millennia of "civilizing" men has maintained the inclination to help those at the bottom just enough so they don't cause trouble but not that much as to upset the precarious balance of things in society, local as well as global. This also explains why most of the world's charitable programs do help at the bottom but soon hit a "glass ceiling", as if it were built into the effort itself.

Do you mean to say that morality is simply caving in to social pressure?
Why would people cause trouble if their needs were met?

What the modern man calls "higher" values and generally praises as being the highest spiritual aim, are at the base still the morals of the group, the common denominator, not even born in the individual but etched in our mind and heart from birth, following us around, whispering notions of guilt and duty in our ears: serve your country or family, give back to the "world" or at least look as if you care and the "highest" of all: give away your life in service of other who don't have chance or hope. Or at least serve family and the needy in this structure.

I agree that it probably is mostly deliberate emotional manipulation that makes most people want to give back.
But if you can work that to your own advantage too then what's the problem with it?
It's symbiotic rather than simply parasitic.
Are you implying that it's better to be a parasite yourself?

My point here is not that these values are "wrong", they actually appear to be highly rational from the perspective of a certain type of society, but one needs to understand their origin, how they have little to do with the philosophical "love thy neighbor as thy self" and truest forms of "compassion" simply because we're dealing with social mores laid upon you by your collective neighbors. Not God, but your own group structure is then loved above else and by these means its security and stability would be guaranteed by a seemingly random selection of good deeds performed by various members of the group, all "driven" to do so. Especially when having the time and the means to do so, to be available for the task.... mysteriously...

As a pantheist my group structure would be "part" of God.
It's highly possible for people to have more time and means to do things if the society is structured properly.
Workers in the US work more hours for less pay than they used to comparatively.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Then I remembered that a characteristic of enlightenment is agape love.

It's unclear what you think it means for you, that word. Like God "loved" the human maggots crawling the Earth? Or like with the Greek, the love for family or spouses? Promoting "well-being" perhaps? What is already dependent on what is considered "well" on short or longer term. It's embedded in cultural mores and values, not universal ones.

Unconditional or sacrificial are often qualifiers used. But that doesn't mean it's "uncaused" or that nobody gains from it by calculation either.

Enlightenment is not guaranteed by any means but I do believe that it's a lot easier to accomplish when you have those needs met. Is it possible to become enlightened without those needs?

The point is that the same pyramid supports the notion that it's a lot easier to become a mass murderer or pedophile when those needs are met. It's way too generalist at the bottom and it's' way too moralistic and relativistic at the top. This is why the visual is not used a lot any more in psychology these days. But yes, generally it's true that without health and security to a certain degree, higher concerns in life, being good or evil, are quickly becoming meaningless.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Do you mean to say that morality is simply caving in to social pressure?

Much of our behavior is determined by social dynamics. And the way to control that behavior is by creating a morality, a law, an order: some fear. It's possible civilization could not have risen without this.

Why would people cause trouble if their needs were met?

Greed, delusion, ignorance, desire, brain damage, childhood trauma, imaginary needs or misidentification of self. Should I go on?

But if you can work that to your own advantage too then what's the problem with it?

Not a problem, just that it's not "self actualization" in Maslowian style. Or related to enlightenment.

It's highly possible for people to have more time and means to do things if the society is structured properly.

You're right, thought and especially philosophy needs space and time, amongst other things. But it's like a fertilized garden, many things will end up starting to grow, expected and unexpected things. To create any "proper conditions" will demand more attention and more work to keep up all the good fruits while limiting the bad weed. On the other hand, sometimes the "good" can work like a weed in a tidy, terrible garden of horrors. Don't get carried away by "proper structure" too quickly...

[Cahoot]

Romantic love, platonic love, motherly love... they all have expectations and are conditional.

Expectations are not conditions. Denied expectations do not end a mother’s love. For the feminine, all is conditional, except love of one’s own children.* This perpetual attitude is displayed in the many expressions of “No,” and “You are wrong,” aspects of control rather than discrimination when perpetual, aspects which may be strategically masked but which do not exempt expectations.

* Feminine exceptions are monsters and unconditional saints.
pinpoint ... ego ... monster ... link

[Orenholt]

Then I remembered that a characteristic of enlightenment is agape love.

It's unclear what you think it means for you, that word. Like God "loved" the human maggots crawling the Earth? Or like with the Greek, the love for family or spouses? Promoting "well-being" perhaps? What is already dependent on what is considered "well" on short or longer term. It's embedded in cultural mores and values, not universal ones.

Unconditional or sacrificial are often qualifiers used. But that doesn't mean it's "uncaused" or that nobody gains from it by calculation either.

I do mean "promoting well being" though it could be compared to the god like love. I never said it was "uncaused".

Enlightenment is not guaranteed by any means but I do believe that it's a lot easier to accomplish when you have those needs met. Is it possible to become enlightened without those needs?

The point is that the same pyramid supports the notion that it's a lot easier to become a mass murderer or pedophile when those needs are met. It's way too generalist at the bottom and it's' way too moralistic and relativistic at the top. This is why the visual is not used a lot any more in psychology these days. But yes, generally it's true that without health and security to a certain degree, higher concerns in life, being good or evil, are quickly becoming meaningless.

But there would be no reason to be a mass murderer or pedophile if you have all those needs met is there?

Do you mean to say that morality is simply caving in to social pressure?

Much of our behavior is determined by social dynamics. And the way to control that behavior is by creating a morality, a law, an order: some fear. It's possible civilization could not have risen without this.

Why would people cause trouble if their needs were met?

Greed, delusion, ignorance, desire, brain damage, childhood trauma, imaginary needs or misidentification of self. Should I go on?

Greed? greed for what? You already have everything. Same with desire.
Delusion, ignorance, imaginary needs can all be fixed by acceptance of facts.

But if you can work that to your own advantage too then what's the problem with it?

Not a problem, just that it's not "self actualization" in Maslowian style. Or related to enlightenment.

Ok so what's the point you're making? If you have agape love that includes yourself as well.

It's highly possible for people to have more time and means to do things if the society is structured properly.

You're right, thought and especially philosophy needs space and time, amongst other things. But it's like a fertilized garden, many things will end up starting to grow, expected and unexpected things. To create any "proper conditions" will demand more attention and more work to keep up all the good fruits while limiting the bad weed. On the other hand, sometimes the "good" can work like a weed in a tidy, terrible garden of horrors. Don't get carried away by "proper structure" too quickly...

ok.

[Cahoot]

The only thing I can think of that's NOT motivated by fear is agape love.

Unconditional love is not conditional love on steroids.
It is not attachment to some extended to mean attachment to all.

Rather, it is dispassion.

Equanimity.

[Cahoot]

It's highly possible for people to have more time and means to do things if the society is structured properly.

You're right, thought and especially philosophy needs space and time, amongst other things. But it's like a fertilized garden, many things will end up starting to grow, expected and unexpected things. To create any "proper conditions" will demand more attention and more work to keep up all the good fruits while limiting the bad weed. On the other hand, sometimes the "good" can work like a weed in a tidy, terrible garden of horrors. Don't get carried away by "proper structure" too quickly...

ok.

Don’t get carried away by the fertilizer. ;)

[Orenholt]

The only thing I can think of that's NOT motivated by fear is agape love.

Unconditional love is not conditional love on steroids.
It is not attachment to some extended to mean attachment to all.

Rather, it is dispassion.

Equanimity.

I'm not disagreeing but why does agape not mean love for the all?
How do you know it is dispassionate?

I know that you cannot have "attachment" to the all because that would require being something separate in order to be attached to it would it not?

[Cahoot]

It’s a knowing that comes from realizing equanimity.

[Orenholt]

It’s a knowing that comes from realizing equanimity.

But why is that incompatible with love and happiness?

Stable is stable.

You can be in a stable state of sadness or in a stable state of joy.

[Dennis Mahar]

equanimity is an access to the underlying nature of reality as calm abiding. (same shit different day)

love and happiness are momentary explosions of feeling involving the prepositions:
for
towards
about
because of
in respect to etc..

mostly, saying 'I love you' has the palpable feeling absent and is inauthentic.

[Dennis Mahar]

There are no surprises really.
for instance last year a silly woman pulled me aside for a private tete a tete.
Very early in the dialogue she volunteered she 'felt' like a black panther and others had told her she had the 'feel' of a panther. (signalling)
obviously she had pulled me aside to inflict a mauling on me. (MO)
I strung her along and she revealed 'dark secrets' about her past, stuff she wouldn't like to be known.
Now she's a toothless tiger.
afraid I'll tell.

protection rackets pinpoint the ego.
don't leave home without one.

[Cahoot]

Machiavellianism could be called the armoring of equanimity.

[Cahoot]

It’s a knowing that comes from realizing equanimity.

But why is that incompatible with love and happiness?

Stable is stable.

You can be in a stable state of sadness or in a stable state of joy.

Love, joy, happiness, assumptions and sadness, all swirl around equanimity.

[Dennis Mahar]

Machiavellianism could be called the armoring of equanimity.

early on, in the ego engagement, signalling shows up like 'road signs' as to where this thing is going.