GENIUS FORUMS

Well, I think we best leave this whole thing alone; it's going to do my head in otherwise.

Sorry.

Anyway, back on topic?

Orenholt wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: I don't see it as emotional state. It's just too generic as term and it can be some momentary feeling or even just a dispassionate conclusion (for example "these results are unsatisfactory"). Dissatisfaction however can lead to discontent which in the sense of "a restless craving for what one does not have" certainly would qualify as emotion.

Ok then just substitute discontent for dissatisfaction if you're hung up on the wording.

There's a reason I make these distinctions. It helps to raise a bit more awareness and might prevend getting into a lot of confusion later on. Call it experience.

Conscience might be in the most primitive dull form just a feeling but it can develop into something way more involved.

Explain how you think the conscience works if not via expected outcomes of pleasure/pain.

You're at the right forum at least!

Yes, but the ego also is responsible for seeking out joy and thus causes the experience of joy as well even if it is a "false" sense of self.

But does it matter that it's seeking out "joy" like it seeks all kinds of things? In many cases it's about relief more than pure joy. But relief from what?

True but it's still satisfaction of one's OWN ego even if it's at the expense of someone else's

So when I watch a horror movie about torture then me feeling horror and disgust is at the same time a feeling of satisfaction? It's an open question though, meant to explore.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: There's a reason I make these distinctions. It helps to raise a bit more awareness and might prevend getting into a lot of confusion later on. Call it experience.

Does it help you understand what I mean if you substitute the word?

Explain how you think the conscience works if not via expected outcomes of pleasure/pain.

You're at the right forum at least!

Please explain how conscience works to me.

But does it matter that it's seeking out "joy" like it seeks all kinds of things? In many cases it's about relief more than pure joy. But relief from what?

Life is always a struggle to survive and thrive. You're just one little ant against the world. Sure, sometimes you can find friends to help you but there are still challenges every day, challenges that may cause you to suffer. Maybe it's suffering caused by hunger or tiredness or something like social pressures. The fact remains that the ego seeks to relieve itself from suffering caused by it's experiences and perceptions, whether they are internal or external.

So when I watch a horror movie about torture then me feeling horror and disgust is at the same time a feeling of satisfaction? It's an open question though, meant to explore.

Don't be silly. If you feel horror and disgust then you're not feeling pleasure. Not every experiences stimuli the same. Some people might feel aroused by the sight of blood and guts. It's like taste in food. Some people like broccoli and some people don't.

But you must feel SOME kind of enjoyment from watching a horror movie otherwise you wouldn't do it. But it's definitely not for the feelings of horror and disgust. Those are just a side effect.

Orenholt wrote:
Yes, but the ego also is responsible for seeking out joy and thus causes the experience of joy as well even if it is a "false" sense of self.

At best, I’d call this a limited comprehension of ego. At worst, wrong; wrong because it offers no resolution and therefore identifying it as a “cause” is a meaningless abstraction; an article of religious faith.

The ego is the sum negotiated outcome between primal instinct (essentially, genetic inheritance) and morality; an outcome modified by the capacity of the individual to analytically engage with his external environment as a social being. “Enjoyment”, at least in Lacanian terms, is the attempt to break free of social prohibitions/norms. It therefore is distinguished from pleasure in that it leads to “pain”.

Is it good or bad, do you think? And what is this “self” (false or otherwise) to which you relate it?

Leyla Shen wrote: The ego is the sum negotiated outcome between primal instinct (essentially, genetic inheritance) and morality; an outcome modified by the capacity of the individual to analytically engage with his external environment as a social being.

I totally agree! This is what I was saying about conscience being ego driven.

“Enjoyment”, at least in Lacanian terms, is the attempt to break free of social prohibitions/norms. It therefore is distinguished from pleasure in that it leads to “pain”.

Well some people are happy with social norms.

Is it good or bad, do you think? And what is this “self” (false or otherwise) to which you relate it?

I think that good and bad are subjective to the ego itself.
The ego is just as you described.
If you want to think about it being divided into sub groups you could divide the ego itself into id, ego and super ego.

Orenholt wrote:Does it help you understand what I mean if you substitute the word [dissatisfied with discontent]?

You mean your definition of the ego as "the thing being dissatisfied"? Which would become then "ego is the thing being discontent". There are several problems with defining ego as "thing" of course but lets talk about seeing ego as at the core being this very notion of discontentment. The main difference you appear to make between this and Buddhist ideas on suffering and ignorance is that you seem to argue for various "natural" desires and drives which cannot be disabled but are needed to keep the engine running. Is this a decent enough summary?

But you must feel SOME kind of enjoyment from watching a horror movie otherwise you wouldn't do it. But it's definitely not for the feelings of horror and disgust. Those are just a side effect.

Why would it be enjoyable to select specifically a movie that causes horror and disgust during viewing? Is it because of a relief that it's not really happening? It's certainly not a side effect, people see this very specifically as excitement. Perhaps it's the thrill and the shock as the underlying desire. People go out doing extreme sports and events for similar reasons. To experience fear and somehow still get through? Some say it's a form of "feeling" alive a bit more. The point is that the desire is not for just a "positive" experience or emotion. The desire seems to be for a particular power of the experience and movement. With a safety net preferable in place.

Orenholt:

I totally agree! This is what I was saying about conscience being ego driven.

What about the bit about analytical capacity to engage with the external environment?

Well some people are happy with social norms.

Like a pig in shit?

I think that good and bad are subjective to the ego itself.

Interesting. Not, “good and bad are subjective” but “good and bad are subjective to the ego itself”.

Are you suggesting that the objective/subjective duality is illusory? That there is no such thing as “subjective” without an ego, which is—subjective?

The ego is just as you described.

Well, I don't seem to know what it is anymore... (:

If you want to think about it being divided into sub groups you could divide the ego itself into id, ego and super ego.

I see. So, first you totally agree with me, and now you totally disagree with me.

Why would I do that? If I did, would I understand why you said it to avoid answering the actual question?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: You mean your definition of the ego as "the thing being dissatisfied"? Which would become then "ego is the thing being discontent". There are several problems with defining ego as "thing" of course but lets talk about seeing ego as at the core being this very notion of discontentment. The main difference you appear to make between this and Buddhist ideas on suffering and ignorance is that you seem to argue for various "natural" desires and drives which cannot be disabled but are needed to keep the engine running. Is this a decent enough summary?

Yes. Sure, the ego wants other things besides to eat etc. It also might want material luxuries such as a new radio.

Why would it be enjoyable to select specifically a movie that causes horror and disgust during viewing?

Well let's take Repo! The Genetic Opera for example. It has scenes of blood and gust that might cause horror and disgust but I love it because it has great songs and a good plot. The good feelings outweigh the bad ones making it "worth" it to me to watch it.

It's certainly not a side effect, people see this very specifically as excitement. Perhaps it's the thrill and the shock as the underlying desire.

Yes that could be the case for some people.

People go out doing extreme sports and events for similar reasons. To experience fear and somehow still get through? Some say it's a form of "feeling" alive a bit more. The point is that the desire is not for just a "positive" experience or emotion. The desire seems to be for a particular power of the experience and movement. With a safety net preferable in place.

Well I'm sure people who skydive regularly would describe it as a "positive" experience.

But let's take this a step further. Masochism.
If someone cuts their self they might say they're doing it for the "pain" but they're actually doing it for the pleasure.
The pain can CAUSES pleasure.
It's the endorphins that the brain releases during the act of cutting that they're after, not the physical pain itself.

Leyla Shen wrote: What about the bit about analytical capacity to engage with the external environment?

Well that is part of the ego too. The super ego if you want to be more specific. That's the "rational" part of the ego because it considers the negative consequences it could encounter. But the differences between the id, ego and super ego are all imaginary differences made up for practical purposes in understanding the human psyche.

Like a pig in shit?

Yes.

Interesting. Not, “good and bad are subjective” but “good and bad are subjective to the ego itself”.

Are you suggesting that the objective/subjective duality is illusory? That there is no such thing as “subjective” without an ego, which is—subjective?

Indeed I am. Well, as far as values and judgements go.
You can still say that "the boy was 5 feet tall" as an objective statement and it would be accurate.

Well, I don't seem to know what it is anymore... (:

Did you confuse yourself?

I see. So, first you totally agree with me, and now you totally disagree with me.

Why would I do that? If I did, would I understand why you said it to avoid answering the actual question?

The "primal instinct" is the id, the "morality" is the super ego and the "ego" is what must find a way to compromise between the two.
But as I said before, these are all part of the ego. The id and super ego are just sub parts of the ego.
The "self" is the emotional self. The self that reacts to its internal and external stimuli.
The reason that this self is a "false" self is because it makes many false assumptions about reality such as the difference between itself and the rest of the universe and it often ignores causal factors.

The "primal instinct" is the id, the "morality" is the super ego and the "ego" is what must find a way to compromise between the two.
But as I said before, these are all part of the ego. The id and super ego are just sub parts of the ego.
The "self" is the emotional self. The self that reacts to its internal and external stimuli.
The reason that this self is a "false" self is because it makes many false assumptions about reality such as the difference between itself and the rest of the universe and it often ignores causal factors.

names, names, labels, labels,
can't be avoided,
nevertheless,
a word is less than a thought and a thought is less than the experience,
by the time the word arrives the experience is stripped of its subtle components.

'ego' is an experience,
an experience of lack and sometimes an experience of glee upon a win.

doesn't matter who you are, you will experience 'a lack' 30 times a day.
its pointless trying to rid yourself of it.
when it happens realise the chain of activity this 'lack' will embark you on to deal with it.
for instance,
when a poster configures 'Woman' in a certain way an experience of 'lack' arrives and is resisted.

The Lacanian Real and Zen's primordial unity are speaking of the same nature.
Zen accesses from meditation and reflection.
the Lacanian way is speaking and listening.
when a poster is posting the 'lack' can be 'heard' or the 'glee' can be heard.

realising ego's vulnerability, its experience of vulnerability and its insatiable demands for fortification is a breakthru' moment.

Orenholt:

Well that is part of the ego too. The super ego if you want to be more specific. That's the "rational" part of the ego because it considers the negative consequences it could encounter. But the differences between the id, ego and super ego are all imaginary differences made up for practical purposes in understanding the human psyche.

What human psyche?

Moi: Are you suggesting that the objective/subjective duality is illusory? That there is no such thing as “subjective” without an ego, which is—subjective?

Alter-moi: Indeed I am. Well, as far as values and judgements go.
You can still say that "the boy was 5 feet tall" as an objective statement and it would be accurate.

So, as long as there is an “objective” (solid) referent, subjectivity is accurate and the subject/object duality is real. The nature of reality then is solid, lifeless things of non-organic matter that can be (physically) sensed, and an objective/subjective duality delusion arises from a purely subjective attachment to such things; things like “it makes me feel good” rather than “if I don’t eat, I will die”. Thus, I can conclude without any further consideration that any action in the name of staying alive is necessary a sane action. Such that a hungry thief becomes a man of wise values and judgements, and the man of wisdom a liar.

Does that sound about right?

Did you confuse yourself?

Apparently. Since you are wise and enlightened and don’t exist, the only possible responsible party is me—arguing with and seeking wisdom from myself.

The "primal instinct" is the id, the "morality" is the super ego and the "ego" is what must find a way to compromise between the two.
But as I said before, these are all part of the ego.

“A = id, B = superego and C = x. But, as I said before, x[A+B]. Therefore, x[A+B]=C”

And while we are at it:

Well [the analytical capacity to engage with the external environment] is part of the ego too. The super ego if you want to be more specific.

Therefore, analytical thinking = x.

I get it, now.

Leyla Shen wrote: What human psyche?

The mental or psychological structure of a person.

So, as long as there is an “objective” (solid) referent, subjectivity is accurate and the subject/object duality is real. The nature of reality then is solid, lifeless things of non-organic matter that can be (physically) sensed, and an objective/subjective duality delusion arises from a purely subjective attachment to such things; things like “it makes me feel good” rather than “if I don’t eat, I will die”. Thus, I can conclude without any further consideration that any action in the name of staying alive is necessary a sane action. Such that a hungry thief becomes a man of wise values and judgements, and the man of wisdom a liar.

Does that sound about right?

Yes, "objectivity" depends on objects. Yes, the duality is when we assign meaning or value to the objects because they are "of the subject" and the subject is you. But in the example "if I don't eat I will die soon" you are assigning death a negative meaning or value. So I wouldn't necessarily say that the man of wisdom is a liar, if he says that stealing is bad. He just has different values. He may gain more pleasure from being virtuous and wise than from living itself.

Apparently. Since you are wise and enlightened and don’t exist, the only possible responsible party is me—arguing with and seeking wisdom from myself.

Well, it's not that I'm different than you. You don't exist either. You just might not realize it yet.

“A = id, B = superego and C = x. But, as I said before, x[A+B]. Therefore, x[A+B]=C”

And while we are at it:

Therefore, analytical thinking = x.

I get it, now.

Hmm... Close.
I would say that it is merely A+B=C
A= id, B=super ego, and C= ego
And that x (analytical thinking) is a characteristic of B.

Orenholt wrote:
I would say that it is merely A+B=C
A= id, B=super ego, and C= ego
And that x (analytical thinking) is a characteristic of B.

But what I said, with which you totally agreed, was:

The ego is the sum negotiated outcome between primal instinct (essentially, genetic inheritance) and morality; an outcome modified by the capacity of the individual to analytically engage with his external environment as a social being.

Leyla Shen wrote: But what I said, with which you totally agreed, was:

The ego is the sum negotiated outcome between primal instinct (essentially, genetic inheritance) and morality; an outcome modified by the capacity of the individual to analytically engage with his external environment as a social being.

Could you reword that a little? I'm not seeing the conflict yet.

Edit:
Oh I see now.
I thought that you meant that was referring to morality itself.

And by "morality" I mean conscience which cannot exist without knowledge of expected outcomes.

-Orenholt,

Sorry! If I was a tad bit Rash----over there.

Anyhow,

I just 'thought' I'd add a bit to your survival skills. There needs to be an necessary entrance to the Mother; Ship; metaphorically speaking. If you want to count docks/dollars then, go ahead..
You ever just stair or glare into a spider's web? What accounts for that/? I mean, by nature;

Naturally, you're going to say 'yes.' But, my question for anyone on GF is-that that if a web-of-Lies took place...who'd be the one to follow?
Truthfully,

I'm all ears. I've synthes-sysed. Net/Data/Base. Anyhow, you're going to hate me for this one....But, honestly, what accounts for all this? Envy? Enlightenment? Surely, you don't mean to disrupt this whole-piece by adding tad bits to the serial prizm at hand. I further, wouldn't mind being a friendly opposition to you--knowing, very well, you have faults.

I've engineered a plot to syncronize all that has been said and now I earnestly await for a response. As, you've used all the time-

Energy-
Needs-
Vital-
Yoke_

Ok.

So, the semper fi spider.
He is perfect.

Orenholt wrote:And by "morality" I mean conscience which cannot exist without knowledge of expected outcomes.

What's interesting is that you don't differentiate between the knowledge and expected outcomes of instinct (animal/infant consciousness), morality, and reasoning (human consciousness); from which it clearly follows you lack a certain conscience. Denying that you exist is one of its peculiar characteristics.

Leyla Shen wrote: What's interesting is that you don't differentiate between the knowledge and expected outcomes of instinct (animal/infant consciousness), morality, and reasoning (human consciousness); from which it clearly follows you lack a certain conscience. Denying that you exist is one of its peculiar characteristics.

The only difference between the animal/infant consciousness and the human consciousness is the human capacity for knowledge of expected outcomes.
A lion might eat the last of an endangered species because it doesn't know that it is the last, nor does it understand how it would be bad to kill off a species of prey animal. It only thinks in the short term about "I'm hungry and I must kill to eat".
A human (or at least an intelligent one) on the other hand wouldn't kill off all cows because we have the capacity to understand that it would be bad to eat all of our food animals without having more to breed and replenish the herd.

But, for example, there are the expected outcomes of science and the expected outcomes of religion, faith and unreason. Are these not worlds apart?

Not to mention the expected outcome of subjecting oneself to a psychoanalyst!

Leyla Shen wrote:But, for example, there are the expected outcomes of science and the expected outcomes of religion, faith and unreason. Are these not worlds apart?

They are different but only in the factual sense.
They are similar in that they are both PERCEIVED as facts by the individual.

Both?

I get what you're saying.

But do YOU think they are different?

Leyla Shen wrote:Both?

Yes, lies are truth to the delusional mind.

Leyla Shen wrote:I get what you're saying.

But do YOU think they are different?

Yes, I do think that religious faith is different than scientific evidence.
Science (while not perfect) is more factual than religions like Christianity for example.