GENIUS FORUMS

What isn't the ego?

I think it's pretty obvious what egoism is.

But what's not so obvious is what egoism is not.

Is consciousness & action necessarily always ego-based? Or is it possible for their to be egoless consciousness & action?

Loki wrote:I think it's pretty obvious what egotism is.

I think you mean egoism. Egotism means to have an exaggerated view of oneself, whose opposite is to have an accurate view.

If you meant egoism it is not so obvious. Most actions and thoughts are the result of habits, rather than intelligent analysis and then putting self welfare first as egoism would seem to imply.

maestro wrote:

Loki wrote:I think it's pretty obvious what egotism is.

I think you mean egoism.

Yes, that's what I meant. I fixed the opening post.

Egotism means to have an exaggerated view of oneself, whose opposite is to have an accurate view.

Distorted (exaggerated view) versus an Accurate view. I like that.

So does an ego have to be present in order to see accurately? Or even to see at all?

Most actions and thoughts are the result of habits, rather than intelligent analysis and then putting self welfare first as egoism would seem to imply.

Is it possible for 'intelligent analysis' to occur without an ego involved?

The body/mind is a sensory instrument, in addition the mind is also able to conceptualize and model, thorough analogies/visuals etc. Let us define ego as the model that the mind uses to refer to itself.

Loki wrote: So does an ego have to be present in order to see accurately? Or even to see at all?

No because there could be a sensory/cognitive mechanism that does not conceptualize itself and yet is able to register and model its surroundings. Accuracy is dependent upon how closely the model mirrors the actual perceptions. How well can it predict or simulate cause and effect.

Loki wrote: Is it possible for 'intelligent analysis' to occur without an ego involved?

Yes it is possible to develop an accurate causal model of the surroundings, irrespective of the self model. However the model is accurate when used to predict cause and effect without the involvement of the self. It will break down when it tries to predict/simulate a scenario with the self involved in it. On the other hand if the self is accurately modeled then the model will remain accurate with the self involvement.

"What isn't egotism?"

Selflessness...
the functional definition of enlightenment. Self as "separate identity" is an illusion.
Ego is our programing for practical function in the World... socially, etc. Mistaking it for "my identity" (as all egocentrics do) is the unmistakable mark of delusion, the liberation from which is enlightenment.

Loki wrote:Is consciousness & action necessarily always ego-based? Or is it possible for their to be egoless consciousness & action?

100% enlightened consciousness is, by definition, non-ego based consciousness. That is, one operates directly from a perfect understanding and immersion in absolute truth. I do think it's entirely possible for one to become perfectly enlightened, but far and few between will a human ever attain perfect enlightenment, in fact I don't know if any have at all.

Personally, I've had short periods of time where I felt as though I was operating as a direct extension of truth (ego-less), but this kind of consciousness doesn't arise in me very often, and is very difficult to sustain for a number of reasons.

maestro wrote:

Loki wrote: So does an ego have to be present in order to see accurately? Or even to see at all?

No because there could be a sensory/cognitive mechanism that does not conceptualize itself and yet is able to register and model its surroundings.

Plants and most animals appear to be egoless.

Loki wrote: Is it possible for 'intelligent analysis' to occur without an ego involved?

Yes it is possible to develop an accurate causal model of the surroundings, irrespective of the self model.

Has an accurate causal model ever been created? How do we know our causal model is accurate? Is there a difference between accurate and true?

However the model is accurate when used to predict cause and effect without the involvement of the self.

Can you give examples of such a model?

It will break down when it tries to predict/simulate a scenario with the self involved in it. On the other hand if the self is accurately modeled then the model will remain accurate with the self involvement.

An accurate model of the self, eh. Is an accurate model of the self attainable?

Loki wrote:What isn't the ego?

I think it's pretty obvious what egoism is.

It is? I'm not so sure.

So far as I can tell, the ego is a will to power - to comfort and safety. We do many ridiculous things to make us feel invulnerable. We attack, we defend. We lie, cheat, laugh, cry and manipulate. We spend our lives building the skills we think we'll need to do these things best. We gather weaker followers, and we follow the stronger leaders. WHY?

As a distraction to our impending death? I don't really know the answer.

You know what else I don't know the answer to?
1) the real difference subjective and objective
2) what logical causation has to do with causation in time
3) whether or how to trust my memory of the past

Loki wrote: Is it possible for 'intelligent analysis' to occur without an ego involved?
Has an accurate causal model ever been created? How do we know our causal model is accurate? Is there a difference between accurate and true?

There is nothing other than to observe and then deduce some pattern, or repetitive behavior. It can be modeled/visualized as something which is simpler or easier to observe. For example scientists model atoms as billiard balls (in some scenarios).

Truth and accuracy are one and the same thing. Truth pertains to a simplistic (approximate) model of the sensory data, and how well it predicts and models the apperances.

Accurate causal models have been created in physics for example.

Can you give examples of such a model?

For example if as a scientist you observe baboons and deduce their actions and reactions to certain stimuli. If they behave in a similar manner most of the time. You have created an accurate model of these animals irregardless of whatever foolish opinions you hold above yourself.

Thus in an interaction between two baboons you can predict who will behave in what manner and what will be the result of their interactions.

However now suppose you deduce that you can challenge a baboon and intimidate him into having his stash of bananas, by using a certain strategy, but when you do implement this strategy fear gets the best of you and the animal drives you away.
Your inaccurate self model led to unforseen results.

An accurate model of the self, eh. Is an accurate model of the self attainable?

Why not, observe and model.

skipair wrote:

Loki wrote:What isn't the ego?

I think it's pretty obvious what egoism is.

It is? I'm not so sure.

So far as I can tell, the ego is a will to power - to comfort and safety.

Yes, the essence of ego is desire. Desire implies that there is a center which feels that something is lacking and needs to be attained. If there is to be no self, then there can be no desire.

We do many ridiculous things to make us feel invulnerable. We attack, we defend. We lie, cheat, laugh, cry and manipulate. We spend our lives building the skills we think we'll need to do these things best. We gather weaker followers, and we follow the stronger leaders. WHY?

I think we do such things because we desire to attain what we feel is lacking. We feel vulnerable, and therefore feel that invulnerability is lacking. We desire invulnerability because we fear death.

As a distraction to our impending death?

Yes, the ego desires that which pushes death away. The further away, the better.

You know what else I don't know the answer to?

1) the real difference subjective and objective

It may be the difference between mere sensation and logical truths. Sensation is subjective in the sense that the 'bigness' of the Sun is a subjective sensation. From another limited perspective, we have the sensation that the sun is very small.

Logical truths are objective in the sense that they are true in all worlds. For instance, I know objectively that without duality, there can be no existence. That which exists, must exist in contrast to something else. For there to be big, there must be small (and vice versa)

2) what logical causation has to do with causation in time

3) whether or how to trust my memory of the past

I'll admit, I am not clear on those topics you've just raised. Something to think about.

Loki wrote:What isn't the ego?

I think it's pretty obvious what egoism is.

But what's not so obvious is what egoism is not.

Is consciousness & action necessarily always ego-based? Or is it possible for their to be egoless consciousness & action?

Strictly technically speaking, ego or the "I" is what can distinguish itself from the "am." To see the "am" there has to be an "i," but the "am" is either way. Ego is necessary for an objective awareness.

What isn't ego? That would be God, yes?

skipair wrote:As a distraction to our impending death? I don't really know the answer.

Because most people are trapped in samsara (ignorance).

skipair wrote:1) the real difference subjective and objective

Subjectivity depends on an observer, objectivity doesn't. If something is objective, it is not subject to change based on who's contemplating it. Subjectivity on the other hand can change and stems from all things based on empirical observation.

skipair wrote:2) what logical causation has to do with causation in time

Nothing. Time becomes meaningless in regards to logical causation.

skipair wrote:3) whether or how to trust my memory of the past

Whether or not we believe everything contained in our memories doesn't really matter. What does matter is that our memories are formed in a way that allows us to operate in a coherent and logical manner. Just like anything else, take from it what helps us achieve our goals and discard what doesn't.

Nick Treklis wrote:100% enlightened consciousness is, by definition, non-ego based consciousness.

Not by my definition!