GENIUS FORUMS

Leyla Shen wrote:

That the ego ideal doesn't exist and that it's a silly concept.

Are you saying that people don't have images they strive to live up to?

The Symbolic Order (the realm of the Ego Ideal) is language; signifier and signified.

Are you planning to reach your goal/s without language?

Of course people have desires to live up to expectations but that has nothing to do with the ego ideal. It has to do with desires to gain pleasure and avoid pain on an internal level.

What does language have to do with this?

Are you saying then, that men that desire to be desired by women are females ?

The OP referred to female sexuality.

What does language have to do with this?

a dialogue with the external world from a subjective viewpoint.
a soliloquoy basically.

Orenholt:

What does language have to do with this?

The power to disclose why it is you are answering a question I have not asked you, rather than ones I have asked you, for a start. It is also the reason we have logic (the etymology of which you might find interesting).

Would you like to search Lacan's definitions of signifier and signified, or shall I summarise them for you? In fact, you could possibly get away with using the standard dictionary definitions for the moment.

Of course people have desires to live up to expectations [...]

I said images. You know, like the "whore" images you seem to be so fond of, which young children imitate; or the wholesome housewife. That sort of thing, you know? Imagery.

[...] but that has nothing to do with the ego ideal. It has to do with desires to gain pleasure and avoid pain on an internal level.

Pardon?

I had no idea you were the one who coined the term, only to later assert this about it.

[T]he ego ideal doesn't exist and that it's a silly concept.

Prove it!

Do you really think people should just believe what you say because you said (there's that language, again) it?

Perhaps you could demonstrate some intellectual integrity and read (properly) this section of the opening post, because it is assumed you had something to say about it (or were you just trolling?):

[Freud] tends to identify these three terms: he often uses the expression Ichideal oder Idealich (Ego-Ideal or ideal ego), and the title of the chapter III of his booklet The Ego and the Id) is "Ego and Superego (Ego-Ideal)". Lacan introduces a precise distinction between these three terms: the "ideal ego" stands for the idealized self-image of the subject (the way I would like to be, I would like others to see me); the Ego-Ideal is the agency whose gaze I try to impress with my ego image, the big Other who watches over me and propels me to give my best, the ideal I try to follow and actualize; and the superego is this same agency in its revengeful, sadistic, punishing, aspect. The underlying structuring principle of these three terms is clearly Lacan's triad Imaginary-Symbolic-Real: ideal ego is imaginary, what Lacan calls the "small other," the idealized double-image of my ego; Ego-Ideal is symbolic, the point of my symbolic identification, the point in the big Other from which I observe (and judge) myself; superego is real, the cruel and insatiable agency which bombards me with impossible demands and which mocks my failed attempts to meet them, the agency in the eyes of which I am all the more guilty, the more I try to suppress my "sinful" strivings and meet its demands.

Then, you might like to actually try answering my questions again, which were:

Orenholt: [T]he ego ideal doesn't exist and that it's a silly concept.

LS: Are you saying that people don't have images they strive to live up to?

The Symbolic Order (the realm of the Ego Ideal) is language; signifier and signified.

Are you planning to reach your goal/s without language?

I know what signifies means. It means to make meaning or importance out of something.

Images? How are images different than any other kind of expectation? And what are you talking about "whores"?

Just because someone makes up a word doesn't mean that it and it's meaning are correct. I could say that the jumblefluff is the part of the brain that causes hiccups on a daily basis.

Do you think that people should believe what you're posting just because someone else said it? These cognitive metaphors need to have physical counter parts in the brain otherwise they're useless.

Yes, people have images they try to live up to.
No, I'm not planning on reaching goals without language.

Orenholt:

I know what signifies means. It means to make meaning or importance out of something.

Images? How are images different than any other kind of expectation?

In Lacan, the subject matter at hand, they are a component part of the symbolical order in the unconscious; signifier being sounds/images and the signified being related concepts.

The signified as concepts represents consciousness (discernment/form/distinction) and signifiers the unconscious (associative/no form/merging).

So, it would follow that there can be conscious and unconscious expectation. The former an analytical assessment, the latter symptomatic of the unconscious (egoistic).

In the unconscious, “desire” is the lack (a lost object in the imaginary) and the domain of Ideal Ego as determined by the Ego Ideal. In the conscious (conceptually), it’s biological need—conscious and not egoistic.

It is only if you accept reasoning on this order that hunger, for example, is a lack of food, and is not an egoistic desire until it manifests as some strange behaviour or symptom; as the object of desire—i.e., the lack of an imaginary object.

And what are you talking about "whores"?

I am referring to your polemic about feminists, essentially this, and what followed from (and in part preceded) it:

Then there are specific issues like not only being slutty but dressing slutty.

(And we still are not yet at a point capable of introducing superego...)

Just because someone makes up a word doesn't mean that it and it's meaning are correct. I could say that the jumblefluff is the part of the brain that causes hiccups on a daily basis.

That’s correct.

And, yes—you could do that. And it would be just as meaningless as your model of ego.

Do you think that people should believe what you're posting just because someone else said it?

Certainly not. I’d be posting your rubbish if I thought that. (:

I think they should understand the terms and definitions, consider the reasoning and then prove their own or disprove the alternative propositions.

These cognitive metaphors need to have physical counter parts in the brain otherwise they're useless.

Like your “cognitive metaphor” of “the brain is desire”? And further, are you suggesting your proposition is any more valid based on the same criteria than the Lacanian model; that is, that there is no “physical counterpart in the brain” for images, concepts and association?

Yes, people have images they try to live up to.
No, I'm not planning on reaching goals without language.

Wonderful. Some small sign of progress!

Orenholt wrote:The reason we're interested in survival "as a species" is because we're too dumb and weak to survive on our own most of the time.

No, the species is interested in survival of itself. Or perhaps as some cooperation of genes. Some people might value this consciously but many do not. Actually from observation one could easily come to a conclusion that many people do not act in the interest of survival or fitness, or that of their own (while stuffing themselves without limitation) or openly acting like they do not care about humanity. Of course one could argue that "stuffing" might be an instinct for "load up as much as you can if it's there" gone out of control because of all the surplus of food but it's clearly not happening with everyone.

My goal is to show that all human behavior is in self interest and that "selfishness" can sometimes be a good thing.

But why do you think anyone would disagree with this roundabout claim? They wouldn't. Even at the molecular level we see obvious attempts to continue, repair, expand, spread and defend. It's sort of how life works. People like Richard Dawkins have promoted this with as the base the genes since they are replicating and self-affirming patterns creating a complex phenotype and "vessel" to accomplish this (in his model).

But any structure, being it molecular or your local political party appears to be trying to continue its existence over time, keeping some internal "idea" or "code" intact: does it work only with satisfaction/unsatisfaction and is really every action somehow part of the reward system? A reward system which is really limited to reinforcing behaviors at the neurological level. It's like a mechanism neutral to any "purpose", employed by various other agencies to achieve their own goal: the body, a larger body, a virus (sneezing!) or any symbolic "agent" like an advertisement and such.

Leyla Shen wrote:Jesus fucking Christ.

She needs some serious discipline, Dan.

You really should give her the boot.

Should? Leyla, was it your intent to give us an example of the language of the Super Ego? Where in the language of absolute self [enlightened self] exists the dual self-righteous concept of "should?"

Orenholt: Images? How are images different than any other kind of expectation?

One cannot have an expectation without using one's imagination. Imagination is the home of the ego of exptectations in all its manifestations.

Entering the realm of the absolute or infinite self is to leave the imagination, therefore, the ego behind. Which is to leave expectation behind. Which is to leave the language of "should" behind, "perhaps" behind and "maybe" behind. Concepts such as selfish or unselfish, ethical or moral, right or wrong belong to the ego or imagined self, not to the absolute or infinite self.

The absolute or infinite self is moved without the shadow of dual thinking. I am or I will is the foundational patterning for its internal languaging.

The absolute or infinite self.

as opposed to what?

Leyla Shen wrote: In Lacan, the subject matter at hand, they are a component part of the symbolical order in the unconscious; signifier being sounds/images and the signified being related concepts.

The signified as concepts represents consciousness (discernment/form/distinction) and signifiers the unconscious (associative/no form/merging).

So, it would follow that there can be conscious and unconscious expectation. The former an analytical assessment, the latter symptomatic of the unconscious (egoistic).

In the unconscious, “desire” is the lack (a lost object in the imaginary) and the domain of Ideal Ego as determined by the Ego Ideal. In the conscious (conceptually), it’s biological need—conscious and not egoistic.

It is only if you accept reasoning on this order that hunger, for example, is a lack of food, and is not an egoistic desire until it manifests as some strange behaviour or symptom; as the object of desire—i.e., the lack of an imaginary object.

Ok but that still doesn't explain how images are different than other forms of expectations. Just because you have a visual or audio representation in your mind doesn't mean that it's some how unconnected to other types of expectations. That would be like saying that Helen Keller had no expectations because she had no concept of sound or sight.

I am referring to your polemic about feminists, essentially this, and what followed from (and in part preceded) it:

Then there are specific issues like not only being slutty but dressing slutty.

Didn't you read the second post that I made? The point isn't to bash women, it's to get them to change their behavior so it will benefit women over all to the goals they wish to achieve, namely equality.

And, yes—you could do that. And it would be just as meaningless as your model of ego.

Just because you disagree doesn't mean that it's meaningless.

Certainly not. I’d be posting your rubbish if I thought that. (:

Why are you being so snotty?

Like your “cognitive metaphor” of “the brain is desire”? And further, are you suggesting your proposition is any more valid based on the same criteria than the Lacanian model; that is, that there is no “physical counterpart in the brain” for images, concepts and association?

The brain causes desire because it has elements in it such as the reward system.
Yes, there are parts of the brain that cause imagery etc but they have nothing to do with the ego.

Dennis Mahar wrote:

The absolute or infinite self.

as opposed to what?

Nothing.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

Orenholt wrote:The reason we're interested in survival "as a species" is because we're too dumb and weak to survive on our own most of the time.

No, the species is interested in survival of itself. Or perhaps as some cooperation of genes. Some people might value this consciously but many do not. Actually from observation one could easily come to a conclusion that many people do not act in the interest of survival or fitness, or that of their own (while stuffing themselves without limitation) or openly acting like they do not care about humanity. Of course one could argue that "stuffing" might be an instinct for "load up as much as you can if it's there" gone out of control because of all the surplus of food but it's clearly not happening with everyone.

The species has no collective will. Only individuals that are part of the collective can have a will.
It's true that some care about our species over all and yet many do not. The ones that do care about our species (or the world/environment in general) are a bit more conscious of the consequences.

But why do you think anyone would disagree with this roundabout claim? They wouldn't. Even at the molecular level we see obvious attempts to continue, repair, expand, spread and defend. It's sort of how life works. People like Richard Dawkins have promoted this with as the base the genes since they are replicating and self-affirming patterns creating a complex phenotype and "vessel" to accomplish this (in his model).

Because some people think that things such as enlightenment are not the result of desire or that once you are enlightened you won't have it.

But any structure, being it molecular or your local political party appears to be trying to continue its existence over time, keeping some internal "idea" or "code" intact: does it work only with satisfaction/unsatisfaction and is really every action somehow part of the reward system? A reward system which is really limited to reinforcing behaviors at the neurological level. It's like a mechanism neutral to any "purpose", employed by various other agencies to achieve their own goal: the body, a larger body, a virus (sneezing!) or any symbolic "agent" like an advertisement and such.

So you're saying that it can only reinforce things that one has already experienced? I would agree with that. But think about a gambler. If someone sees a losing gambler they will not think to gamble themselves. But if someone sees a winning gambler they will be inclined to try it because they have experienced seeing someone else profit.

Orenholt wrote:The species has no collective will. Only individuals that are part of the collective can have a will.

Which is like saying: the species has no collective ego. The species has no "self interest". The species does not know of "satisfaction" or "dissatisfaction". And still it drives behavior, develops, moves through history, evolves, etc.

But you seem really confused here: obviously the species has goals which does not equal all the goals of the individual. Actually they do conflict at times. Which gives us the conflicted feelings. Not all of our drives appear "good" for us, assuming they even are functioning as intended. Hmm, intended by whom? Intended according to the apparent nature of some thing.

Because some people think that things such as enlightenment are not the result of desire or that once you are enlightened you won't have it.

Enlightenment is also the result of breathing and eating. But I can ensure you nobody really desires enlightenment but only the image of such is desired. And yet one gets pulled in as a result of certain behavior. In that sense yes: desiring for things we imagine to be true will play a part.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Which is like saying: the species has no collective ego. The species has no "self interest". The species does not know of "satisfaction" or "dissatisfaction". And still it drives behavior, develops, moves through history, evolves, etc.

The only way that the species can have ego, self interest or satisfaction or dissatisfaction is because each individual does.
We can't just lump them all together as "THE SPECIES" because the only way that things are accomplished is by individuals working together at times.

But you seem really confused here: obviously the species has goals which does not equal all the goals of the individual. Actually they do conflict at times. Which gives us the conflicted feelings. Not all of our drives appear "good" for us, assuming they even are functioning as intended. Hmm, intended by whom? Intended according to the apparent nature of some thing.

The species does not have goals. Only individuals have goals and sometimes the goals are the same between 2 or more people but that doesn't mean that ALL of the species has that same goal. Everything is intended by Nature itself.

Enlightenment is also the result of breathing and eating. But I can ensure you nobody really desires enlightenment but only the image of such is desired. And yet one gets pulled in as a result of certain behavior. In that sense yes: desiring for things we imagine to be true will play a part.

Breathing and eating are only necessary to stay alive. If breathing and eating were not necessary for some reason desire would still be necessary to become enlightened.

Orenholt, do you hold the ego to be delusional in any way? Do you think it's possible to experience consciousness, without ego, even at least for just a short period of time?

If not, what exactly does "enlightenment" mean to you if the ego, as you define it, cannot be transcended? What is the point of it in your eyes?

Again, your model, which supposedly demonstrates the permanency of egotistical desire in human consciousness, renders the ego as an meaningless term in regards to the goals of enlightenment, which then requires a redefining of the goals. Do you have any recommendations for such a revision? Or is enlightenment just a meaningless pursuit altogether?

Russell wrote:Orenholt, do you hold the ego to be delusional in any way? Do you think it's possible to experience consciousness, without ego, even at least for just a short period of time?

If not, what exactly does "enlightenment" mean to you if the ego, as you define it, cannot be transcended? What is the point of it in your eyes?

Again, your model, which supposedly demonstrates the permanency of egotistical desire in human consciousness, renders the ego as an meaningless term in regards to the goals of enlightenment, which then requires a redefining of the goals. Do you have any recommendations for such a revision? Or is enlightenment just a meaningless pursuit altogether?

If we define ego as self rather than desire then yes, that is delusional in some ways or at least it appears to be very short sighted.

Enlightenment means living without delusion, not living without desire. Desire cannot be transcended but the idea of "self" can.

Enlightenment is a worthy goal but I personally feel that it is only the best means to other ends.

Orenholt wrote:If we define ego as self rather than desire then yes, that is delusional in some ways or at least it appears to be very short sighted.

Egotistical desire is selfish desire. There's no conflict of terms here as the ego regards the self as an inherent entity in the act of desiring.

Enlightenment means living without delusion, not living without desire. Desire cannot be transcended but the idea of "self" can.

Egotistical desire is necessarily delusional if the ego itself is delusional.

Enlightenment is a worthy goal but I personally feel that it is only the best means to other ends.

Such as egotistical satisfaction, I assume.

Russell wrote:

Orenholt wrote:If we define ego as self rather than desire then yes, that is delusional in some ways or at least it appears to be very short sighted.

Egotistical desire is selfish desire. There's no conflict of terms here as the ego regards the self as an inherent entity in the act of desiring.

There's nothing wrong with being selfish as long as it benefits yourself (the world) in the long run.
The ego doesn't have to think that it is inherent. The ego can realize that it is just caused and that it is dependent on everything else.

Enlightenment means living without delusion, not living without desire. Desire cannot be transcended but the idea of "self" can.

Egotistical desire is necessarily delusional if the ego itself is delusional.

The ego doesn't have to be delusional though.

[Enlightenment is a worthy goal but I personally feel that it is only the best means to other ends.

Such as egotistical satisfaction, I assume.

Yep, because there's no escaping it.

L: And, yes—you could do that. And it would be just as meaningless as your model of ego.

O: Just because you disagree doesn't mean that it's meaningless.

Well, yes it is, because I have explained why it is meaningless. All you are doing is conflating desire-ego-brain into a monolith; are you Catholic, or do you have Catholic roots, by any chance?

Kinda like you think this is some clever Zennish process to rid the “enlightenment crowd” of what you are implicitly suggesting is delusion.

I’ll address the rest of your jumble when I finish work.

What would you describe as the source of delusional thought?

Leyla Shen wrote:

L: And, yes—you could do that. And it would be just as meaningless as your model of ego.

O: Just because you disagree doesn't mean that it's meaningless.

Well, yes it is, because I have explained why it is meaningless. All you are doing is conflating desire-ego-brain into a monolith; are you Catholic, or do you have Catholic roots, by any chance?

Kinda like you think this is some clever Zennish process to rid the “enlightenment crowd” of what you are implicitly suggesting is delusion.

I’ll address the rest of your jumble when I finish work.

What does Catholicism have to do with this? I'm not Catholic nor do I have Catholic roots. I'm an Agnostic Pantheist.
My family is Baptist but their beliefs have no bearing on mine as I do not agree with them.
The ego comes from the brain and the ego is the source of desire (supposedly).
I look forward to your answers... especially about why you insist on being snotty and suggest that Dan give me "the boot".

Russell wrote:What would you describe as the source of delusional thought?

Ignorance of course. But having desires doesn't necessarily mean that you're ignorant.

I look forward to your answers... especially about why you insist on being snotty and suggest that Dan give me "the boot".

Yes, I can see why that's the most important thing to you.

Guess what? I'm going to let you suffer that one out.

Leyla Shen wrote:

I look forward to your answers... especially about why you insist on being snotty and suggest that Dan give me "the boot".

Yes, I can see why that's the most important thing to you.

Guess what? I'm going to let you suffer that one out.

Well I was just wondering if you had any justification but if you don't feel the need to justify yourself I guess I'll chalk it up to "femininity" in the unconscious sense.