Funches and nuens, you all are participating in personal attacks of each other which are against the rules of this sight, just a warning.

Dragoness, kind of you to attempt to still the children at play.

It is, however, a good reflection of how the ego must be defended in order to maintain its integrity as the provisional source that feeds our illusions.

Consider it the very real backdrop of a stage play in which the actors are evaluating the naure of man.

Or kind of like one, watching a tape of himself,looking at a picture of himself, that shows him looking at himself in a mirror. Which concept of that self would that person view at real?

Out for now - keep the ball rolling you all!

Redy,

You would love the writings of Luigi Pirandello.


His work is very much as you've described the present 'stage play' indeed.

Redykeulus, just saving them from getting kicked off the site, as is what happens to those who personally attack others.

I want to tell you, you have taxed my poor brain with this subject. I had to go read up on existentialism.

I guess you are referring to the part of existenialism that is referred to in Fight Club the movie for your referrences to the fellows on here? In the ego concept?

To be or not to be that is the question???? LOL reading the information made me think of that old saying.

Now, I have a meager amount of trade school under my belt and am not as sharp and quick to grasp as I used to be but I want to give my relationship to what I read on existentialism and you let me know what you think.

I am just going to relate myself to the concepts okay?

The concept of complete freedom and responsibility for ones actions causing boredom and meaninglessness, I guess taking it to an ultimate extreme maybe. I actually try to practice it in my life, maybe not how they were referring to it, but it is freeing to reject the societal constraints to a certain extent. I follow personal rules that coincide with laws in order to live my life causing the least amount of harm to others or myself. Also, I do not know if related but I hold myself ultimately responsible for everything I do, that is why there can be no god or devil to me because I cannot and will not blame outside forces for my actions.

I agree with the thought that man has to create something to regulate his freedom in order to not feel isolated, alienated and having no meaning to his life. Herding or whatever that word was, that causes people to follow the rules of the bunch instead of accepting their personal freedom because then they face a life that has no direction or meaning.

The absurd concept: if it cannot fit into the metaphysical and does not fit in the logical realm it is then absurd, mans life has alot of absurdities.

The existential psychology of using ones anxiety to help them make a positive change in their life. Makes sense to me. I use the negative happenings in my life as a learning tool, so it sounds familiar to me.

I do apologize for the simplicity of my comment but I prefer to speak in simple terms. If you could expound on my short understandings. I know it goes much deeper but I have never heard of existentialism until this post.

Thank you for broadening my mind, I love to learn, it does not come as easily as it used to but I still love it

I have actually come to the understanding, having now absorbed Freud's generalized definition of ego, that the ego to which I referred earlier is the super ego according to Freud...

Although seemingly brilliant, I believe that Freud displayed a tendency to allow his own acceptance(s) to dominate his thought, which in turn, I feel, caused him to make some feeble attempts at blanket understandings... They simply do not cover everyone... penis envy??? fear of castration??? I see little evidence of humility... thereby allowing less credence from this one.

For myself, according to that through which I have lived, I can only speak... should I be able to grasp notions through a concept which could apply to all... then I feel that the concept is valued by all, thereby gaining credence through universal assimilation... defining it's validity

I can only judge the "proof" in my expression by it's capability for another's application and/or understanding...

My earlier posts were not solely intended to describe, define, or re-define ego, as I believe it is merely a self-imposed tool, a coping mechanism defined by one's acceptances, and a mere portion of the "learned self" which helps to define that which one lives... the filters in use.

The concept I was attempting to accurately identify and define involves one's adopting of a foreign idealogue reluctantly, based on a general conflict within one's "unborn self" and the impending paradox that it creates..."Thief teachings".

Driven by the need for acceptance and belonging, the "learned self" must be able to overwhelm the initial reluctance of the "unborn self" living within the "learned self" in order to adopt the foreign idealogue. A collective compromise in judgement which conflicts with "unborn self" is required for such acceptance, and is carried within as long as the idealogue is in practice.

This cannot be done through the "learned self" alone, without the conflicting parts of the "unborn self" being dismissed or supressed, therefore parts of the "learned self" must be circumvented and replaced through a false persona. The adopting of that which one is not in order to accept that which does not belong within.

That false persona can eventually become completely dominant within one, as the person will begin to believe the idealogue after living it for long enough... In turn, consciously losing more and more of the "unborn self", while growing exponentially the accepted false persona within the "learned self"... all of which, together, define the person to the world... by creating the personality.

The "unborn self", for me, defines the complete essence of one when born... the spirit of all one is meant to be... the innocence of wonder and amazement prior to "thief teachings", and for a time completely makes up the "learned self"...

The "learned self", for me, defines who we are as a result of that which we live and accept within, and quite possibly may never be seperate from the "unborn self" as a result of "thief teaching"...

"Thief teaching" describes the notion of that which one must accept by suppression of the "unborn self" in order to feel accepted by the "thief teacher"...the result of which steals one from themself creating a walking paradox... a mere shell of who one was truly meant to be...

There are other factors which must be taken into consideration. What one loses of themself that is already a known must be identified... I have called this, which dwells in and out of conscious thought as a result of replacement by suppression... "ghost knowledge". This is confirmed by the comfortable learnings throughout one's life which also must be supressed as a result of conflicting with the adopted foreign idealogue, thereby adding to the "ghost knowledge"...and kept available through the "unborn self"...

There are an infinite number of valid understandings pertaining to belief and knowledge. The beauty of it is that, in my opinion, it is completely subjective within an individual, and entirely consciously and subconsciously edited throughout the learning process, by the acceptances within that individual...

Those glasses which the world puts on one in order to look at the world...

I know where I am with this and how it can be perceived. but I don't care. When 'reasoning' doesn't work or is flat out ignored, I stir the pot to get the gunk to rise to the surface. yes it is abit archaic to do so, but trying to get to the heart of a man often takes more than mere thought.

If I get banned, so be it, there is nothing else worth getting banned for. I will walk away saying I did everything I could to prove that jesus loves them, whether they think "I'm" a jerk or actually understand my intentions. I don't have to prove myself to a crowd of bored internet jockeys. I do it because it is my purpose to give proof that God wants to sit on your lap and change your life, not beat you with your own sins. In fact He died for it.

Thanks for the heads up dragoness.

nuen, I was not meaning anything personal and was not attacking your personal stance on your beliefs. If you wish to address others use the I statements, I feel, I think, without using the blame word of you, you do, you are and it will not be a personal attack it will be your opinion. Just trying to help you out. Some of these posts get very heated and it is hard not to say things like you do this or you are this but one must try to refrain.

Just an after thought, one cannot save one who does not want to be saved, so it is best to save your breath. I am one of those who cannot be saved, I have my beliefs and they are different from yours, which makes neither one of us wrong, it makes us different.

for dragoness

And the main thing here is ego can be kept in check.....And when you have Christ leading your life....checking the ego at the door is very easy to do.....Also learn humility and humbleness in mass doses.

The outward projection of who I choose to portray myself, is in my mind, and reckoning, the ego.

The essential me, the essence, the spirit, soul, Who of me, (however one wishes to describe it) is the authentic portion of Self.

Stripping away false behaviours, and the desire to be heard, is being closer to being authentic.

Being the 'observer', of my behaviours, rather than a blind, reactive participator, is how I get closer to recognising my authentic self.

I feel less, and less desire, to 'prove' myself, to myself, or to others. That is how I manage my ego.

I just am.

I am just 'being'.

Again, in my understanding, Ego, could be said to the ‘Operating System’ and ‘user interface’ of the neo-cortex: the ‘self-conscious’, rational, ‘thinking’, and logical part of the brain. As such, EGO provides a ‘picture’, a ‘representation’, an ‘interpretation’, a felt sensation, an illusion of everything the body sensors and brain receptors are ‘bombarded’ with.

This culmination, this terminal that the ego is referred as being, is for each one of us, ONE AT A TIME, the only contact we have with life as each one of us knows it.

But, … it is nothing other than a ‘representation’!!!

A darn near perfect representation of reality that is going to fool ‘us’ our whole life.
The near perfect representation, which actually takes more the shape and feel of a virtual reality experience, ‘truly’ appears and feels to us like the only real thing.

And not only does the Ego plays the trick of ‘reality-illusion’, but it also tricks us in making this ‘reality’, REALLY appear to us as though it was happening ‘outside’ of each one of us: SEPARATE from each one if us. A ‘reality’ inside which the ego’s job is to define and separate the ‘I’ (the ‘me’ of each human being) from the ‘whole’.

Ego is the ‘self-consciousness’. The ‘self’, incestuously ‘aware’ of ‘itself’. Not to be confused with SELF, nor CONSCIOUSNESS, neither of which are personal, or ‘I’ sourced. Ego is on the contrary, the near perfect illusion of ‘self’ and ‘consciousness’, to which we become attached as if it were the only ‘self’ and the only ‘consciousness’ we were, or had.
(what we know, what we like, what we dislike, what we fear, and everything else that makes our ‘personalities’ the diverse and separate ‘I’s that they are. Nothing real here!!! The ego generated illusion of reality through ‘self-consciousness’ is just that, an illusion.

The only real thing about EGO for humans, is that it condemns us to having to deal with each other, through this maze of as many diverse ‘I’ illusions (self-conscious interpretations) as there are individual ‘I’s.

Good thing we’ve developed such useful concepts as ‘agreement’, and ‘consensus’ over the past few millions of years: a sort of bulking together bunches of ‘always individual illusions’ (self-conscious interpretations) .

You can see it happening ‘live’, right here on these threads: people agreeing, people disagreeing, seeking and ganging with those whom agree with our personal interpretations of things, and avoiding or ‘fighting’ those whom do not agree.

All of it based on one massive and collective ‘illusion’ generated by human ego.

Now, ‘creative’, what I understand about the interesting concept of the ‘unborn self’ and the support elements, ‘learned self’, ‘ghost knowledge’, ‘thief teachings’, etc., that you have brought up, are referring to everything but ego, personality, etc.

From my vantage point, these concepts had to do with Asian practices of ‘awakening’ and ‘flowing’ with spirit. I think it was a merging the common point between Theravada Buddhism, Hinduism , Zen Buddhism, and Taoism, which all have ‘built-in’ practices for ‘awakening’ (meditative practices aimed at reaching a state of no desire and no fear where true ‘self’ resides).

This is the link with Sartre’s concept of ‘nothingness’ within each one of us, the same ‘nothingness’ for all of us, or closest place to ’we’re all one’.

The ‘learned-self’ however, in this context, refers to one having first distinguished the false ‘self’ or ego generated ‘self-conscious’, and having then developed the practice of detachment, or momentary SEPARATION from the ILLUSION of SEPARATION.

It is only then that the ‘latent, waiting in the aisle’, ‘unborn self’ or impersonal human ‘essence’, again merging with Sartre’s ‘existence preceding essence’ concept, is allowed to shine through us, free of the ego ‘short circuit’ !!!

‘Thief teachings’ , and ‘ghost knowledge’ from my understanding, were or are, the products that ego makes us believe to be true. A good test for it, is observing when one goes around, absolutely convinced HE or SHE has THE TRUTH. That is the best sign of ‘ghost knowledge’, out of ‘thief teachings’.

As I said ‘creative’, just my understanding! After what I’ve just written, I’d hate to come across as though ‘I’ have THE TRUTH.

Would love to read what you or others have to write on this!

Others are watching also however. I don't want to see anyone in an eternity without God. thanks for all the concern and such. I really do appreciate it.

Voile:

Thank you for your encouraging dialogue

I will do my best to promote growth for a bridge of further understanding between you and I...

I am not at all familiar with any philosophical schools of thought or philosophers in general, I can only speak of that which I am familiar and extrapolate from it... in addition to attempting further understandings from that which I read... such as your words... in this case...

I will do what I can...broken down for focus reasons...


<<<<<<< Applying the psycoanalytical definition of ego would cause a conclusion in the previous concept I spoke of, which would lend "thief teachings" and "false persona" a label of "supportive role" in promoting the creation of super ego within one... >>>>>>>


Voile said:

Now, ‘creative’, what I understand about the interesting concept of the ‘unborn self’ and the support elements, ‘learned self’, ‘ghost knowledge’, ‘thief teachings’, etc., that you have brought up, are referring to everything but ego, personality, etc.

<<<<<<< I believe Voile, that all of these elements,in addition to ego(as defined in your post) add up to both, our true personality and what we show the world of it.

I suppose ego, by definition, is the vehicle used to arrive at any rational thought process' conclusion, including my earlier post, and this one for that matter . >>>>>>>


Voile said:

The ‘learned-self’ however, in this context, refers to one having first distinguished the false ‘self’ or ego generated ‘self-conscious’, and having then developed the practice of detachment, or momentary SEPARATION from the ILLUSION of SEPARATION.

<<<<<<< Voile, I believe you have understood this as I meant...

The "learned self" I speak of very well could be defined as ego. It can and does evolve along with that which is accepted and/or layed down along the way... comfortable or not... familiar or not... if consciously held onto, it becomes one more cog in the ego machine...

The "learned self", for me, defines who we are as a result of that which we live and accept within, and quite possibly may never be separate from the "unborn self" as a result of "thief teaching"...

You are correct regarding the ego's conscious distinguishment between the need for the "false persona" and itself in the case presented... For the "learned self" and the "unborn self" were one-in-the-same prior to the need for separation subsequently caused by the birth and continued practice of the false persona (alter ego). Although the need was identified quickly, the takeover of the "false persona" comes only after long practice, and even then... it is never truly completely accepted, but through daily practice it becomes all that is known in conscious thought... thereby creating acceptance by means of continued suppression... with the false persona increasing in strength accordingly along the way.

In addition ,as a result of the continual failure of the adopted idealogue "thief teachings", the opposing "ghost knowledge" would once again become a conscious part of the ego, by the recognition of falseness in the "thief teaching" through years and years of practicing such, resulting in the super ego becoming conscious knowledge to the ego... thereby beginning the super ego's demise... along with whatever one can consciously lay down of the "thief teachings"...simultaneuosly rebirthing the essence of "unborn self" whose way had been paved by the "ghost knowledge" the continual reminding of one who they were...

Now if a different standard had not been previously set from the time of birth, perhaps this recognition and detachment would not have been possible with the same measure... for if it is all one knows... it is just that... fortunately, in this case, the child was well developed up until the age of 4 1/2 years or so... >>>>>>>


Voile said:

‘Thief teachings’ , and ‘ghost knowledge’ from my understanding, were or are, the products that ego makes us believe to be true. A good test for it, is observing when one goes around, absolutely convinced HE or SHE has THE TRUTH. That is the best sign of ‘ghost knowledge’, out of ‘thief teachings’.


<<<<<<< Actually here, there is a complete misunderstanding... perhaps these terms are common, if so, I will need new ones

Allow me to make an attempt at clarification...

"Thief teaching" in this case describes the notion of completely adopting an unfamiliar and foreign idealogue...

In general it is that which one must accept and put into practice by suppression of part or all of the "unborn self" in order to feel accepted by the "thief teacher", the result of which steals one from themself creating a walking paradox... a mere shell of who one was truly meant to be...

Being "forced" to practice that which one does not believe in, out of the need for belonging...

"Ghost knowledge" is a term I use to define that which the ego must consciously suppress in order to successfully adopt the "thief teaching"... a complete collection of spirit, conscious and subconscious, that the "thief teaching" must contend with inside of one... what was already known, and all of that which had been picked up and recognized through the "unborn self"... being stored along the way... while the "thief teaching" was in practice...

I suppose there is a need for the open knowledge that I believe when a child is born it is completely innocent... and then life begins >>>>>>>



I can only hope that this helps... I surely do not claim to know

Here, we appear to have a miror (reversed) view of the same elements. I could be wrong, but here is what I understand of our differing perspectives:

From my perspective, the distinctions of the ‘unborn self’ and the support elements, ‘learned self’, ‘ghost knowledge’, ‘thief teachings’, etc., are all tools to distinguish the very personal, individual, separate, and limited 'ego', from the infinite and impersonal 'self', 'consciousness', 'reality', etc. Our different perceptions may simply rest in the direction from which we approach the beast. You, from and through the personal ego, and I, from the concept of 'learned self', through acceptance of 'ego' for what it is, and yet detached from it (no desire, no fear).

(I attempted to approach it from a different angle below (after 'quotes'))




As I commented earlier, we don't see this one from the same perspective. I hold it as th opposite. The 'learned self' IMO, is the very element which helps distinguish the 'ego' as separate from the whole, and thu gives us access to whole. The 'learned self' is one's ability to remind oneself of the 'illusive' nature of 'ego' on itself!!!

(Again, I attempted to approach it from a different angle below (after 'quotes'))





A completely reversed understanding it seems. Not a problem, for the sake of the debate, ...
... yet again, I have attempted to approach it from a different angle below.


Here it is:

I figured I would try to be clearer on my understanding of the infamous paradox of 'duality' (separate), and 'non-duality' (universal). So here are some definitions for openers:

OF ‘BEING’ AND ‘CONSCIOUSNESS’.

We find that we cannot make a distinction between our 'being', and our 'consciousness'. To think of being as the real, and yet as different from consciousness, seems to be impossible.

Just as we cannot deny being, we cannot deny consciousness IMO. We can deny the objects and states of consciousness, but we can never deny consciousness itself.
In every one of our attempts to do so, it asserts its existence before we even begin to think properly.

Consciousness is the most positive of facts, the datum of all experience. It transcends all limits of space, time and causality. Consciousness is never limited, for the very consciousness of the fact of limitation, it could be said, is proof of its transcendental ‘unlimitedness’.

OF CONSCIOUSNESS AND ‘SELF’(universal and impersonal) , and SELF(ego)-CONSCIOUSNESS (separate and personal)

This Universal Consciousness is not to be confused with the individual's ego-consciousness. Rather, it is Pure Awareness.

Ego-consciousness necessitates a modification in a certain fashion, and hence it is only a mode of becoming and not being in its fullness.

Consciousness in the sense of Reality, does not imply that outside of it, something must exist as its object. It is only in empirical cognition (personal, or 'ego' based experience) that consciousness (in its self-conscious mode) needs an object.

In the highest condition, the existence and the content of consciousness are one and the same. The Absolute knows itself without any process of knowing, it could be said.

Consciousness is absolute Intelligence, unlimited Self-luminosity.

Even in all the states of waking, dreaming, deep sleep, swooning, etc., the 'Self' (as opposed to 'ego' which gives us the 'illusion of'), ever remains as the indispensable and indisputable immediacy of Consciousness, a witness of all states. Unaffected and unaltered, it remains in its purity, as the eternal principle in all states of experience.

Ultimate Existence is identical with Infinite Consciousness, and not individual consciousness. The Real is impersonal and universal, and the self-conscious interpretation of 'real' is personal and 'separated from the universal.


OF INFINITE KNOWLEDGE AND (‘REAL’) REALITY and ‘MY’ KNOWLEDGE and ‘MY’ REALITY

Knowledge is not the attribute but the very stuff of Reality.
It is the Essence of Existence, and thus, this Reality is unknowable as an object of knowledge. It manifests itself as the first principle in all thought and action.

It has been said, or certainly could be said with the certainty of a seer of the Truth, …

… “You cannot see the Seer of seeing.
… “You cannot hear the Hearer of hearing.
… “You cannot think the Thinker of thinking.
… “You cannot understand the Understander of understanding.

Impersonal knowledge and reality are ‘Self’, which is in all things." The knowing subject is the essence of the being of the Self, and hence, IT IS NOT AN OBJECT OF KNOWLEDGE…
… Consciousness cannot be conscious of Consciousness, just as one cannot climb on one's own shoulders. Eternal consciousness is Being itself always, self-consciousness simply separates the ‘I’ of that process.

‘My knowledge’ and ‘my reality’ will never access or experience KNOWLEDGE and REALITY. The personal, is part of the universal, and thus will never give access to the universal.

Suggesting that one is on a ‘personality development’, or ‘personal growth’, or trying to save ‘his personal soul’, or the ‘personal soul of others’, is following ‘ghost knowledge’ from ‘thief teachings’. The ‘soul’, much like, ‘self’, ‘knowledge’, ‘consciousness’, and ‘reality’, are all IMPERSONAL and UNIVERSAL entities.


Again, certainly not suggesting that it is 'THE TRUTH', but certainly saying that it is what rings true for me at this time.

Look forward to your thoughts!

:)

Voile:

<<<<<<< Wow... Thank you once again for the engaging conversation... and yes, my friend, it does seem as though there are some significant differences in our differing perspective(s)... problematic in reaching a mutual understanding? Nah

While attempting to grow my understanding(s) through your direction... I have found stark differences in the value placed on the definition of 'ego', my friend... I prefer the term 'learned self'...and will use it according to it's value from my perspective... I hope this is acceptable to you... >>>>>>>




Based on the presentation of 'self'...

...‘unborn self’ and the support elements, ‘learned self’, ‘ghost knowledge’, ‘thief teachings’, etc., are all tools to distinguish the very personal, individual, separate, and limited 'ego', from the infinite and impersonal 'self', 'consciousness', 'reality', etc...


<<<<<<< This likens 'unborn self' to a conscious decision of necessary self creation within the 'ego'... a tool of separation...

Accepting that notion requires 'unborn self' to be separate from 'Self' and must be thought of as being different than 'Self'... with 'Self' being unattainable... While this is not problematic alone, it also requires 'ego' to exist prior to 'unborn self', 'ghost knowledge', and 'thief teaching'... THAT is very problematic...

I see it as 'unborn self' equals 'Self', I do not, however, find either unattainable nor separate from each other nor the 'learned self', until 'thief teaching' begins being adopted by the 'learned self'... stemming from the instinctive need for acceptance and belonging(survival)... From this point on, I will no longer use the term 'unborn self', until it's seperate existence is required for discussion purposes...'Self' applies without consequence until then, albeit I believe that 'Self' is not ever completely separate from one... I cannot use 'Ego' by it's psychoanalytical definition according to Freud, because I believe it to be flawed throughout... 'Learned self' takes on very similar attributes to 'Ego'... but is not one in the same...

'Thief teaching' cannot be a tool created by 'ego', my friend... It's existence precedes 'ego'... However, it does not precede 'Self'... which, prior to the adoption of 'thief teaching' is one-in-the-same with 'learned self' and 'unborn self'... all of which are one 'Self' at birth...

When one's instinct to feel accepted and wanted requires the adoption of 'Thief teaching' it initiates the need for separation of 'learned self' from 'Self' by creating 'ego' as a tool of acceptance and practice of what is an unacceptable idealogue, as measured by 'Self'...

'Ego' is a required tool born of 'learned self' which does separate 'learned self' from 'Self' as required to adopt 'thief teaching'... and is only a part of the 'learned self', as is all that had been learned prior to the existence of 'ego' and all that will be learned after, on a self conscious level...as a result of 'ego'... >>>>>>>





...Even in all the states of waking, dreaming, deep sleep, swooning, etc., the 'Self' (as opposed to 'ego' which gives us the 'illusion of'), ever remains as the indispensable and indisputable immediacy of Consciousness, a witness of all states. Unaffected and unaltered, it remains in its purity, as the eternal principle in all states of experience.

<<<<<<< This part of the understanding of 'Self' is what I would deem Spirit... although never entirely separate, it is the large part of 'Self' that 'learned self' recognizes and must subdue with 'ego' thereby creating the need for a separate definition which describes the 'unborn self'... the always there that knows better, being continually suppressed with 'ego'... one's conscience or 'ghost knowledge'... >>>>>>>





...Impersonal knowledge and reality are ‘Self’, which is in all things." The knowing subject is the essence of the being of the Self, and hence, IT IS NOT AN OBJECT OF KNOWLEDGE...

<<<<<<< This notion presents a paradox? No?... exactly what is this, 'knowing subject'...perhaps the 'learned self'?...>>>>>>>





...Suggesting that one is on a ‘personality development’, or ‘personal growth’, or trying to save ‘his personal soul’, or the ‘personal soul of others’, is following ‘ghost knowledge’ from ‘thief teachings’...


<<<<<<< Not at all, my friend... suggesting such a thing, may show that one is following 'thief teaching'...with that I would not argue ...

But again, I stress, 'ghost knowledge' is NOT a tool of 'thief teaching', NOR is it a product which separates one from 'Self', on the contrary, 'ghost knowledge' is of 'Self', and is continually and consciously separated from thought by the 'learned self' via 'ego' as a means of self-acceptance... 'ego' does not separate that which it accepts, and could not possibly accept that which would bring it's own demise... 'learned self' never being completely separate from 'Self' as a result of the existence of both, 'unborn self' and 'ghost knowledge'(Spirit)... both of which remind 'learned self' of 'Self', and all of which very well may be one-in-the-same, and my descriptions of separate being only necessary through my own comprehension of how to identify the concept... being filtered through my own 'learned self', without disturbance from either 'thief teaching' nor 'Ego'...>>>>>>>




...The ‘soul’, much like, ‘self’, ‘knowledge’, ‘consciousness’, and ‘reality’, are all IMPERSONAL and UNIVERSAL entities...


<<<<<<< Not sure we will ever completely agree here... One may have a very personal relationship within themself requiring invasive self-examination to identify and remove 'thief teaching' which I believe is only done through one connecting to 'Self', which then makes it all personal, to some extent...not at all separate... but quite personal...>>>>>>>




...The 'learned self' IMO, is the very element which helps distinguish the 'ego' as separate from the whole, and thu gives us access to whole. The 'learned self' is one's ability to remind oneself of the 'illusive' nature of 'ego' on itself!!!...

<<<<<<< I cannot disagree completely with this notion, however, from my perspective, it is the recognition of 'thief teaching' through means of 'Self'...('unborn self' and 'ghost knowledge')...that places the spotlight of the 'learned self' onto itself, thereby identifying 'ego' as being separate from the whole of one... and realizing it's purpose in 'thief teaching'...

Then begins the recognition of the need for the conscious removal of both, 'thief teaching' and 'ego', by the use of that which both had suppressed... acceptance of this understanding detaches both from the 'learned self' thereby removing the separation of 'unborn self', 'ghost knowledge', and 'learned self' from 'Self' and bringing about the long awaited re-united essence of being whole once again...>>>>>>>

So, is the inference that man as an existential entity also autonomous or an interdependent creature.

Let's include a religious perspective for arguments sake and welcome thoughts and remarks if any is so inclined. I am trying to explore possibilities. One never knows what comes of thoughtful considerations.

SPIRIT>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>SOUL<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<BODY

Concept : man is a trichotomous being.

Premise : Man is a spirit that possesses a soul and dwells in a body.

Terms defined :

1. spirit ; influences upon the soul. motivation,emotions,conceptual textiles,spiritual conduit of knowledge, creativity, etc....eternal presence

2. soul ; a living consciousness as self. the will, determinator, judgement, memory, interface,personal executor, etc....immortal capaciities

3. body ; the carnal vessel. senses, physiology, physically communicative triggers, survival instincts, procreative autonomy, etc....temporal mortality


Now, at first glance, this may seem odd.

At a second glance, it may seem incomplete.

Upon contemplation, it may be viable as a definition of man as a complete and autonomous being that is home to conditional, environmental and consequential development of talents, skills, aptitude and capabilities and adaptable to a unique amalgamation of objective, mission and purpose for being.

If the soul can be viewed as central to man's existence, then it stands to reason that spiritual and physiologic influence is applied according to the need and will of the soul and are polar stresses upon the soul in perpetual torsion to one another. The stress applied by the soul reflects the tesion created by the torsional influences of body and spirit.

I suggest torsion as depicting balance of the soul.

I would exclude the term (describing polar influences)centrifugal as being a forcce that does not produce balance while in a trichotomous state.

I would regard centrifuge as a force upon the soul at the point of loss of one of the torsional components of the complete temporal structure.


Just one scenario, and I will leave it there.

Sceario :

I have a memory of an event that that is past and it is brought to my attention by a present confrontation.

The present cconfrontation needs texture and my will seeks to assimilate viable action to engage the confrontation at hand.

My bbody wants to react in one direction in response, and my spirit wants to respond in another.

I must weigh my decision based on spiritual influences that have been present in similar instances and likewise bodily influences similarly.

A weighted course of action in a perceptual balance will afford an action to overcome the confrontation presently being considered.

If I draw upon the incorrect combination of influece past and present from either pole and act in concert with my judgement, then a harmonious outcome may be achieved, assuming that harmony is the goal.

But the benefit of the goal must provide for a weighted judgement as to whether the one pole of influence or the other is preferred.

If I seek to master equilibrium, I must exert discipline upon the polar influences and remain the executive as the soul.

If I seek a polar goal, I must exert sufficient discipline in the soul to yield a tension that offsets any resultant centrifugal weight.


I would suspect that my youthfulness would best serve the tensions of the flesh, that my perceptible middle years would seek equilibrium and that my later years, as experienced by te decline of vitality and viability of the body would favor spiritual tension upon my soul.

The result being that full use of my faculties have been employed to provide for substantive integrity and balance of the whole.

The conundrum for me is, where does this knowledge come from in youth to aid competent use of the whole and when do I determine
that my incline and decline of equilibrium is appropriate.

Why, in fact, is that important, if in fact importance is an incumbent factor of being?


Just throwing it out there.

One final contemplation.

Why does man risk untimely demise in the form of capacitating the effects of war, sport, interdependence and community, to name a few?

wouldee:

As compared to your suggested perspective... of course all of this is from my own perspective...



wouldee suggested:

....So, is the inference that man as an existential entity also autonomous or an interdependent creature...

<<<<<<< Without question, mankind is both... existential and interdependent...

The autonomy involved is 'Self' and governs one accordingly throughout life, based individual conditions... never truly being completely separate from 'Source'... >>>>>>>


wouldee suggested:

... Concept : man is a trichotomous being...

<<<<<<< This is not recognized by me wouldee, it requires true separation of not only 'Self' from 'Source', but further 'Source' from itself... not even plausible for me...

Spirit, for me, equals the part of 'Source' that equates to 'Self', moreover, a part of 'Self' that reminds one of 'Self'....

Source, for me, equates to of all creation, everything that was, everything that is, everything that will be, nothing being separate... >>>>>>>




wouldee suggested:

If the soul can be viewed as central to man's existence, then it stands to reason that spiritual and physiologic influence is applied according to the need and will of the soul and are polar stresses upon the soul in perpetual torsion to one another. The stress applied by the soul reflects the tesion created by the torsional influences of body and spirit.


<<<<<<< 'Self' starts complete... without flaw... and ends complete, without flaw... it is only through the experience of one that can cause the condition(s) required to suppress 'Self' should the instinctual need for acceptance and belonging demand such a measure, necessitating the simultaneous birth of 'learned self', and 'ego', in order for one to be able to cope with 'thief teaching', which is never a part of 'Self'...>>>>>>>





wouldee suggested:

Just one scenario, and I will leave it there.


<<<<<<< Regarding any scenario wouldee, one can only display behaviours according to that which one has been exposed, within one's own intellectual capabilities...>>>>>>>





wouldee suggested:

...The conundrum for me is, where does this knowledge come from in youth to aid competent use of the whole and when do I determine that my incline and decline of equilibrium is appropriate...

<<<<<<< This can be problematic if overcontemplated... an infant is always complete in and of itself...whole... interdependent on it's mother for a continued existence within mankind... and thereby initially sculpted through exposure... should it's life on earth come to an end before it's ability to know itself, it could never be anything less than perfect...

It is this world my friend, I believe, that is full of 'thief teachers' and the idealogues that steal one from 'Self'... by means of instinctual acceptance and belonging... >>>>>>>




<<<<<<< In addition, should one be brought into this world and sculpted into an undesirable person without choice, and later on in life that person recognize the need for change within, should a religion help that person to find 'Self' thereby finding 'Spirit' and 'Source', while simultaneously releasing 'thief teaching' and 'ego'...then the teacher(s) of that religion has been remarkably successful...>>>>>>>

'creative' wrote:





That which distinguishes, cannot at the same time, be that which is distinguished!

How you got from what I wrote that '... I likened the 'unborn self' to the 'ego'', finds me at a lost!

The 'unborn self' is what Nietzsche evoked, in his 'will to power' , or what Schopenhauer coined, the 'will to live'. It is vital ‘self’. It distinguishes 'ego', and thus certainly can't be 'of ego'.



It's right back to Sartre's quote in 'redy' OP. Also found in any Eastern philosophy which respects itself.

" To believe (know) is to know that one believes (knows), and to know that one believes (knows) is no longer to believe (know). Thus to believe (know) is not to believe (know willingly: give up what one knows) any longer...
This in unity of one and the same non-thetic self consciousness.
Non-thetic consciousness is not to know.
Thus the non-thetic consciousness ( of ) believing is destructive of belief. But at the same time the very law of the pre-reflective cogito implies that the being of believing ought to be the consciousness of believing. "

Of course it is a paradox!

It is the ultimate of human paradoxes !!!




'self' as a personal phenomenon?!?!?

Indeed we may not agree on that any time soon!

But it's neither here nor there, the exchange is fun.


:)

Voile:

Ok... I believe that our views are much more similar than this is seeming to be...or not? I have come to the realization that I must approach this through a new method, as a result of many things. Not the least of which being my use of terminology that has pre-conceived definitions...

Pehaps an algebraic equation? Something to be more clear, not only to you(the audience) but also to me.

Something clearer, for sure... for another time soon... not time at present... Thank you for engaging thus far... it may be a day or two before I give you more to engage...