Hypothetical question

[enigma]

Mar 27, 2010 22:07:04 GMT -5 question said:

Mar 25, 2010 23:39:55 GMT -5 enigma said:

Ego is an idea about which there is some interest. It's not something that feels comfy or not, or seeks compromise to cut it's losses, nor is it a feeling. These are more thoughts being added to the thought structure. The question is simply, is there something real at it's foundation or not?

If ego is just an idea, then it can't have a real foundation, it can't be a 'thing'. (Although maybe there is a neurological correlate to what we call ego? Similar to dark thoughts that are triggered by a depression, which itself is triggered by a messed up brain chemistry.) I'm having lots of ideas and assumptions and when I finally falsify one, it just vanishes without a trace. But if ego is also just an idea, and it's now well understood that it is incapable of doing anything, or existing independently, why is it still around? Actually, I'm not even sure that it's even around, it's just... something simply doesn't feel right.

It's just a belief, and if it's 'still around', it's because it's still believed.

Mar 25, 2010 23:39:55 GMT -5 enigma said:

From within that thought structure, it's all singularly uninteresting. That's what I'm saying.

Not sure what that means. Ego is incapable of reflecting upon or even 'undoing' itself? If I believe that the earth is flat, I'm going to do some calculations or fly to outer space take a better look and then the 'flat earth' idea is falsified and it vanishes. But the 'flat earth' idea isn't going to go away simply because someone says or even if I try to make myself believe that the earth is actually spherical. The truth has to be seen. Usually a cognitive understanding is sufficient experience required for a falsification of an idea, which unfortunately doesn't seem to be the case in the context of 'ego'? How come?

I meant that the question of ego's reality is uninteresting to ego.
If one pays close attention to any conversation, it can be noticed that what is heard or read is not what is spoken or written. Words are seemingly added or deleted, assumptions are made and conclusions drawn on those assumptions. It often gets to the point where no conversation at all is really happenening, but this, itself, is also rarely noticed.

The point is that 'cognitive understanding' can hide in the same way. (Not referring to this conversation) The 'obvious' absence of ego can be conceptualized and compartmentalized and filed away in someplace remarkably forgettable so that the net effect on the belief is zero. This is done with surprising ease.

Jed Mckenna once said, "Don't forget that ego is smarter than you....way smarter."

I don't get it. It's known here that the ego is illusory (I haven't been to outer space, but I've done plenty of calculations), but there is still this itch that I can't scratch...

At the risk of sounding neo-advaitish, an itch that who can't scratch?
At some point, the back scratcher is turned in for a pair of roller skates, and you just turn and go. (Ego's life literally depends entirely on your attention to it)

[eputkonen]

Mar 27, 2010 22:07:04 GMT -5 question said:

But if ego is also just an idea, and it's now well understood that it is incapable of doing anything, or existing independently, why is it still around?

When you discover that a mirage is a really a mirage and not water...the appearance of the mirage does not vanish. Actually, the ego has some value. Such as when someone calls your name...it is the ego that recognizes being called. It is the idea of a separate individual in this world...although that is not actually the case (thus it does not exist independently, do anything, etc.).

If I believe that the earth is flat, I'm going to do some calculations or fly to outer space take a better look and then the 'flat earth' idea is falsified and it vanishes. But the 'flat earth' idea isn't going to go away simply because someone says or even if I try to make myself believe that the earth is actually spherical. The truth has to be seen. Usually a cognitive understanding is sufficient experience required for a falsification of an idea, which unfortunately doesn't seem to be the case in the context of 'ego'? How come?

If the ego believes the ego might be false and not real...what could an ego do to investigate or find out? Anything the ego does only strengthens the illusion of the ego.

The ego (the one seeking, the one feeling something isn't quite right, the one trying to understand, etc, etc.) never sees through ego. The truth has to be seen...quite right, but it is not the ego that sees it.

I don't get it. It's known here that the ego is illusory (I haven't been to outer space, but I've done plenty of calculations), but there is still this itch that I can't scratch...

That is the ego. That is the mirage that is being taken for what it is not. Who you really are...what you really are...has no itch. No intellectual understanding will do, because such understanding is fake. It is not a matter of thinking mind or intellect...it is more kinesthetic than mental. It is felt. Who do you feel yourself to be?

[question]

Thanks Eric and Enigma. Sorry to reply so late, I'm a very slow thinker AND I'm lazy, so...

I've been with this for a week now and it doesn't make any sense. Eric says that ego is an intelligent mirage. Enigma says that ego is an unfalsifiable idea. Jed says that ego is really really smart. Am I the only one to see the contradictions in these statements? First you make it sound like it's non-existent, but then you attest it operational intelligence, almost like it's an entity.

Mar 27, 2010 23:27:17 GMT -5 enigma said:

At the risk of sounding neo-advaitish, an itch that who can't scratch?

This one is brought up constantly. Here are my usual responses:
1) Silence.
2) Hm, I've got no idea.
3) Oh wait, I remember. I'm consciousness, which itself is (most likely) a cerebral process that will end when my brain stops functioning.
4) But this cerebral process IS and what makes stuff exist is the same in all. So if I extrapolate far enough I can say that I'm one with all that is, but that's totally impersonal, so I guess I'll have to go with option 3).

But it would never occur to me to identify with an 'ego'. I've never even seen one. Science has never reported the sighting of an ego. I've experienced things that some people attribute to the mischievous ego, but until I actually see ego, it's all just theories.

[enigma]

Apr 4, 2010 16:08:16 GMT -5 question said:

Thanks Eric and Enigma. Sorry to reply so late, I'm a very slow thinker AND I'm lazy, so...

I've been with this for a week now and it doesn't make any sense. Eric says that ego is an intelligent mirage. Enigma says that ego is an unfalsifiable idea. Jed says that ego is really really smart. Am I the only one to see the contradictions in these statements? First you make it sound like it's non-existent, but then you attest it operational intelligence, almost like it's an entity.

Well, yeah, that's why I try not to anthropomorphize it too much. Jed's comment that it's way smarter than you was taken (by me) to be pointing to the ability of mind to self deceive, but it's just a set of self referential ideas and nothing more. Ego is a belief. Beliefs don't do anything and aren't intelligent. These are just ways of talking about it. (Maybe not very good ways)

But it would never occur to me to identify with an 'ego'. I've never even seen one. Science has never reported the sighting of an ego. I've experienced things that some people attribute to the mischievous ego, but until I actually see ego, it's all just theories.

The 'me' doesn't need to identify with ego because it IS ego. Hehe.
There's no need to relegate ego to the theoretical. It simply refers to the belief in 'me' as a separate, volitional person with a mind and a body and a spouse and a swimming pool and a mortgage and a migraine.