Guest guest Posted October 8, 2004 Report Share Posted October 8, 2004 " In our true self we are essentially alone. Though we negotiate our ego with the other and though we people our internal world with selves and others, and though we are spoken to and for by the Other that is speech … the absolute core of one's being is a wordless, imageless solitude. We cannot reach this true self through insight or introspection. Only by living from this authorising idiom do we know something of that person sample that we are. " [1989 p 21]. --Bollas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 8, 2004 Report Share Posted October 8, 2004 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy> wrote: > > > > " In our true self This thesis starts with the assumption that there is a true " self " Not only does it say that there is a true self......it says that there is a true .....false self.......that is alone............when logic tells us that no thing can exist.....alone. > we are essentially alone. Though we negotiate our > > ego Here it separates the identified self and the " ego " ...... The ego is the indentification.......a horse cannot ride itself..... > with the other and though we people our internal world with > > selves and others, and though we are spoken to and for by the > > Other that is speech … the absolute core of one's being is a > > wordless, imageless solitude. We cannot reach this true self > > through insight or introspection. Only by living from this > > authorising idiom do we know something of that person sample that > > we are. " [1989 p 21]. > One can never know........that which was never born........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2004 Report Share Posted October 9, 2004 " In our true self we are essentially alone. Though we negotiate our ego with the other and though we people our internal world with selves and others, and though we are spoken to and for by the Other that is speech … the absolute core of one's being is a wordless, imageless solitude. We cannot reach this true self through insight or introspection. Only by living from this authorising idiom do we know something of that person sample that we are. " [1989 p 21]. --Bollas This thesis starts with the assumption that there is a true " self " Kip: Yes! Not only does it say that there is a true self......it says that there is a true .....false self.......that is alone............when logic tells us that no thing can exist.....alone. Kip: Bollas is a psychoanalyst. True self is an expression coined by Donald Winnicott, another psychoanalyst, who was also a pediatrician. I recommend the lecture on Donald Winnicott's works. You have grandchildren; a wonderful field to explore about what they actually were and are talking. > we are essentially alone. Though we negotiate our > > ego Here it separates the identified self and the " ego " ...... The ego is the indentification.......a horse cannot ride itself..... Kip: Sorry, I don't see Bollas doing that separation. I see Toombaru separating something, analyzing something (and, nothing wrong with that). The ego is, in my world of concepts, not such a simple thing. It isn't neither something, which has to be rejected or fight against it, nor something, which must be accepted like a numinious judgement. I actually don't know what the " ego " is, that's the reason why I like and have fun exploring it. I congratulate you for having found an easy definition on the " ego " for yourself, to ride along with. Sure, the ego has very much to do with identification. But, it isn't solely the process of identification, it is a negotiation, a deal, too, between different instances, interior and as exterior perceived ones(and perhaps a divine instance, too?), riding along with time and changing circumstances. What Bollas are pointing to, is the Winnicottian concept of a " true self " . Actually a point " before identification " or absence of identification. A wordless and imageless state, Bollas likes to couple with the term solitude here. Bollas solitude has neither a positive nor negative connotation. It has, in concordance with my world of concepts, a divine connotation. In the Upanishads this solitude finds also a description. The solitude before reflection, before manifestation. Pure potentiality. Love. One can never know........that which was never born........ Kip: Yes! Exactly!...... " We cannot reach this true self through insight or introspection. Only by living from this authorising idiom do we know something of that person sample [hoppla] that we [really] are. " .....every effort is useless, we are already that, which never has been born....we are living it, just, for a while. thanks Kip Almazy P.S. What's actually your connection with Sandeep? Talking about identification, you use often very similar expressions and equivalent argumentative positionings. Is Toombaru Sandeep? If not, think about the game your " ego " is playing with you! I would like to meet Toombaru in exactly this absence. Your concept would be, and is, as beautiful as every other. Live your " true self " ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2004 Report Share Posted October 9, 2004 Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy> wrote: > > " In our true self we are essentially alone. Though we negotiate our > ego with the other and though we people our internal world with > selves and others, and though we are spoken to and for by the Other > that is speech … the absolute core of one's being is a > wordless, imageless solitude. We cannot reach this true self > through insight or introspection. Only by living from this > authorising idiom do we know something of that person sample that we > are. " [1989 p 21]. > > --Bollas > > > This thesis starts with the assumption that there is a true " self " > > > Kip: Yes! > > > Not only does it say that there is a true self......it says that > there is a true .....false self.......that is alone............when > logic tells us that no thing can > exist.....alone. > > > > Kip: Bollas is a psychoanalyst. True self is an expression coined by > Donald Winnicott, another psychoanalyst, who was also a > pediatrician. I recommend the lecture on Donald Winnicott's works. > You have grandchildren; a wonderful field to explore about what they > actually were and are talking. > > > > > > we are essentially alone. Though we negotiate our > > > ego > > > > > Here it separates the identified self and the " ego " ...... > The ego is the indentification.......a horse cannot ride itself..... > > > Kip: Sorry, I don't see Bollas doing that separation. I see Toombaru > separating something, analyzing something (and, nothing wrong with > that). The ego is, in my world of concepts, not such a simple thing. > It isn't neither something, which has to be rejected or fight > against it, nor something, which must be accepted like a numinious > judgement. I actually don't know what the " ego " is, that's the > reason why I like and have fun exploring it. I congratulate you for > having found an easy definition on the " ego " for yourself, to ride > along with. > > Sure, the ego has very much to do with identification. But, it isn't > solely the process of identification, it is a negotiation, a deal, > too, between different instances, interior and as exterior perceived > ones(and perhaps a divine instance, too?), riding along with time > and changing circumstances. What Bollas are pointing to, is the > Winnicottian concept of a " true self " . Actually a point " before > identification " or absence of identification. A wordless and > imageless state, Bollas likes to couple with the term solitude here. > Bollas solitude has neither a positive nor negative connotation. It > has, in concordance with my world of concepts, a divine connotation. > In the Upanishads this solitude finds also a description. The > solitude before reflection, before manifestation. Pure potentiality. > Love. > > > One can never know........that which was never born........ > > > Kip: Yes! Exactly!...... " We cannot reach this true self > through insight or introspection. Only by living from this > authorising idiom do we know something of that person sample > [hoppla] that we [really] are. " > > ....every effort is useless, we are already that, which never has > been born....we are living it, just, for a while. > > > > thanks > Kip Almazy > > > > P.S. What's actually your connection with Sandeep? Talking about > identification, you use often very similar expressions and > equivalent argumentative positionings. Is Toombaru Sandeep? If not, > think about the game your " ego " is playing with you! I would like to > meet Toombaru in exactly this absence. Your concept would be, and > is, as beautiful as every other. Live your " true self " ! Kip, The whole concept if " true self....false self " ....is only an extension of the dicotomy in which mind exists......It " lives " in a pseuso world of opposing opposites......outside of that dream of separation...it cannot breathe. The whole psychoanalytical milieu is immersed in the assumption of a separate self....It is that assumption itself that is the crux if the dilemma.....downstream from that......nothing is true. There is no " ego " .....it is only a concept that identification names its assumed self....and then attempts to study...... The so called self....is as real..... as the people in your dream last night........ There is no true self...... There is no self...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2004 Report Share Posted October 9, 2004 > > > > thanks > > Kip Almazy > > > > > > > > P.S. What's actually your connection with Sandeep? Talking about > > identification, you use often very similar expressions and > > equivalent argumentative positionings. Is Toombaru Sandeep? If not, > > think about the game your " ego " is playing with you! I would like to > > meet Toombaru in exactly this absence. Your concept would be, and > > is, as beautiful as every other. Live your " true self " ! > > > > > Kip, > > The whole concept if " true self....false self " ....is only an extension of the dicotomy in which mind exists......It " lives " in a pseuso world of opposing opposites......outside of that dream of separation...it cannot breathe. > > The whole psychoanalytical milieu is immersed in the assumption of a separate self....It is that assumption itself that is the crux if the dilemma.....downstream from that......nothing is true. > > There is no " ego " .....it is only a concept that identification names its assumed self....and then attempts to study...... > > > The so called self....is as real..... as the people in your dream last night........ > > > There is no true self...... > > > There is no self...... Ha,ha, ha, The master of evasion, evaded the crucial question: Why are you a sandeep imitation? When you first appeared in the nondual scene years back, I accused you of being a secondhand Sandeep. You didn't answer then, and you didn' answer now. The act is getting a little stale. What does it do for you? Are you able to drop it, at this stage? Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2004 Report Share Posted October 9, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > > > > > > > thanks > > > Kip Almazy > > > > > > > > > > > > P.S. What's actually your connection with Sandeep? Talking about > > > identification, you use often very similar expressions and > > > equivalent argumentative positionings. Is Toombaru Sandeep? If > not, > > > think about the game your " ego " is playing with you! I would like > to > > > meet Toombaru in exactly this absence. Your concept would be, and > > > is, as beautiful as every other. Live your " true self " ! > > > > > > > > > > Kip, > > > > The whole concept if " true self....false self " ....is only an > extension of the dicotomy in which mind exists......It " lives " in a > pseuso world of opposing opposites......outside of that dream of > separation...it cannot breathe. > > > > The whole psychoanalytical milieu is immersed in the assumption of > a separate self....It is that assumption itself that is the crux if > the dilemma.....downstream from that......nothing is true. > > > > There is no " ego " .....it is only a concept that identification > names its assumed self....and then attempts to study...... > > > > > > The so called self....is as real..... as the people in your dream > last night........ > > > > > > There is no true self...... > > > > > > There is no self...... > > Ha,ha, ha, The master of evasion, evaded the crucial question: > Why are you a sandeep imitation? When you first appeared in the > nondual scene years back, I accused you of being a secondhand > Sandeep. You didn't answer then, and you didn' answer now. > The act is getting a little stale. What does it do for you? > Are you able to drop it, at this stage? > > Pete Pete, " It " is the totality of " my " " being " ..... " I " could drop it no more...then I could drop " my " shadow........ " I " am nothing other then the act of playing " my " " self " ........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2004 Report Share Posted October 9, 2004 > > > > Ha,ha, ha, The master of evasion, evaded the crucial question: > > Why are you a sandeep imitation? When you first appeared in the > > nondual scene years back, I accused you of being a secondhand > > Sandeep. You didn't answer then, and you didn' answer now. > > The act is getting a little stale. What does it do for you? > > Are you able to drop it, at this stage? > > > > Pete > > > > > Pete, > > " It " is the totality of " my " " being " ..... > > " I " could drop it no more...then I could drop " my " shadow........ > > " I " am nothing other then the act of playing " my " " self " ........ Imitating Sandeep is the totality of your being? Are you Sandeep? In my opinion no one is worth imitating. Imitating is repeating a style, an affectation over and over. It is a dead practice, even imitating oneself, kills spontaneity. No true teacher would recommend that their students become their copies. Ramesh is not a Niz clone, Liquorman is not a copy of Ramesh. Realization is ever new, ever spontaneous, and original. It doesn't follow any pattern, and is, therefore, free to contradict itself. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2004 Report Share Posted October 9, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Ha,ha, ha, The master of evasion, evaded the crucial question: > > > Why are you a sandeep imitation? When you first appeared in the > > > nondual scene years back, I accused you of being a secondhand > > > Sandeep. You didn't answer then, and you didn' answer now. > > > The act is getting a little stale. What does it do for you? > > > Are you able to drop it, at this stage? > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > > > Pete, > > > > " It " is the totality of " my " " being " ..... > > > > " I " could drop it no more...then I could drop " my " shadow........ > > > > " I " am nothing other then the act of playing " my " " self " ........ > > Imitating Sandeep is the totality of your being? Are you Sandeep? ..........ok...............I admit it ...........I am Sandeep............................I am also Diana................. ....................and Freyja........................................I am Andy........and.......................and Bill.............and.......................I am Pete. > In my opinion no one is worth imitating. Imitating is repeating > a style, an affectation over and over. It is a dead practice, even > imitating oneself, kills spontaneity. No true teacher would recommend > that their students become their copies. Ramesh is not a Niz clone, > Liquorman is not a copy of Ramesh. Realization is ever new, ever > spontaneous, and original. It doesn't follow any pattern, and is, > therefore, free to contradict itself. > > Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2004 Report Share Posted October 9, 2004 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Ha,ha, ha, The master of evasion, evaded the crucial question: > > > > Why are you a sandeep imitation? When you first appeared in the > > > > nondual scene years back, I accused you of being a secondhand > > > > Sandeep. You didn't answer then, and you didn' answer now. > > > > The act is getting a little stale. What does it do for you? > > > > Are you able to drop it, at this stage? > > > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pete, > > > > > > " It " is the totality of " my " " being " ..... > > > > > > " I " could drop it no more...then I could drop " my " shadow........ > > > > > > " I " am nothing other then the act of playing " my " " self " ........ > > > > Imitating Sandeep is the totality of your being? Are you Sandeep? > > > > > .........ok...............I admit it ...........I am Sandeep............................I am also > Diana................. > > > > > ...................and Freyja........................................I am > > > > Andy........and.......................and Bill.............and.......................I am Pete. Excuse me, senator, I knew Pete, Pete was a friend of mine. Senator, you, are no Pete..... It will kill you to be Pete. LOL I guess your answer called for a Dan Quale joke. > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2004 Report Share Posted October 11, 2004 " In our true self we are essentially alone. Though we negotiate our ego with the other and though we people our internal world with selves and others, and though we are spoken to and for by the Other that is speech … the absolute core of one's being is a wordless, imageless solitude. We cannot reach this true self through insight or introspection. Only by living from this authorising idiom do we know something of that person sample that we are. " [1989 p 21]. --Bollas The whole concept if " true self....false self " ....is only an extension of the dicotomy in which mind exists......It " lives " in a pseuso world of opposing opposites......outside of that dream of separation...it cannot breathe. Kip: Indeed! The whole psychoanalytical milieu is immersed in the assumption of a separate self.... Kip: This isn't a balanced statement and wrong, too. A preconception. Easy to rebut. Many things have changed since Freud. I interpret such statements as a defense-mechanism on a wider sense, and, in a concret sense, your are defending the opposite assumption. If I say: " the adavitian community is immersed in the assumption of a not separated self " , would that be correct? Surely not! It would be an oxymoron, or not? Are we not talking about..... " a self " , the whole time. You can only denie what you perceive and no matter in which disguise you do it. If I say: " the advaitian commnuity is immersed in the assumption of a not separated " Self " , it would be easier to accept, perhaps. But, what I can state with certainity is: " the psychoanalytical milieu is not immersed neither in the assumption of an separated nor unseparated " self " or " Self " , neither physically nor conceptually. Within the psychoanalytical millieu (as I know it)there is a broad variaty of thesis or assumptions to find, concerning the " self " and " Self " . It is that assumption itself that is the crux if the dilemma.....downstream from that......nothing is true. Kip: This has been perhaps " YOUR " dilemma, Toombaru. The concept of an " unseparated self " , your assumption, has been helpfull for you and, surely, many others, too. But, the utterance: " downstream from that......nothing is true " lacks the attribute " false " , in my opinion. I would state it this way: " Assumptions are the crux.....down and upstream from that....nothing is true or false " . There is no " ego " .....it is only a concept that identification names its assumed self....and then attempts to study...... Kip: Sure! That's exactly why I tend to quote Lacan, for example. One of the most known quotes of Winnicott himself ( " the true self- man " ) is, that there is no such thing as an infant. Isn't that particular? Made me think, somehow. Ramesh uses the " vertical- horizontal-thingy " , which could be attributed to Kohut, for example. I like cross-fecundations. The only thing one can loose are useless assumptions and preconceptions, in my opinion. The so called self....is as real..... as the people in your dream last night........ Kip: Exactly! I assume the same but, it seems to me, we draw different conclusions. What I conclude is that " I " can simply not know, exactly on account of this circumstance. This is the case. No matter how many somersets I turn. It doesn't matter if I use or not use pronouns. Every attempt to demonstrate some kind of otherness or dissimilarity is a ridiculous affectation. And here is where the concept of true self comes in. " True self " means also to renounce to artificialness. To remove the make up. To see through the defense- mechanisms of the ego (and, above all, the resistances of the " Über- ich " ). Some psychoanalytical standpoints might help, perhaps, or perhaps not. > There is no true self...... Kip: Indeed! There is not such thing as good or a bad infant! > There is no self...... Kip: There is not such thing as an infant! The point isn´t to regress to a state, which could be considered better or wronger. It is about evolving towards emancipation and realisation. To umask oneself. To lay down artificiality. To stop to fear, that someone may discover what big bluff actually one constitutes. Laugh! Kip Almazy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2004 Report Share Posted October 11, 2004 Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy> wrote: > > " In our true self we are essentially alone. Though we negotiate our > ego with the other and though we people our internal world with > selves and others, and though we are spoken to and for by the Other > that is speech … the absolute core of one's being is a > wordless, imageless solitude. We cannot reach this true self > through insight or introspection. Only by living from this > authorising idiom do we know something of that person sample that we > are. " [1989 p 21]. > > --Bollas > > > The whole concept if " true self....false self " ....is only an > extension of the dicotomy in which mind exists......It " lives " in a > pseuso world of opposing opposites......outside of that dream of > separation...it cannot breathe. > > > Kip: Indeed! > > > The whole psychoanalytical milieu is immersed in the assumption of a > separate self.... > > > Kip: This isn't a balanced statement and wrong, too. A > preconception. Easy to rebut. Many things have changed since Freud. > I interpret such statements as a defense-mechanism on a wider sense, > and, in a concret sense, your are defending the opposite assumption. > If I say: " the adavitian community is immersed in the assumption of > a not separated self " , would that be correct? > > > Surely not! It would be an oxymoron, or not? Are we not talking > about..... " a self " , the whole time. You can only denie what you > perceive and no matter in which disguise you do it. > > If I say: " the advaitian commnuity is immersed in the assumption of > a not separated " Self " , it would be easier to accept, perhaps. > > > But, what I can state with certainity is: " the psychoanalytical > milieu is not immersed neither in the assumption of an separated nor > unseparated " self " or " Self " , neither physically nor conceptually. > Within the psychoanalytical millieu (as I know it)there is a broad > variaty of thesis or assumptions to find, concerning the " self " > and " Self " . > > > > > It is that assumption itself that is the crux if the > dilemma.....downstream from that......nothing is true. > > > > Kip: This has been perhaps " YOUR " dilemma, Toombaru. The concept of > an " unseparated self " , your assumption, has been helpfull for you > and, surely, many others, too. But, the utterance: " downstream from > that......nothing is true " lacks the attribute " false " , in my > opinion. I would state it this way: " Assumptions are the > crux.....down and upstream from that....nothing is true or > false " . > > > > There is no " ego " .....it is only a concept that identification names > its assumed self....and then attempts to study...... > > > Kip: Sure! That's exactly why I tend to quote Lacan, for example. > One of the most known quotes of Winnicott himself ( " the true self- > man " ) is, that there is no such thing as an infant. Isn't that > particular? Made me think, somehow. Ramesh uses the " vertical- > horizontal-thingy " , which could be attributed to Kohut, for example. > I like cross-fecundations. The only thing one can loose are useless > assumptions and preconceptions, in my opinion. > > > The so called self....is as real..... as the people in your dream > last night........ > > > Kip: Exactly! I assume the same but, it seems to me, we draw > different conclusions. What I conclude is that " I " can simply not > know, exactly on account of this circumstance. This is the case. No > matter how many somersets I turn. It doesn't matter if I use or not > use pronouns. Every attempt to demonstrate some kind of otherness or > dissimilarity is a ridiculous affectation. And here is where the > concept of true self comes in. " True self " means also to renounce to > artificialness. To remove the make up. To see through the defense- > mechanisms of the ego (and, above all, the resistances of the " Über- > ich " ). Some psychoanalytical standpoints might help, perhaps, or > perhaps not. > > > > There is no true self...... > > > Kip: Indeed! There is not such thing as good or a bad infant! > > > > There is no self...... > > > Kip: There is not such thing as an infant! > > > The point isn´t to regress to a state, which could be considered > better or wronger. It is about evolving towards emancipation and > realisation. To umask oneself. To lay down artificiality. To stop to > fear, that someone may discover what big bluff actually one > constitutes. Laugh! There is nothing behind the mask. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2004 Report Share Posted October 11, 2004 > > " In our true self we are essentially alone. Though we negotiate our > > ego with the other and though we people our internal world with > > selves and others, and though we are spoken to and for by the Other > > that is speech … the absolute core of one's being is a > > wordless, imageless solitude. We cannot reach this true self > > through insight or introspection. Only by living from this > > authorising idiom do we know something of that person sample that we > > are. " [1989 p 21]. > > > > --Bollas > There is nothing behind the mask. Exactly! rgds Kip Almazy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.