Guest guest Posted January 16, 2007 Report Share Posted January 16, 2007 Yes,I think Steve is right.We do not lose the ego but it just takes a backseat to our higher self.Our intuition gets very sharp and we are in continuous contact to our higher self.I know I am.I am being guided to make things happen and I believe the hunches and ideas and feelings I get come from my higher self not from my ego.Ego will bring you down,makes you feel helpless,upset,unhappy,tells you you can't do something that you want to do.Also makes you envious,greedy,angry,jealous etc.I do feel happy most of the time and that is because there's this little voice that's telling me that I can dream and make things possible and there isn't anything that I can't do if I really want to do it.Ego would try to bring you down. Nicole , " deepdance1 " <deepdance1 wrote: > > this just a personal theory: when the ego is seen for what it is (an intrusive entity), a higher and wiser sense of 'self' will engage and the source of thought (untainted by personal issues) will come from that. > love, > -steve f > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2007 Report Share Posted January 17, 2007 Hello- This message is purely channeled -- just joking!! (But how do I know it isn't???) It seems that the ego is a definition of convenience to explain certain types of behavior, mental and in action, of us humans. There is really no such thing as an ego, it is a model to help understand ourselves. To discuss whether animals have egos or not is misusing the model, which in scientific inquiry is considered a great logical error, and speculative beyond any possibility of confirmation. My thought is that whatever structures and processes the word ego defines are necessary for being human, I don't think we would have them if they were not. However these can go array and cause complications, perhaps much more often than we would like. It is like the upright spine, it enables us to do many things but it is very fragile and causes us great distress when it functions poorly. And of course we have to learn the limits of what the ego is good for too, which is not as much as it what the ego would lead one to believe. But I think this is the point. Understanding and engagement outside of the greedy grasp of the ego is perhaps the most central aspect to the mystical or spiritual inquiry. Big Kiss- Bret Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2007 Report Share Posted January 17, 2007 So the ego is a non-existing thing humans invented to explain the non- existing thing they have which (if it existed) would be called ego? Now, I feel better! My Parrot and I are going to " tie one on " after I get off work tonight! Yo, ho! Ho! (OK, not really...I don't like to drink booze...but, thinking about ego and similar topics may slowly turn my Parrot and myself into drunks...). Yo, Ho! Arrrrr! SC , Bret Arenson <bretarenson wrote: > > Hello- > > This message is purely channeled -- just joking!! (But how do I know > it isn't???) > > It seems that the ego is a definition of convenience to explain > certain types of behavior, mental and in action, of us humans. There > is really no such thing as an ego, it is a model to help understand > ourselves. To discuss whether animals have egos or not is misusing > the model, which in scientific inquiry is considered a great logical > error, and speculative beyond any possibility of confirmation. > > My thought is that whatever structures and processes the word ego > defines are necessary for being human, I don't think we would have > them if they were not. However these can go array and cause > complications, perhaps much more often than we would like. It is like > the upright spine, it enables us to do many things but it is very > fragile and causes us great distress when it functions poorly. And of > course we have to learn the limits of what the ego is good for too, > which is not as much as it what the ego would lead one to believe. > But I think this is the point. Understanding and engagement outside > of the greedy grasp of the ego is perhaps the most central aspect to > the mystical or spiritual inquiry. > > Big Kiss- > > Bret > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2007 Report Share Posted January 17, 2007 i tend to visualize the ego as a balcony or as the surface of a planetarium sphere. steve f Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2007 Report Share Posted January 17, 2007 Remember, EGO is just a word the Dr Freud made up to try to explain something that had not been worded before in that emerging civilization. It's just a word. An idea somebody had. That's all. Then Hollywood got hold of it. :: ) BlessU Sam , " Stephen AKA Master Condrey " <stephencondrey wrote: > > So the ego is a non-existing thing humans invented to explain the non- > existing thing they have which (if it existed) would be called ego? > Now, I feel better! > My Parrot and I are going to " tie one on " after I get off work > tonight! > Yo, ho! Ho! (OK, not really...I don't like to drink booze...but, > thinking about ego and similar topics may slowly turn my Parrot and > myself into drunks...). > > Yo, Ho! > Arrrrr! > > SC > > , Bret Arenson > <bretarenson@> wrote: > > > > Hello- > > > > This message is purely channeled -- just joking!! (But how do I > know > > it isn't???) > > > > It seems that the ego is a definition of convenience to explain > > certain types of behavior, mental and in action, of us humans. > There > > is really no such thing as an ego, it is a model to help > understand > > ourselves. To discuss whether animals have egos or not is misusing > > the model, which in scientific inquiry is considered a great > logical > > error, and speculative beyond any possibility of confirmation. > > > > My thought is that whatever structures and processes the word ego > > defines are necessary for being human, I don't think we would have > > them if they were not. However these can go array and cause > > complications, perhaps much more often than we would like. It is > like > > the upright spine, it enables us to do many things but it is > very > > fragile and causes us great distress when it functions poorly. And > of > > course we have to learn the limits of what the ego is good for > too, > > which is not as much as it what the ego would lead one to believe. > > But I think this is the point. Understanding and engagement > outside > > of the greedy grasp of the ego is perhaps the most central aspect > to > > the mystical or spiritual inquiry. > > > > Big Kiss- > > > > Bret > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2007 Report Share Posted January 17, 2007 Hi Bret, I'm not sure I agree with your statement about animals not having any ego. My dog was talking about how his ego was hurt the other day when the mailman threw a rock at him. The only problem is that I couldn't understand a single word he said. :-) Love, Ray , Bret Arenson <bretarenson wrote: > > Hello- > > This message is purely channeled -- just joking!! (But how do I know > it isn't???) > > It seems that the ego is a definition of convenience to explain > certain types of behavior, mental and in action, of us humans. There > is really no such thing as an ego, it is a model to help understand > ourselves. To discuss whether animals have egos or not is misusing > the model, which in scientific inquiry is considered a great logical > error, and speculative beyond any possibility of confirmation. > > My thought is that whatever structures and processes the word ego > defines are necessary for being human, I don't think we would have > them if they were not. However these can go array and cause > complications, perhaps much more often than we would like. It is like > the upright spine, it enables us to do many things but it is very > fragile and causes us great distress when it functions poorly. And of > course we have to learn the limits of what the ego is good for too, > which is not as much as it what the ego would lead one to believe. > But I think this is the point. Understanding and engagement outside > of the greedy grasp of the ego is perhaps the most central aspect to > the mystical or spiritual inquiry. > > Big Kiss- > > Bret > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2007 Report Share Posted January 17, 2007 Hi Sam, We needed a name for that part of ourselves I think, as it does clearly exist, it's the man made part of ourselves that is not working for the divine at all time, it's the part that makes us do silly things that work against our ascension. It's the part of ourselves that makes us seperate, different, better then others.... Bless it. I think the word ego descibes it perfectly. Much love Elektra x x x Sam <dallyup52 wrote: Remember, EGO is just a word the Dr Freud made up to try to explain something that had not been worded before in that emerging civilization. It's just a word. An idea somebody had. That's all. Then Hollywood got hold of it. :: ) BlessU Sam , " Stephen AKA Master Condrey " wrote: > > So the ego is a non-existing thing humans invented to explain the non- > existing thing they have which (if it existed) would be called ego? > Now, I feel better! > My Parrot and I are going to " tie one on " after I get off work > tonight! > Yo, ho! Ho! (OK, not really...I don't like to drink booze...but, > thinking about ego and similar topics may slowly turn my Parrot and > myself into drunks...). > > Yo, Ho! > Arrrrr! > > SC > > , Bret Arenson > wrote: > > > > Hello- > > > > This message is purely channeled -- just joking!! (But how do I > know > > it isn't???) > > > > It seems that the ego is a definition of convenience to explain > > certain types of behavior, mental and in action, of us humans. > There > > is really no such thing as an ego, it is a model to help > understand > > ourselves. To discuss whether animals have egos or not is misusing > > the model, which in scientific inquiry is considered a great > logical > > error, and speculative beyond any possibility of confirmation. > > > > My thought is that whatever structures and processes the word ego > > defines are necessary for being human, I don't think we would have > > them if they were not. However these can go array and cause > > complications, perhaps much more often than we would like. It is > like > > the upright spine, it enables us to do many things but it is > very > > fragile and causes us great distress when it functions poorly. And > of > > course we have to learn the limits of what the ego is good for > too, > > which is not as much as it what the ego would lead one to believe. > > But I think this is the point. Understanding and engagement > outside > > of the greedy grasp of the ego is perhaps the most central aspect > to > > the mystical or spiritual inquiry. > > > > Big Kiss- > > > > Bret > > > 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.