Ego Inflation and The Objectification of the Subjective

[Guest guest]

Hello-

 

This is an essay I have been wanting to write for a while. I hope you

enjoy it.

 

There is something so pervasive and insidious that it has taken me

quite a while to put my finger on it. It is something I see all

around me, coming from others and coming from myself. It always has

disturbed me and has begged to be understood as a reoccurring

irritation. But now I think I can define it fairly well, even though

it does not seem completely escapable.

 

Basically it is making subjective experience into objective reality.

That is turning internal experience into rules of how the universe

manifests itself. This is ego inflation. It is making absolute out of

what is particular to an individual. And in this there is an

expectation of the other to accept what is now presented as the way

the universe works.

 

I see this kind of inflation very often in spiritually minded circles

and its literature. However an example of this is the stated " Laws of

Attraction. " If this behavioral approach is beneficial for

individuals then that is fine, but it doesn't follow that now this

approach must become " law " . I do not follow this behavioral model,

not that this is important, but in many cases when I have stated this

I find myself in a heated argument. And in other cases I have seen

this model turned around and used to whip another, that they alone

must take blame for all misfortunes that befall them.

 

Another example is the assertion of " peace energy " . I do not really

know how this energy manifest and spreads, if it in fact exists, but

certainly the ability to manifest an experience of deep inner peace

is now presented as an objective material of sorts. It becomes less

of a personal responsibility of cultivation and is instead a baptism

into an outside source. It seems to take away reliance of the self

for reliance on something purely external, rendering internal search

and volition obsolete.

 

However the insidiousness of ego inflation is how it shows up in

action. Behind it all is the assertion of a stated belief system, but

in the moment it shows up as behavior that attempts to modify the

behavior of others. I am reasonably sure we all do this kind of

behavior modification. I am doing it right now. (I admit it!) It

comes in assertions of authority, in words, tone or physical stance.

It comes in using cultural cues that we are trained to respond to in

a certain way, like flirting. This goes on most probably

consistently in our interactions. I wonder if any of you start to

look for this if you will begin to see it at all times as I often do.

What they do often in Marin county, where I live, is to give an open

eyed yearning and knowing look, to which the proper response is to

give the same look back. However I do not think that this is really

about sharing a real experience of knowing but a way of confirmation

about beliefs of who we think we are.

 

Now I think this confirmation is really what drives this ego

inflation and behavior modification. I personally think that to be

human is to risk disorientation. I think that the way our minds

function entails a real sense of separation of ourselves from other.

And although this is one of our evolutionary adaptations that helps

us interact with the environment there is a constant risk of the

anxiety and insecurity of separateness, disorientation and

alienation, which means to us the risk of not surviving. (Of course

this statement is most certainly my own ego inflation.) So because of

this we what to unite with other people by the modification of

other's behavior to confirm our own and thereby orientating

ourselves. There is certainly something with being human about

imitation. We seem to love what we can imitate and probably are

driven to create things that others can easily imitate. And in this

way we find orientation when we see ourselves reflected in others .

 

This however creates a battle of internal resources. Someone is going

to be better at asserting their own internal experience to others and

others will have to modify their behavior to reflect consistency in

thought and behavior in order to show belonging. This I would say is

subjecting another, making them the subject of the objectification of

a personal subjective experience. And perhaps this is actually great

for some people, (but you can see I am in mode of resistance against

this.)

 

After all I have written I want to assert that many more things are

situational rather than absolute. This is a message that I haven't

seen to often (it probably won't sell.) Usually what I find is the

pushing of something. Whether in books or from individuals it is as

an effort to convince me of something, which usually comes down to a

belief system that I am expected to accept as truth. I am not saying

that there isn't truth, but that it is situational. So knowing truth

requires a deep understanding of the situation which itself may be

changing moment by moment. This makes understanding a great

challenge, with the realization that most will probably remain a

mystery. No this wouldn't sell. What sells is something with the

guise of much more authority.

 

I am sorry if this essay was disturbing to some of you. I decided to

take the risk. I feel I am a dark horse of sorts, but I also want to

be authentic to what is inside and accept the compulsion to express

it. Thank you for reading.

 

Kisses

 

Bret

[Guest guest]

Dear Bret,

 

I found your essay to be anything but disturbing.

I like to keep an open mind and not to fix myself on

this or that, but I do have beliefs that I hold to be

truths, but I am aware that my truth is fluxtuating

and that others truth is just as true as mine and may

also be fluctuating. Sometimes reality was influx so

much for me that I beacme a little dizzy and didn't

know what was what, but then I just thought " who

cares? " why do I need to know anyway?

Why not be free and let what ever wants to be , be,

but not to cling on to it too much.

I like to imagine others ways of seeing things. It

keeps my mind light.

Even though at times I do feel a repelling of others

thoughts, in my heart or gut.

I think you made some very valid observations.

Thankyou for sharing that,

Always a pleasure to read your thoughts,

love Elektra x x x

 

 

 

_________

Copy addresses and emails from any email account to Mail - quick, easy

and free. http://uk.docs./trueswitch2.html

[Guest guest]

> Basically it is making subjective experience into objective

> reality. That is turning internal experience into rules of

> how the universe manifests itself. This is ego inflation.

be careful here. the condition of existence (in which we find

ourselves) means we cannot comprehend nor possess an absolute, only

approximate it for ourselves. indeed we MUST turn internal experience

into " rules " -- the problem comes into view when we fail to

acknowledge the relative and necessarily limited and finite nature of

those " rules " , which are in the end but our conceptualizations or

those borrowed, imitated, or stolen outright from other sources.

 

as the father of general semantics, Alfred Korsybski famously quipped,

" the map is not the territory " ; the primitive mind cannot distinguish

symbol and reality, so believes that, by controlling the symbol, it is

actually controlling the reality. unfortunately we get trapped within

our own and others' symbol-systems, then wonder why we can't - for

example - eat a dollar bill, or live in a property deed.

 

> It is making absolute out of what is particular to an individual.

> And in this there is an expectation of the other to accept what

> is now presented as the way the universe works.

it's a peculiar position; if the individual is a pragmatist, all the

justification that's required for acceptance of a " truth " or law, is

that " it just works " . a philosopher, mystic, or research scientist

(for example) would generally not be satisfied with that answer. the

pragmatist's advantage is that belief isn't necessary and neither is

knowledge, just the ability to use it and obtain a desired result.

since we lack perfect knowledge of the situation pure objectivity is

for us an impossibility, so our " truths " and " rules " must instead

change and adapt themselves as our own understanding changes.

 

> I see this kind of inflation very often in spiritually

> minded circles and its literature.

definitely. but you can also see it in practically any and every

human enterprise that involves group dynamics of one or another sort.

 

> It becomes less of a personal responsibility of cultivation

> and is instead a baptism into an outside source. It seems to

> take away reliance of the self for reliance on something

> purely external, rendering internal search and volition obsolete.

in general people need to feel that there is an " authority " outside

themselves, be it an opinion leader or expert, a deity, advanced

ET-lifeform, or 'higher self', who is really " calling the shots " . you

hit the nail directly on the head, for even the subtlest form of this

is shirking responsibility. we simply want the benefit merely by the

fact of our participation in a group, and expect that to be given to

us, freely and openly, with no work nor preparation required. a truly

clever ET, deity, or 'higher self' would force us to fallback on our

own resources before it deigned to interfere, so would a group from

which we might truly " learn " something.

 

> I am reasonably sure we all do this kind of behavior modification.

> I am doing it right now. (I admit it!) It comes in assertions of

> authority, in words, tone or physical stance.

:-) it also comes in the nature of language itself. the mere fact

that I am able to communicate with you is possible because of the

countless distinctions and assumptions being made, about my existence

and yours, and our separateness in time and space, among hundreds of

other things. 'ego' is an implicit element of our written languages,

and a very useful " tool " in that regard (in that it enables us to

communicate in a way which we could not do otherwise)... but here

again only a symbol or contrivance; an artifact of pragmatism in

effect! and there is legitimate authority, but also swindler and

swagger play a far larger role (and exemplify the possession of the

symbols without the reality behind it). nonverbal communication and

cues are paramount in conveying the hidden elements or agenda that are

motivating what appears to be rational conversation, and yes it is

EVERYWHERE that communication happens, if you are looking for it.

 

> However I do not think that this is really about sharing a real

> experience of knowing but a way of confirmation

> about beliefs of who we think we are.

a huge amount of cultural existence is pre-rational or unconscious.

beliefs themselves may or may not be rational, verifiable, or culpable

to the actions they produce. the 'knowing nod' and similar gestures

are signalling an affinity with certain non- or pre-rational

understanding/assumptions.

 

> I think that the way our minds function entails a real sense of

> separation of ourselves from other.

yes, and again see the earlier comment about language and its implicit

assumptions about egos and our separate existences etc.

 

> this we what to unite with other people by the modification of

> other's behavior to confirm our own and thereby orientating

> ourselves.

> There is certainly something with being human about imitation.

yes, we imitate what obtained success in the past, in hopes of

satiating our pre-existing desire and gaining a favorable result.

 

> We seem to love what we can imitate and probably are

> driven to create things that others can easily imitate. And in this

> way we find orientation when we see ourselves reflected in others .

in the end, the same can be said of reproduction from the standpoint

of the genes! one way or another, we want to see ourselves reflected

and remembered; a sort of material pseudo-immortality, be it of our

genetic material/attributes, creative works, ideas, or legacy of

whatever sort. ego is everywhere, is in fact the universe itself in a

manner of speaking.

 

> I am not saying that there isn't truth, but that it is situational.

here's our first dilemma (look up the word dilemma btw). Truth which

is only 'relative' or situational isn't Truth at all, merely a

convenient assumption that attains a desired result at the time it is

desired. though above we established the unknowable-ness of

absoluteness (including that of absolute Truth), the fact that

" truths " are situational doesn't allow us to conclude that truth

itself is thus also situational; it is simply that one cannot perceive

truth, nor even the mind within which truth is ascertained, except

through its own imperfect mechanism. it should be obvious that one

cannot perceive something transcending rational thought through the

very mechanism of rational thought. we would require a higher level

or faculty of perception in order to ascertain or apprehend Truth, but

could never conclusively prove to ourselves or anyone else that this

faculty did in fact exist.

 

> No this wouldn't sell. What sells is something with the

> guise of much more authority.

absolutely (pun intended). but the beauty of the perception given

herein is that 'selling' is necessary only to items of belief.

 

apologies for the rather lengthy commentary, which is quite woefully

incomplete compared to what could be said on the subject.

-brian

[Guest guest]

Thank you Elektra for reading. I like " why do I need to know anyway? "

 

God Bless-

 

Bret

 

, Elektra Fire

<elektra.fire

wrote:

>

> Dear Bret,

>

> I found your essay to be anything but disturbing.

> I like to keep an open mind and not to fix myself on

> this or that, but I do have beliefs that I hold to be

> truths, but I am aware that my truth is fluxtuating

> and that others truth is just as true as mine and may

> also be fluctuating. Sometimes reality was influx so

> much for me that I beacme a little dizzy and didn't

> know what was what, but then I just thought " who

> cares? " why do I need to know anyway?

> Why not be free and let what ever wants to be , be,

> but not to cling on to it too much.

> I like to imagine others ways of seeing things. It

> keeps my mind light.

> Even though at times I do feel a repelling of others

> thoughts, in my heart or gut.

> I think you made some very valid observations.

> Thankyou for sharing that,

> Always a pleasure to read your thoughts,

> love Elektra x x x

>

>

>

> _________

> Copy addresses and emails from any email account to Mail - quick, easy

and

free. http://uk.docs./trueswitch2.html

>

[Guest guest]

Hey 7-

 

Thanks for all you well considerd comments. I wanted to comment on what you

wrote one

time about new science being understood by the layman becomes determininsm, but

I never

did. But I think of it from time to time. I think this post in part was in the

same vein.

 

God Bless-

 

Bret

 

 

, " a_seventh_son "

<a_seventh_son wrote: A whole lot of stuff!!

[Guest guest]

no problem - I needed this information at 19-20, in fact charted a

course through a philosophy concentration in undergrad largely due to

similar discontent. you would be welcome to take the topic to private

email any time you want to revisit it, as I'm sure the topic isn't one

of general interest here, I just wanted to give some nudges in a

general direction for you and any other perceptive reader willing to

wade through my stream-of-consciousness prose.

 

-brian

 

, " bretarenson "

<bretarenson wrote:

>

> Hey 7-

>

> Thanks for all you well considerd comments. I wanted to comment on

what you wrote one

> time about new science being understood by the layman becomes

determininsm, but I never

> did. But I think of it from time to time. I think this post in part

was in the same vein.

>

> God Bless-

>

> Bret

[Guest guest]

Yeah- I like all the philosphical stuff for its own, which I think you are right

in saying may

not be of general interest here. But I also wanted to discuss this to bring up

how easy it is

to be put upon by others beliefs and how easily I am prone to do the same. When

my K

first came up and if I shared it many were quite willing to tell me what it was,

and I found I

had to resist an insistent attitude when I knew what was proposed didn't fit

even though I

had not one better of my own. However when I started to compose my own thoughts

around the thousands of questions I had asked myself I felt a need to progate

this to

others, I guess to defend my stance. But eventually I realized that I didn't

need to defend

it. If I knew it to be true for me there was no need to express it for

confirmation. I was just

externalizing my internal doubts which I also realized I didn't need. But I

still feel the urge

to express it just because it is my view point and there may be some that would

get

something from it who are experiencing a similar challenge even if what is

stated is a bit

off center.

 

Bret

 

 

, " a_seventh_son "

<a_seventh_son wrote:

>

> no problem - I needed this information at 19-20, in fact charted a

> course through a philosophy concentration in undergrad largely due to

> similar discontent. you would be welcome to take the topic to private

> email any time you want to revisit it, as I'm sure the topic isn't one

> of general interest here, I just wanted to give some nudges in a

> general direction for you and any other perceptive reader willing to

> wade through my stream-of-consciousness prose.

>

> -brian

>

> , " bretarenson "

> <bretarenson@> wrote:

> >

> > Hey 7-

> >

> > Thanks for all you well considerd comments. I wanted to comment on

> what you wrote one

> > time about new science being understood by the layman becomes

> determininsm, but I never

> > did. But I think of it from time to time. I think this post in part

> was in the same vein.

> >

> > God Bless-

> >

> > Bret

>

[Guest guest]

, " bretarenson "

<bretarenson wrote:

>

> Yeah- I like all the philosphical stuff for its own, which

> I think you are right in saying may not be of general interest

the philosophical interpretation is of utmost importance in those to

whom its utility is self-evident. that is to say, a path of

philosophical inquiry can initiate as well as facilitate, the

fully-conscious awakening of the intelligence of kundalini. it is

then a path of jnanayoga, or gnosis.

 

> When my K first came up and if I shared it many were quite

> willing to tell me what it was, and I found I had to resist an

> insistent attitude when I knew what was proposed didn't fit

I can relate through similar experiences. it is a question of whether

ultimately one values reality or convenient illusions higher.

realized truth is self-evident, at least to the realizer. this is why

we call it knowledge/jnana/gnosis as distinguished from belief or the

corpus of artificial knowledge obtained through intellectual study.

equally, the phenomena of unconscious psychism and mediumship are

interesting in their own right but cannot give the mind the type of

intuitive knowledge it requires in order to effect any leap of

cognition past the inherent limitations of our perceptual mechanism.

 

-brian

[Guest guest]

Hi Brian, and Brett.

 

That was really well thought out and written, I am not

as apt with words as you and Brett, but I really

enjoyed this thread.

I totally relate talking to the ego , at times I feel

like a weirdo as I do not enjoy chatting, I find the

sound of my own voice cringe inducing at times , just

because it feels like it comes from a " low level "

place, either talking about myself, or preaching,

agreeing , not agreeing, talking about the weather,

chatting about past events etc. It doesn't feel

perfect.... Does that make sense?

I only enjoy to talk fantasy, make believe , teletubby

language!! I enjoy making jokes, stories, i enjoy

talking about the kundalini online

 

Sometimes I just don't want to talk at all. I always

thought I was strange. Or maybe mental.

I love silence, no voice only music or nature or

perhaps the wind.

We as humans are the only beings that chatter away and

we think that makes us " better " then the animals, I

find it more a set back.

 

I don't even enjoy talking about my beliefs of spirit

, it's a personal inward journey and when spoken about

I feel it alsmost lessons it.

 

Somethings cannot and should not be put into words.

 

Anyway, enough blah blah blah, thats what i

think...hee hee

lots of love Elektra x x x

 

because of the

> countless distinctions and assumptions being made,

> about my existence

> and yours, and our separateness in time and space,

> among hundreds of

> other things. 'ego' is an implicit element of our

> written languages,

> and a very useful " tool " in that regard (in that it

> enables us to

> communicate in a way which we could not do

> otherwise)... but here

> again only a symbol or contrivance; an artifact of

> pragmatism in

> effect! and there is legitimate authority, but also

> swindler and

> swagger play a far larger role (and exemplify the

> possession of the

> symbols without the reality behind it). nonverbal

> communication and

> cues are paramount in conveying the hidden elements

> or agenda that are

> motivating what appears to be rational conversation,

> and yes it is

> EVERYWHERE that communication happens, if you are

> looking for it.

>

 

 

 

_________

Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign up for

your free account today

http://uk.rd./evt=44106/*http://uk.docs./mail/winter07.html

[Guest guest]

Elektra wrote: " At times I feel like a weirdo as I do not enjoy

chatting, I find the sound of my own voice cringe inducing at times ,

just because it feels like it comes from a " low level " place, either

talking about myself, or preaching, agreeing , not agreeing, talking

about the weather, chatting about past events etc. It doesn't feel

perfect.... Does that make sense? "

 

===================================================================

 

Maybe conversational exchange can be a series of improvised rebounds

starting from the first person's feelings.

 

As each following conversational ball crosses the net, it has the

spin or biases of the new striker's frames of perspective.

 

We shuffle to and fro to meet each comment in that rally, using a

remake of our preceding comment to get to a position ON THE ONE HAND

matching our general thrust hitherto BUT ON THE OTHER in a form of

compromised agreement or diplomatised disagreement with the striker's

newly evolved position.

 

Hey, suddenly we realise we're uncomfortable - the thread is wobbling

off the trajectory of how we REALLY FELT, when we started or joined

in the conversation.

 

Chat can easily trail off like that and that's when, IMHO, respectful

SILENCE makes great sense !!

[Guest guest]

I think you hit the nail on the head!!!

Love to you John,

big hug

Elektra x x x

 

--- <...> wrote:

>

>

===================================================================

>

> Maybe conversational exchange can be a series of

> improvised rebounds

> starting from the first person's feelings.

>

> As each following conversational ball crosses the

> net, it has the

> spin or biases of the new striker's frames of

> perspective.

>

> We shuffle to and fro to meet each comment in that

> rally, using a

> remake of our preceding comment to get to a position

> ON THE ONE HAND

> matching our general thrust hitherto BUT ON THE

> OTHER in a form of

> compromised agreement or diplomatised disagreement

> with the striker's

> newly evolved position.

>

> Hey, suddenly we realise we're uncomfortable - the

> thread is wobbling

> off the trajectory of how we REALLY FELT, when we

> started or joined

> in the conversation.

>

> Chat can easily trail off like that and that's when,

> IMHO, respectful

> SILENCE makes great sense !!

 

[Guest guest]

Wow, Elektra, you have also described me when you

described yourself. Especially since I surrendered to

the K, I love the silence more. Used to have the TV

going in the background, now I hardly watch it and it

is off most of the time. Very nice...

 

As for nature, there is a stand of bamboo along our

lot line on the bedroom side of our house. I love

lying in bed with the window open on a windy night and

hearing the wind moving through the bamboo. It's one

of my favorite sounds.

 

And, yes, when it comes to 'talking,' less is more.

 

Claudia

 

--- Elektra Fire <elektra.fire wrote:

 

> Hi Brian, and Brett.

>

> That was really well thought out and written, I am

> not

> as apt with words as you and Brett, but I really

> enjoyed this thread.

> I totally relate talking to the ego , at times I

> feel

> like a weirdo as I do not enjoy chatting, I find the

> sound of my own voice cringe inducing at times ,

> just

> because it feels like it comes from a " low level "

> place, either talking about myself, or preaching,

> agreeing , not agreeing, talking about the weather,

> chatting about past events etc. It doesn't feel

> perfect.... Does that make sense?

> I only enjoy to talk fantasy, make believe ,

> teletubby

> language!! I enjoy making jokes, stories, i enjoy

> talking about the kundalini online

>

> Sometimes I just don't want to talk at all. I always

> thought I was strange. Or maybe mental.

> I love silence, no voice only music or nature or

> perhaps the wind.

> We as humans are the only beings that chatter away

> and

> we think that makes us " better " then the animals, I

> find it more a set back.

>

> I don't even enjoy talking about my beliefs of

> spirit

> , it's a personal inward journey and when spoken

> about

> I feel it alsmost lessons it.

>

> Somethings cannot and should not be put into words.

>

> Anyway, enough blah blah blah, thats what i

> think...hee hee

> lots of love Elektra x x x

>

> because of the

> > countless distinctions and assumptions being made,

> > about my existence

> > and yours, and our separateness in time and space,

> > among hundreds of

> > other things. 'ego' is an implicit element of our

> > written languages,

> > and a very useful " tool " in that regard (in that

> it

> > enables us to

> > communicate in a way which we could not do

> > otherwise)... but here

> > again only a symbol or contrivance; an artifact of

> > pragmatism in

> > effect! and there is legitimate authority, but

> also

> > swindler and

> > swagger play a far larger role (and exemplify the

> > possession of the

> > symbols without the reality behind it). nonverbal

> > communication and

> > cues are paramount in conveying the hidden

> elements

> > or agenda that are

> > motivating what appears to be rational

> conversation,

> > and yes it is

> > EVERYWHERE that communication happens, if you are

> > looking for it.

> >

>

>

>

>

>

_________

>

> Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't

> settle for less, sign up for

> your free account today

>

http://uk.rd./evt=44106/*http://uk.docs./mail/winter07.html

>

>

 

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Need Mail bonding?

Go to the Mail Q & A for great tips from Answers users.

http://answers./dir/?link=list & sid=396546091

[Guest guest]

> That was really well thought out and written, I am not

> as apt with words as you and Brett, but I really

> enjoyed this thread.

thanks, I enjoyed contributing to it.

 

> I totally relate talking to the ego ,

:-) yes, and what's novel about it to me is that we need the

whole structure " ego " , to allow us to use written language

to communicate. in other words, even if " ego " is illusory,

the context and content of language require it to exist!

 

> It doesn't feel perfect.... Does that make sense?

yes. I'm on a different side though, having been involved with

oration, theater and years of vocal music including a few years of

private study, I find the human voice to be an amazing thing. and

sure, the mechanism of language has its downsides but I for one would

prefer not to exist without it. ironically from the time I started

with meditation, it has always been with the intent to silence the

mental chatter. remarkably, once this has been achieved to some

degree, words seem to come easier and with greater fluency. I love

the silence too - most talk is largely noise, ritual, or verbal

emoting so you gain appreciation for what isn't.

 

> We as humans are the only beings that chatter away and

> we think that makes us " better " then the animals, I

> find it more a set back.

:-) actually animals communicate all the time, but not through verbal

means... if you watch them, you find they are at least as active and

responsive to the environment as any chattering monkey.

 

> I don't even enjoy talking about my beliefs of spirit

> , it's a personal inward journey and when spoken about

> I feel it alsmost lessons it.

likewise, this place aside (and Glenn's list before it).

 

-brian

[Guest guest]

Know exactly what u mean.

I'm finding the best way is to just stop filling gaps and asking

yourself who you really are, what u really want and what u really

want to say, then when it feels " perfect " , then speak. Otherwise

don't mess up your channels trying to say something else.

OK I've got something significant to say now.

Since my awakening, I've been overly conscious of my " ego " and always

try to subvert it, for example by not being charismatic or taking the

lead in conversation when I could. This made me kinda awkward 4 a

while. I just realised tho, that a big heart and a big spirit dont

equal a big ego. I was so obsessed with the idea of ego that I

created one!! Because the ego is just the compromised, or dammed,

pure self. So now I'm having big fun and loving it, and being

hypersocial like I used to be! I mean that's what lead me to

awakening in the first place, so now I'm letting it flow again! My

mistake was simply based on a misunderstanding of yoga and buddha,

about the ego. The Bhagavad Gita talks about the " supreme yogic

personality " , and I guess that that is all personality, our whole

self, and we should let it shine rather than worrying about whether

we sound egoic or not, because that, friends, is layered thought not

PRESENCE, i.e. egoic, political thought. Haha, its so funny, I used

to think, I oughtn't be happy because thats an egoic pursuit, when

being happy is the goal of losing ego! I think sometimes I made

myself weaker by undercutting what I thought was ego, when really I

was compromising my full xpression (i.e. being egoic). Perhaps the

bigger we make what some people might call our ego (our big

presence), the closer we get to losing it, because we become more and

more happy. So the more confident we become, which in some

definitions is having an increasing ego, the closer the ego comes to

annihilation, like a growing bubble, which gets closer to popping the

larger it becomes.

Love u all - Japo x

 

, " "

<...> wrote:

>

> Elektra wrote: " At times I feel like a weirdo as I do not enjoy

> chatting, I find the sound of my own voice cringe inducing at

times ,

> just because it feels like it comes from a " low level " place,

either

> talking about myself, or preaching, agreeing , not agreeing,

talking

> about the weather, chatting about past events etc. It doesn't feel

> perfect.... Does that make sense? "

>

> ===================================================================

>

> Maybe conversational exchange can be a series of improvised

rebounds

> starting from the first person's feelings.

>

> As each following conversational ball crosses the net, it has the

> spin or biases of the new striker's frames of perspective.

>

> We shuffle to and fro to meet each comment in that rally, using a

> remake of our preceding comment to get to a position ON THE ONE

HAND

> matching our general thrust hitherto BUT ON THE OTHER in a form of

> compromised agreement or diplomatised disagreement with the

striker's

> newly evolved position.

>

> Hey, suddenly we realise we're uncomfortable - the thread is

wobbling

> off the trajectory of how we REALLY FELT, when we started or joined

> in the conversation.

>

> Chat can easily trail off like that and that's when, IMHO,

respectful

> SILENCE makes great sense !!

>

[Guest guest]

> Because the ego is just the compromised, or dammed,

> pure self.

that's just the ego's own conceptualization of itself. what it does

when not thinking about itself as an ego is what's important, since

that defines its actual presence. it's in fact the whole self, which

in turn becomes the limited 'ego' when it thinks of itself as a self.

sorry for the circular wordplay.

 

great words btw

-brian

[Guest guest]

Dear Japo,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts about ego...I am

giving ego a lot of thought, anticipating that is

going to be my biggest obstacle, and yet I'm not sure

I understand ego. What you have said here really

helps me to put it into perspective. I especially

love your last line:

 

" So the more confident we become, which

> in some

> definitions is having an increasing ego, the closer

> the ego comes to

> annihilation, like a growing bubble, which gets

> closer to popping the

> larger it becomes. "

 

Thanks,

Claudia

 

P.S. Don't let my praise go to your head, LOL!

 

 

--- James <milliondegrees wrote:

 

> Know exactly what u mean.

> I'm finding the best way is to just stop filling

> gaps and asking

> yourself who you really are, what u really want and

> what u really

> want to say, then when it feels " perfect " , then

> speak. Otherwise

> don't mess up your channels trying to say something

> else.

> OK I've got something significant to say now.

> Since my awakening, I've been overly conscious of my

> " ego " and always

> try to subvert it, for example by not being

> charismatic or taking the

> lead in conversation when I could. This made me

> kinda awkward 4 a

> while. I just realised tho, that a big heart and a

> big spirit dont

> equal a big ego. I was so obsessed with the idea of

> ego that I

> created one!! Because the ego is just the

> compromised, or dammed,

> pure self. So now I'm having big fun and loving it,

> and being

> hypersocial like I used to be! I mean that's what

> lead me to

> awakening in the first place, so now I'm letting it

> flow again! My

> mistake was simply based on a misunderstanding of

> yoga and buddha,

> about the ego. The Bhagavad Gita talks about the

> " supreme yogic

> personality " , and I guess that that is all

> personality, our whole

> self, and we should let it shine rather than

> worrying about whether

> we sound egoic or not, because that, friends, is

> layered thought not

> PRESENCE, i.e. egoic, political thought. Haha, its

> so funny, I used

> to think, I oughtn't be happy because thats an egoic

> pursuit, when

> being happy is the goal of losing ego! I think

> sometimes I made

> myself weaker by undercutting what I thought was

> ego, when really I

> was compromising my full xpression (i.e. being

> egoic). Perhaps the

> bigger we make what some people might call our ego

> (our big

> presence), the closer we get to losing it, because

> we become more and

> more happy. So the more confident we become, which

> in some

> definitions is having an increasing ego, the closer

> the ego comes to

> annihilation, like a growing bubble, which gets

> closer to popping the

> larger it becomes.

> Love u all - Japo x

>

> --- In

> , " John

> Rooke "

> <...> wrote:

> >

> > Elektra wrote: " At times I feel like a weirdo as I

> do not enjoy

> > chatting, I find the sound of my own voice cringe

> inducing at

> times ,

> > just because it feels like it comes from a " low

> level " place,

> either

> > talking about myself, or preaching, agreeing , not

> agreeing,

> talking

> > about the weather, chatting about past events etc.

> It doesn't feel

> > perfect.... Does that make sense? "

> >

> >

>

===================================================================

> >

> > Maybe conversational exchange can be a series of

> improvised

> rebounds

> > starting from the first person's feelings.

> >

> > As each following conversational ball crosses the

> net, it has the

> > spin or biases of the new striker's frames of

> perspective.

> >

> > We shuffle to and fro to meet each comment in that

> rally, using a

> > remake of our preceding comment to get to a

> position ON THE ONE

> HAND

> > matching our general thrust hitherto BUT ON THE

> OTHER in a form of

> > compromised agreement or diplomatised disagreement

> with the

> striker's

> > newly evolved position.

> >

> > Hey, suddenly we realise we're uncomfortable - the

> thread is

> wobbling

> > off the trajectory of how we REALLY FELT, when we

> started or joined

> > in the conversation.

> >

> > Chat can easily trail off like that and that's

> when, IMHO,

> respectful

> > SILENCE makes great sense !!

> >

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Bored stiff? Loosen up...

Download and play hundreds of games for free on Games.

http://games./games/front

[Guest guest]

Yes I have known numerous situations when my thinking precepitated a very

pronounced

ecstatic response. Sometimes the thought will continue to give this response

over a period

of time, on one occasion over many weeks. So my thinking is consistent with my

spirituality.

 

However I have been accused of thinking too much, which returns the thread to

the intent

of the original post. Thinking is denegrated in some spiritual systems. Thinking

is

considered to make you less present or less in the now. Of course any activity

can be a

distraction from something else, but logically all action can only be in the now

and one

can be present to their thinking as to anything else. It is a matter of

attention and

appropriateness to the endeavor and circumstance.

 

Bisous-

 

Bret

 

 

, " a_seventh_son "

<a_seventh_son wrote:

 

> the philosophical interpretation is of utmost importance in those to

> whom its utility is self-evident. that is to say, a path of

> philosophical inquiry can initiate as well as facilitate, the

> fully-conscious awakening of the intelligence of kundalini. it is

> then a path of jnanayoga, or gnosis.

[Guest guest]

Love it , love it , love it.

Elektra x x x

 

--- a_seventh_son <a_seventh_son wrote:

 

>

>

> > Because the ego is just the compromised, or

> dammed,

> > pure self.

> that's just the ego's own conceptualization of

> itself. what it does

> when not thinking about itself as an ego is what's

> important, since

> that defines its actual presence. it's in fact the

> whole self, which

> in turn becomes the limited 'ego' when it thinks of

> itself as a self.

> sorry for the circular wordplay.

>

> great words btw

> -brian

>

>

>

>

>