PDA

View Full Version : The Self



Frans_Jozef
Wednesday, June 29th, 2005, 09:29 PM
The Self

Svein Olav Nyberg

As seen in the last issue, what "selfish" means depends strongly upon
what you mean by "self". I will not here try to correct all the wrong
ideas of what the Self is, but rather give an indication of what I
think the right view is. There are, as you well are aware, many
different conceptions of what "self" means. A general line of division
between these conceptions I have found very well illustrated in
Wilber, Engler and Brown's book on the psychology of meditation [1]:
To different stages of cognitive development belongs different
self-structures and, not the least, -images. The highest stage, called
the Ultimate stage, is described as "the reality, condition, or
suchness of all levels." If you draw the stage diagram on a paper, the
Ultimate Self is in relation to the other "selves" as the paper in
relation to the elements of the diagram drawn on it. Improper
selfishness, then, might be viewed as the mistaking of the image for
the real thing.

So, there is a very important division between the underlying Self,
and the various self-images. This division is found more or less
explicitly in a variety of sources. Pirsig, in his famous best-seller,
denounces the ego, but embraces the Self in his praise of arete as
"duty towards Self." [2] The philosopher Nietzsche writes that "The
Self is always listening and seeking: it compares, subdues, conquers,
destroys. It rules and is also the Ego's ruler. Behind your thoughts
and feelings, my brother, stands a mighty commander, an unknown sage -
he is called Self.", and also, a little above this, "[the Self] does
not say 'I' but performs 'I'." [3].

In [1] it is concluded that though all who experience the Ultimate
stage do essentially the same, the experience and understanding of it
depends on the prior interpretation. The Buddhist experience an
egoless state, while the theistic meditators experience [being one
with] their god. Who is having this unifying experience? The same guy,
essentially, who has everyday experience. Fichte [4] asks of his
audience, "Gentlemen, think of the wall," and proceeds "Gentlemen,
think of him who thought the wall." In this way he gets an infinite
chain, as "whenever we try to objectify ourselves, make ourselves into
objects of consciousness, there always remains an I or ego which
transcends objectification and is itself the condition of the unity of
conscious- ness," as Copleston describes.

Now, whether we shall side with the meditators who claim to experience
this I, or with Fichte who says we cannot, is of little importance
here. What is important, is that the I, this ground and condition
indeed exists, and that it is the ground of the empirical ego or egos.

I want to take a closer look at this I - the Self.

So far, the Self may be seen on as something just lying in the back-
ground, a kind of ultimate observer. But Fichte's question can also be
asked of action, "Who is lifting your arm when you lift your arm?"
Like it was clear in the first case that it was not the image of the
Self - the ego - that was aware, but the Self itself, it is equally
obvious that it is not the image of the Will that lifts the arm - but
the Will itself. To understand this better, try to will the coke
bottle in front of you to lift. Won't do. Now, "will" your arm up in
the same way that you willed the coke bottle. Won't do either. Still,
lifting the arm is easy. (See also [3])

Proceeding like above, we can find a well of parts of the underlying
Self. But they are all one. The Self that sees the stick is the same
Self that throws a rock at it. How else would it hit? I have found it
useful to single out three of them, which I will call the Experiencing
Self, the Creative Self and the Teleological Self.

Stirner [5] speaks of "the vanishing point of the ego", and of the
"creative nothing". He has "built his case on nothing". This latter is
the one that reveals what he intends. For surely, he has built his
cause on - himself. But in the way of Fichte, the Self is not a thing,
but the basis for speaking of things. To be a thing is to be an object
for some subject and, as Fichte showed, the subject cannot properly be
an object. So, Stirner's "creative nothing" is him Self.

In contrast to Fichte, however, Stirner emphasizes the finite
here-and-now individual Self, not the abstract Ego: "Fichte's ego too
is the same essence outside me, for every one is ego; and, if only
this ego has rights, then it is "the ego", it is not I. But I am not
an ego along with other egos, but the sole ego: I am unique. Hence my
wants too are unique, and my deeds; in short everthing about me is
unique."

So we see Stirner rejects the positivistic idea of viewing himself
from a 3rd person vantage point. He is not "ego", the image of
himself. For one can have an image of anyone. But ones own Self is
experienced from the 1st person point of view, and one is oneself the
only one who can experience oneself from there. Again quoting Stirner:
"They say of God: 'Names name thee not.' That holds good of me: No
-concept- expresses me; they are only names."

The history of philosophy can be simplified as follows: We have gone
from a focus on experienced reality, to experienced self, and from
that on to that which contains both - the Experiencing Self. Stirner,
as a student of Hegel, must have seen this, and, as he states, this
history is also my history. The dialectic process is taken back into
its owner. I am not any longer viewing myself as a moment in the
dialectical self-unfolding of the Absolute, but as he who learns and
thinks these thoughts, and - take the advantage of them.

The philosophical process did not stop at the Experiencing Self, with
which an empiricist would be content. A reaction came, asking what
elements of experience were constituted by the subject himself. The
observer was no longer seen as a passive observer, but as an active
participant contributing his own elements into experience. Thus we can
say that the awareness of the creative role of the intellect was
properly emerging. We had the Creative Self. This was idea was taken
very far by Stirners teachers - into German idealism.

Stirners main thesis is that of the individual as the ground not only
of observation and creation, but of evaluation. This thesis is given a
short presentation as a 0th chapter in The Ego and His Own: "All
things are Nothing to Me." No outer force is to determine ones cause,
ones evaluation. With a convincing rhetoric, Stirner makes room for
the case that he himself is the evaluator, the one whose cause is to
be acted for.

Stirners main dialectical triad is then this, that we go from mere
experience to action [thought], and as a solution to the strain
between these go to valuation and interest, self-interest. This is a
recurring theme in his book, and the structure of the argument is
presented in the first chapter, very appropriately named "A human Life".

The triad, as I have understood and interpreted it, is this:

The Experiencing Self: This is, so to say, the beacon that enlightens
the empirical world, which makes it possible qua empirical world. With
knowledge of oneself only as experiencing, one is stuck with things,
and all ones activity is centered around things, as Stirner says. One
is a Materialist. In history, both the personal and the philosophical
one, the Empirical Self is seen as a passive observer on whom the
world is imprinted, all until we come to the antithesis of this view:

The Creative Self: We discover our own more active role in experience,
our own contribution of elements/form to our experience, as shown by
the [Kantian inspired] experiments of the early Gestalt psychologists.
With this knowledge, attention goes to thought itself, and, we become
intellectual and spiritual young men. Our quest goes for that in which
we can pry Spirit, and we become - Idealists.

The Teleological Self: There is a [dialectical] strain between the two
views and aspects of the Self above, a conflict that can only, as
Stirner says, be resolved by a third party, which is the synthesis. We
begin to ask: Why do I focus on this, and not on that, in experience?
Why do I create this and not that? For whom am I doing my creation, my
thinking? I find the answer to the above questions in what I will call
the Teleological Self. The Teleological Self is he [or rather - I] for
whom all things done by me are done, the commander who is the measure
of all activity. Any value, any selection, and thereby any focus and
any creation, owes its existence to the Teleological Self. In the
Teleological Self we find the grounding of our "why?".

The dilemma between Materialism and Idealism is resolved in
Selfishness. Not do I go for the material for its sake, nor do I let
the cause of any ideal invade me and make its cause mine. I take both,
but as tools and things to be disposed of at - my pleasure. In this
fashion the dialectics is buried. For it is only alive in the world of
ideas, which I have taken back into myself.

- - -

This was an attempt to convey some thoughts on the Self. If anyone
feels tempted to pick up this thread, expand on it or negate it, you
are welcome. It will be a pleasure.

[1] Wilber, Engler, Brown: "Transformations of Consciousness"
[2] Robert Pirsig: "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
[3] Friedrich Nietzsche: "Zarathustra", on the Despisers of the Body.
[4] Copleston, Vol VII, p. 40
[5] Max Stirner: "The Ego & His Own"

Source: non serviam #2
http://www.nonserviam.com/magazine/index.html

See also:
http://www.nonserviam.com/

Moody
Thursday, March 23rd, 2006, 06:59 PM
Against the Self.

I am at present unconvinced that we can separate out our 'Self', & our 'Ego' from our actual Being; I see those former two terms as merely linguistic conventions.

Therefore 'Self' & 'Ego' are just other [and loaded] words for our Being [as is 'I', which is so brutally capitalised in English].

I don't believe that this Being is cut off from other Beings [and this is the implication of the words 'Self' & 'Ego' to which I object].

Perhaps 'soul' is a better term than either 'Self' or 'Ego' if we want to add some focus, as it suggests the expanding and evolving aspect of Being.

Rather than any split-selves, our Being is actually an aspect of a greater totality that is the Race Soul; the one we belong to by ancestry, and of which we are the result of many generations of breeding Beings.

I find in the talk of 'Self' and 'Other', a trend towards that atomization and reductionism so often found in Modernity.
There is also something almost schizophrenic about the kind of approach which seeks to self-objectify the Self or Ego, where people speak as if they are watching themselves at one remove.

This kind of linguistic usage is a self-fulfilling prophecy and leads to alienation.

I want rather to re-connect & exalt the Holistic Being - not only of the man, but of the man of Race.

And from there to complete the sphere that is the Race Soul.

Hanna
Tuesday, February 19th, 2008, 12:40 PM
A child is born,without any knowledge, any consciousness of own self.

NUXiY
Tuesday, February 19th, 2008, 09:23 PM
And the child thinks only of itself and its surroundings...

Imperator X
Tuesday, February 19th, 2008, 10:25 PM
A child is born,without any knowledge, any consciousness of own self.

Yes, and perhaps it is this state, which is the goal of the spiritual quest... At least in the mystical traditions. The dissolution of the Self spoken of by Hindu Rishis, and called fanaa by the Sufis.

Self revelation is annihilation of self.

http://www.ilianrachov.com/ikons/images/madonna%20and%20child.privat%20collectio n.venice.italy.jpg

Jai Mata Di.

Hanna
Wednesday, February 20th, 2008, 07:54 AM
And a center is born, however the center is a reflected center, and he/she not a real being because he/she does not know their existence but only what others think, and I think this is the ''Ego''

Fafne
Wednesday, February 20th, 2008, 04:56 PM
Yes, and perhaps it is this state, which is the goal of the spiritual quest... At least in the mystical traditions. The dissolution of the Self spoken of by Hindu Rishis, and called fanaa by the Sufis.

Self revelation is annihilation of self.

http://www.ilianrachov.com/ikons/images/madonna%20and%20child.privat%20collectio n.venice.italy.jpg

Jai Mata Di.


I have been tought that you first need to develop a stable and healthy ego to be able to go beyond it. There are different schools, but for example the Zen satori, and the higher forms of samadi in yoga, are states beyond the ego, its not a regression to the state of a child.

Thats what I have heard anyway.

Rhydderch
Thursday, February 21st, 2008, 01:59 PM
A child is born,without any knowledge, any consciousness of own self.How do we know that? We don't remember being born (at least I don't :D), I'm not sure that one can assume from that that babies are not conscious in the sense that adults are. Mind you, I don't suppose they actively think about being conscious of themselves; perhaps that's the difference.

Sigurd
Thursday, February 21st, 2008, 02:52 PM
A child is born,without any knowledge, any consciousness of own self.

I would refute that theory to the utmost, if you would permit me.

A child is sure born with its life ahead of it, and may seem like an empty sheet of paper and that it is us as the world that will fill this empty sheet more and more. But it isn't all that clear cut.

Sure it is our experiences that determine to a great point who we are. If I hadn't been locked up in a tiny dark chamber by one of my school teachers for misbehaving, I might not be so paranoid in enclosed, dark spaces (which is strange because Old Town at night gives me the shivers but a forest or other unenclosed space at night is the best thing since sliced bread to me :D) Likewise , if it weren't for certain events, I would not have gone the A-hole -> Pushover -> Balanced road in relationships, etc. etc. etc.

However, the self is not only made up by our experiences. We always tend to be good at what our parents were good at: There are sheer dynasties of judges, enough authors, composers and artists had to but a "Jr." behind their name or take a pseudonym to distinguish themselves from their father, you have whole car racing families, and some surnames ring a bell with the scientists as renowned ones.

Surely one may argue that this is because of the influence our parents have on us when we are young (besides the point that we tend to rebel as youths against it anyway, discrediting that point fully enough ;)), but I also think that it is to an equally important part genetic: We are born with certain abilities, certain dispositions, and they influence our judgment when it comes to evaluating our experiences.

Hence, the self is already shaped in its primitive form when we are born, and the experiences and obstacles we meet only polish the rough diamond into a perfect one, or frame the picture, so to say. The self only arises through our experiences but it could never exist in the same manner, so is my staunch belief, without the genetic background on which it is founded.

Hanna
Sunday, February 24th, 2008, 01:15 PM
I would refute that theory to the utmost, if you would permit me.

A child is sure born with its life ahead of it, and may seem like an empty sheet of paper and that it is us as the world that will fill this empty sheet more and more. But it isn't all that clear cut.

I would say ego is an accumulated events a by product of living with others, in your term its an '' experience '' but if we were to lives alone we would never come to grow an ego but then perhaps we'll be like an animal but would we able to come to know the real self? I'm not sure.

Thrymheim
Tuesday, February 26th, 2008, 03:12 AM
I would say ego is an accumulated events a by product of living with others, in your term its an '' experience '' but if we were to lives alone we would never come to grow an ego but then perhaps we'll be like an animal but would we able to come to know the real self? I'm not sure.

why would we never grow an ego if we lived alone? there would still be a feeling of self, experiences would still happen, animals recognise individuals and therefore we must assume that they know they are individual and as that is the foundation of an ego, they and we must be born either with it or with a built in capacity to develop it.

Gorm the Old
Tuesday, February 26th, 2008, 04:06 AM
I am convinced that an infant has both consciousness of itself and, especially, WILL. The reason that a healthy infant whose physical needs have been attended to cries is FRUSTRATION. The infant is sufficiently self-aware to want to DO things but can't.

Some of our traits and propensities are apparently genetically determined rather than by environmental factors ("nature vs nurture"). As a small boy, I was always inventing machines, mostly wildly impractical because I didn't yet know what could or could not work. I was not told until I was a teenager that my father had been an unsuccessful inventor. I don't recall ever being encouraged by my mother and grandmother to invent things. So, whence did I get that inventiveness ?

During my long life, I have been subjected to many and diverse influences. Many of them had little or no effect. How did I unconsciously choose those
which made me what I am today ? There must have been some "blueprint" which I was unconsciously following. What was its source ?

I have always been strongly attracted to the automobiles, home furnishings, radios, etc. of the 1900's to 1920's. I was born in 1930. Why did I have this attraction to old things when most of my contemporaries longed for the newest things ? I collect early firearms, early operatic recordings, old music boxes, early this, old that. Why ? I don't know. They feel somehow "comfortable" to me, yet they were never part of my environment in this lifetime until I made them so.

Some factor which is unclear to me has shaped my preferences and is part of my ego. Why do some of us look on the new with distaste and the old with affection , whilst others can't tolerate anything old and embrace the new with avid enthusiasm ? This nature-vs-nurture problem is vastly more complex than we realise.

Lyfing
Tuesday, February 26th, 2008, 05:02 PM
I like this idea of Otto Rank's..


The artist

Rank also tackles the difficult issue of artistic creativity. On the one hand, Rank says, the artist has a particularly strong tendency towards glorification of his own will. Unlike the rest of us, he feels compelled to remake reality in his own image. And yet a true artist also needs immortality, which he can only achieve by identifying himself with the collective will of his culture and religion. Good art could be understood as a joining of the material and the spiritual, the specific and the universal, or the individual and humanity.

This joining doesn't come easily, though. It begins with the will, Rank's word for the ego, but an ego imbued with power. We are all born with a will to be ourselves, to be free of domination. In early childhood, we exercise our will in our efforts to do things independently of our parents. Later, we fight the domination of other authorities, including the inner authority of our sexual drives. How our struggle for independence goes determines the type of person we become. Rank describes three basic types:

First, there is the adapted type. These people learn to "will" what they have been forced to do. They obey authority, their society's moral code, and, as best as they can, their sexual impulses. This is a passive, duty-bound creature that Rank suggests is, in fact, the average person.

Second, there is the neurotic type. These people have a much stronger will than the average person, but it is totally engaged in the fight against external and internal domination. They even fight the expression of their own will, so there is no will left over to actually do anything with the freedom won. Instead, they worry and feel guilty about being so "willful." They are, however, at a higher level of moral development than the adapted type.

Third, there is the productive type, which Rank also refers to as the artist, the genius, the creative type, the self-conscious type, and, simply, the human being. Instead of fighting themselves, these people accept and affirm themselves, and create an ideal, which functions as a positive focus for will. The artist creates himself or herself, and then goes on to create a new world as well.

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/rank.html

....:)

Later,
-Lyfing

Hanna
Tuesday, February 26th, 2008, 06:20 PM
why would we never grow an ego if we lived alone?

Because your '' center'' is not reflected, and but if you experiencing living with others, your center will open and then you become selfish not being you, such as wants attentions and manipulates other for your own ego.

Fortis_in_Arduis
Wednesday, February 27th, 2008, 10:04 AM
We, the souls, are given our bodies and our inherent sanksaras (habits, traits) according to our karmic account.

False identification with the physical, rather than the soul, will develop new false identities which will invoke vinash forces which will teach us to identify more with the part of ourselves which is non-physical and eternal.

Example:

I like my sweater.

Joan likes my sweater and she tells me that she likes it.

I feel an attachment to my sweater.

My sweater develops a hole.

I am upset. If I had never identified with my sweater I would not have been upset.


This is an example of how the ego, a collection of false identifications with, and attachments to, the physical world, causes us pain.

There is a another rule, and so few people can understand this:

Attachments and false identifications cause vinash forces, even to this extent:

My attachment probably caused the whole thing, not just the pain of attachment, but also Joan's compliment and my being impressed by that, and eventually the hole which developed.

If you can understand this, then you can see the benefit in identifying with the soul, myself, the non-physical being, and the ego will diminish with practice.

Hanna
Wednesday, February 27th, 2008, 11:04 AM
This is an example of how the ego, a collection of false identifications with,
If you can understand this, then you can see the benefit in identifying with the soul, myself, the non-physical being, and the ego will diminish with practice.

But I don't think the ego is something that you could avoid, when a baby is born, he or she has no ego, they developed the ego through the interactions from the parents, such as recognizing the parents then followed with a praise and so on. Are you saying ego is part of our soul?

Emder
Friday, February 29th, 2008, 02:09 AM
Ego; noun, the I or self of any person; a person as thinking, feeling, and willing, and distinguishing itself from the selves of others and from objects of its thought.

Children are surely born with egos.
When a child is born he/she is aware of nothing but self at first.
A new born child is very self centered.

Hanna
Friday, February 29th, 2008, 07:14 AM
Ego; noun, the I or self of any person; a person as thinking, feeling, and willing, and distinguishing itself from the selves of others and from objects of its thought.

Children are surely born with egos.
When a child is born he/she is aware of nothing but self at first.
A new born child is very self centered.

Yes everyone born with ego but a child's ego is not developed until he/she begins to realize about self, such as touching the feets, fingers and so on, but there's no center of ego at this stage. The ''I'' comes when the child started to developed the interactions with the parents.

Fortis_in_Arduis
Saturday, March 1st, 2008, 01:30 PM
But I don't think the ego is something that you could avoid, when a baby is born, he or she has no ego, they developed the ego through the interactions from the parents, such as recognizing the parents then followed with a praise and so on. Are you saying ego is part of our soul?

You refer to the definition of ego according to the psychoanalysts.

I think that ego is always negative, and that the ego is based upon false identification with the physical world, including one's body! :rolleyes:

No, seriously. :)

Soldier of Wodann
Saturday, March 1st, 2008, 07:16 PM
We, the souls, are given our bodies and our inherent sanksaras (habits, traits) according to our karmic account.

False identification with the physical, rather than the soul, will develop new false identities which will invoke vinash forces which will teach us to identify more with the part of ourselves which is non-physical and eternal.

Example:

I like my sweater.

Joan likes my sweater and she tells me that she likes it.

I feel an attachment to my sweater.

My sweater develops a hole.

I am upset. If I had never identified with my sweater I would not have been upset.


This is an example of how the ego, a collection of false identifications with, and attachments to, the physical world, causes us pain.

There is a another rule, and so few people can understand this:

Attachments and false identifications cause vinash forces, even to this extent:

My attachment probably caused the whole thing, not just the pain of attachment, but also Joan's compliment and my being impressed by that, and eventually the hole which developed.

If you can understand this, then you can see the benefit in identifying with the soul, myself, the non-physical being, and the ego will diminish with practice.

I definately don't think that is what most people think of as part of himself in the same sense of an ego really, but I do agree material arrogance is indeed a determent. I wouldn't go as far as saying that is 'ego', though, implying that you (ego being latin for self, and not in a material sense) are entirely material based, which we know is not true. The Eastern nature of the word too is flawed in my opinion, as they have a sort of obsession with the material world in the sense they fanatically reject it, instead of being indifferent to it and just attempting to advance the natural spirit, which is the true path I think.

Next World
Saturday, March 1st, 2008, 07:28 PM
I think this is going to be a short post, as far as mine go.

I've been actively involved in exploring the concept of ego for maybe a third of my life, which is more than I can say for most concepts. There was a time when I thought that the ego is simply the "self", and there was a time when I thought that the ego is simply one's "sense of self". I don't think I need to explain the difference to anybody here. Now there is the static ego and the dynamic ego, static ego being everything that we are and are not and know accurately, dynamic ego being things we believe we are or are not which we are incorrect about.

Dynamic ego gets in the way of anything and everything. No matter what our static egoes are composed of, if they make up the greater portion of our ego ultima, they are fine for our course in life.

The difference between babies or the enlightened/successful and those who are mediocre/normal is that babies have yet to develop the artificial dynamic ego and the enlightened/successful have destroyed theirs for the most part.

People without much of a sense of self or the importance of self have dynamic ego to the same or a similar degree as those they ridicule for being too "selfish" or "materialistic".

There's an amount of selfishness that is important and necessary, and self-centeredness is one of the greatest virtues I can think of. As far as the material world, the amount of it you deal with isn't as important as how you deal with it. There are people with lots of material wealth and possessions who don't let it control them half as much as people with little material wealth and possessions. Some of us are Naturally able to deal with more "stuff" than others, as some of us Naturally have a level of control that expands beyond the self.

Emder
Saturday, March 1st, 2008, 09:47 PM
Yes everyone born with ego but a child's ego is not developed until he/she begins to realize about self, such as touching the feets, fingers and so on, but there's no center of ego at this stage. The ''I'' comes when the child started to developed the interactions with the parents.

I think the "I" exists right from the beginning even if it is undeveloped. It is the interaction with the parents that will determine if this ego becomes negative or positive.

Hanna
Saturday, March 1st, 2008, 09:55 PM
I think the "I" exists right from the beginning even if it is undeveloped. It is the interaction with the parents that will determine if this ego becomes negative or positive.

Explain how the '' I'' exits right from the beginning ?

Emder
Saturday, March 1st, 2008, 10:05 PM
Explain how the '' I'' exits right from the beginning ?

The "I" exists because the "person" exists. It is part of a person consciousness or their soul.

A newborn baby has a certain self -consciousness even if it is limited and based on their senses. Hunger, pain, etc.

As they experience and interact with people they become aware of much more and they ego continues to develop.

But the ego and self awareness are there from the beginning, even if only as a seed.

Hanna
Saturday, March 1st, 2008, 10:18 PM
The "I" exists because the "person" exists. It is part of a person consciousness or their soul.



I would disagree, a child born without any knowledge, or any consciousness of his or her own self. The child never aware him/herself, on the contrary aware with others because the eyes open and the fingers touch and the ears listen to the sounds.

Emder
Saturday, March 1st, 2008, 10:32 PM
I would disagree, a child born without any knowledge, or any consciousness of his or her own self. The child never aware him/herself, on the contrary aware with others because the eyes open and the fingers touch and the ears listen to the sounds.

When a child is born he/she normally crying as soon as they are born. This is probably due to a sudden change in environment,
When hungry they cry.
When they are in pain or uncormfortable they cry.

They must be aware of something even if it is only limited stimulus in their lives.

To state that a child is born with no knowledge or self awareness means that a baby would have to learn how to be hungry or have to learn how to feel pain.

Surely most things in our lives are learned, however, certain things are inate.

Hanna
Saturday, March 1st, 2008, 11:04 PM
When a child is born he/she normally crying as soon as they are born. This is probably due to a sudden change in environment,
When hungry they cry.
When they are in pain or uncormfortable they cry.

They must be aware of something even if it is only limited stimulus in their lives.

To state that a child is born with no knowledge or self awareness means that a baby would have to learn how to be hungry or have to learn how to feel pain.

Surely most things in our lives are learned, however, certain things are inate.

Crying doesn't explains ego, it's explains '' Birth'' meaning coming into this world, the external world from the '' Mother's '' womb, the outside world, the child become aware of his/her mother, then only the child becomes aware of his/her body. The child cries because the body feels the hunger and there's a need to satisfied it, here is where the child forget the '' Body''

Emder
Saturday, March 1st, 2008, 11:18 PM
Crying doesn't explains ego, it's explains '' Birth'' meaning coming into this world, the external world from the '' Mother's '' womb, the outside world, the child become aware of his/her mother, then only the child becomes aware of his/her body. The child cries because the body feels the hunger and there's a need to satisfied it, here is where the child forget the '' Body''

This is correct, "birth" meaning coming into this world, the external world from the mothers womb.
The body feels hunger and there's a need to satisfy it.

These are inate responses to stimulus. Surely the baby did not have time to learn these responses.

The fact that he/she is aware of the stimulus/sense proves they have some sense of self awareness. I is not a developed sense or awareness as an adult, however, it exists.

self-awareness= I
I= ego

Hanna
Saturday, March 1st, 2008, 11:37 PM
self-awareness= I
I= ego

Interesting how you resonate it, the self-awareness = I and I = ego doesn't happen just on the spur of moment, The child becomes aware of you, and the others, and only slowly in opposite to you. The child which is '' I'' aware of his/herself, but the child is not aware who he/she is, because the child only aware the mother, and what she says and what she thinks about the child. Example, mothers smiles and what this means? It means she appreciate the child, such as through her actions. kissing, hugging, through this way the child feel secure and good, Here is where the ego= I is born.

Ps: Interesting topic too bad we can't argue during a cup of tea.:)

Emder
Saturday, March 1st, 2008, 11:48 PM
Interesting how you resonate it, the self-awareness = I and I = ego doesn't happen just on the spur of moment, The child becomes aware of you, and the others, and only slowly in opposite to you. The child which is '' I'' aware of his/herself, but the child is not aware who he/she is, because the child only aware the mother, and what she says and what she thinks about the child. Example, mothers smiles and what this means? It means she appreciate the child, such as through her actions. kissing, hugging, through this way the child feel secure and good, Here is where the ego= I is born.

Ps: Interesting topic too bad we can't argue during a cup of tea.:)

(The child which is '' I'' aware of his/herself, but the child is not aware who he/she is) I agree with you 100% here. The child is aware of themself but they do not realize who they are.

I think maybe we are somewhat in agreement but trying to prove different points.

Moody
Sunday, October 5th, 2008, 04:01 PM
Because the 'ego' and the 'self' are largely linguistic identities, they are actually very poorly developed.

Humans have a very limited self-awareness, and are rather more attuned to the vague ocean of otherness that is living.

This is because any awareness of the self beyond linguistic convention must bring us to the awareness of death.

We flee the awareness of death just as a prey flees its predator.

Perhaps this is why certain spiritual teachers recognise that only at the point of death is anything like a 'self' realised [and also why initiations use near-death experience as a tool to enlightenment].