EGO---Is Self an Illusion ?

Wether it is here in the CAnadian Forum or in our society as a whole ,all the arguments ,conflicts ,violence which arise are the arguments ,violence that are in our consciousness .And in turn ,they arrive from the ego process in our consciousness.So the question is ,what is the ego.Does it actualy exist as a reality in nature, or is it an illusion in the sense that it is merely a creation of our imagination? I think this is important question ,because ifit exists in nature,then you can not eliminate it.Then it is something like a tree, our body , you can not eliminate it. But if it is based on some assumptions ,which don't have any existence except in our own imagination ,then it has no existence in nature, it has an existence only in our imagination.Just as fairy tales are created only out of our imaginnation.They mabe in a book ,but they are not real , they are not the actual stories .And when we know that it is oly imaginary , it doesn't create illusion.But when it is created in imagination , and one takes it to be real ,then it becomes illusion.
So , if ego is something that actually exists in nature , then we can only learn to cope with it and the problems it creates.All we have to do is study Carnegies books ,which teach us how to manage our ego: How to win Friends and influencePpeople.What we will learn is how to oil our way through society in order to be successful.If you are a "masochist" ,then read some works of S . Freud .
What I'm saying is that if there is an Ego,is it possible to dissolve it through the process of which it forms so that
you don't have to manage it.Can you be free of the EGO???
The questions are , Is there an ego ,,can you be free of it?

Yes, the ego is an illusion.
Yes, the "you" is an illusion (more than just the ego).

The word trait has several meanings:

• Generically, it refers to a -- or -- of some --.
• In --, -- refer to genetically inherited features of organisms.
• In --, it refers to a component of personality as defined by --.
• In --, traits refer to several things:
  • In --, a -- is a -- which is used to store -- about some other datatype; typically for the benefit of --.
  • In several -- --, a -- is a type of --.

The "Ego" or "Ones Self" is very real (Can't touch this!) and inbred. Ego will always be there in the mind. Very much tied into the survival instinct. Ego can be manipulated to the point of a "Christ" or "Napoleonic" Complex. the Christ complex being the apex and the later being the basement. Ones self image as the later would put you on the defensive, the paranoid, and the world is against you. the former being, all is well, nothing can go wrong and if it does I am on it! Tied inevitably with self-worth. Freud believed that all stems from childhood and how that childs mind is formed through interaction with the WORLD AT LARGE, not just the parents. Parents are given more weight to the equation do to their close proximity with the, so-called subject. This is also to say that the subjects mind is not flawed at conception through genetic mutation, which is part of the WHOLE discussion of what is the normal mind. Ego also influences our thoughts upon what we perceive. Checking, of course that our perception is not screwed up as well. We have equated "success" with the Ego and being of strong mind and sound character. Depending upon the definition of "success". Some of the people in the public eye that are "successful", in my opinion are wacko's and very good manipulators.

Ego has also been given a reference to “The Soul”. Which I do not want to start a theological discussion.

Ego if feel is that little voice inside of us. Depending upon your predisposition and interpretation it will tell you what to do in a given situation. Whether or not we follow it’s advice is something else. I have been very lucky that the little voice has helped and not hindered me. The gut instinct you could say. Looking back on situations I feel I have made the right decisions, for myself of course, in what I have done. When you just get that feeling something is not right. You can tell if a person likes or dislikes you without even speaking a word. When I was growing up we had this great series of books which allowed you to choose from a selection of how the story progressed. Death or failure was at the end of the wrong decisions. This would be a neat experiment for from a real life case study.

Thank you,

The Project Man :

"Ego will always be there in the mind. Very much tied into the survival instinct".________________________________________ ____________________________________

Could you please explain that .Is there a way to eliminate an ego?

Sure there is China

Come to Canada. As you can see from all these contributions, no one in Canada has an ego......

Hi Mckey : Sure there is China

Come to Canada. As you can see from all these contributions, no one in Canada has an ego......
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________

"EGO-LESS CANADA".....,nice slogan.

Yes there is a way. It is called blind faith....Just a jab at religion.

A person can be devoid or stripped of ego by brain washing.

Brainwashing is the complete, physical act of breaking down the mental ego or defense and perception of an individual or group.

Wiki says:
Brainwashing, also known as thought reform or re-education, is the application of -- techniques to change the -- or -- of one or more people usually for political or religious purposes. Whether any techniques at all exist that will actually work to change thought and behavior to the degree that the term "brainwashing" connotes is a -- and at times hotly debated question.

Let’s go with the individual for brevity.

The void is then filled with the wants and needs of “the user”. The subject in this case gives themselves freely to the wants of the user. The user’s wants are usually self-serving and not in the best interest of the subject, which is when the ego would kick in to tell the subject if the action were harmful or beneficial to their well-being.

I hope this helps...Keep up the good posts.

heh... eliminate the ego via brianwashing. First tell them they have an ego, then tell them they need to eliminate the ego, then tell them only you can take them to the enlightened state.

Or,

Come to the understanding that a singular separate "you" does not exist. That "the ego" is an illusion cast by the single greatest impediment to humanity's evolution, self-awareness. For self awareness is a fraud. It is the over-emphasis on a detached entity which is not detatched.

The ego is not part of the survival instinct. Insticts function at a much lower level and do NOT require this self-awareness necessary for the manifestation of the concept of ego.

let go of my ego.

Please Clearify,
What is your definition of ego?
What purpose does it serve?
At what great level does ego operate?

definition

my ego is a disk shaped piece of waffle

let go

let go of my ego

definition

CORTEX :
my ego is a disk shaped piece of waffle
let go
go of my ego_______________________________________________ ________________________________
Hahaha, Love that


__________________________________________________ ________________________________

Well, I see you're off on another of your strange tangents China. It's not clear to me what you mean by ego. I understand it to mean the part of the mind that's aware of itself, it's the awareness of yourself as an individual separate from other individuals, and in that sense I'd have to say yes, it certainly exists, and it's not an illusion. I'm not you, you're not me, and we can both perceive the existence of other egos separate from ourselves. I'm inclined to take a pretty hard-nosed view of such metaphysical questions: Do I exist? Yes. Do you exist? Yes. Are we different and separate? Yes. Is there an ego? Yes. Can you be free of it? No, of course not, it's what defines who you are to yourself, being free of it can only mean you're dead, and why would you want to be free of it anyway? You are, as am I, and every other person who's ever lived, an individual and unique person with interests and needs and desires defined by what we usually call the ego.

Once again my friend, I must confess that I don't understand where you're coming from or where you're trying to get to. This lack of understanding is far from disagreeable, I find you to be intelligent and interesting and provocative and entertaining. But I can't pretend I understand much about your thought processes. Most of your questions strike me as being either incomprehensible or nonsensical, but at least they're not boring. You remind me of my twin sister, a devoted Bahai prone to posing the same kind of questions you do. I love her dearly and always enjoy her company because she carries with her such joy in life. She's a superlative musician, and wherever she is there is music and dancing and laughter, but I have no real comprehension of what she thinks about, it is completely antithetical to the way I think. Is she wrong? I dunno, and I wouldn't presume to make such a judgement. She's happy, and so am I, with completely different world views. Of course I suspect she's wrong about many things, as she suspects I'm wrong about many things, but it doesn't really seem to matter much, because we're twin siblings and have always loved each other regardless of everything else in our lives.

Jeez, my life has been so incredibly and unbelievably blessed...

If I understand china correctly the teachings of much asian mysticism asserts that our apparent feeling of distinctness from the rest of nature, our pervasive perception that we are a separate consciousness -being aware of everything else is is somewhat of an illusion.

I am pleased to tell you that Cortez has also solved this metaphysical problem. The problem of the illusion of ego is one of what I call quantification error which leads to a qualitative error--also related is the grammatical error.

Let me explain. We know our everyday ego directly. That is the normal and stable form of perception we have--99.9% of the time. The fact is however that science has shown us to be merely PARTS of a vast universe. We are so much a part of it that our very constituent atoms are made of it.

Another way of putting it

We are not IN the universe

We are OF the universe

And this simple grammatical bias has led much of western philosophy astray for quite some time.

Th most extreme example is existentialism with its bizarre hyphenated terms for oncological states such as

being-in-the-world

naturally a philosophy that is obsessed with this grammatically incorrect concept leads to the well known ISOLATION and despair that existentialism is infamous for.

but the REALITY is we are----

beings-OF-the-world
first and foremost that operate AS IF we were beings-IN-the world
ie the ego

I digress

The qunatitative argument--cortez's third oncologcal principle states that momentary insights into our connected egoless reality are evident to some of us for extremely SHORT periods of time often during so called PEAK experiences BUT their brevity is naturally inversely proportional to their DEPTH.
So we are limited beings that cannot intuitively perceive the totality of which are apart except for brief moments--

the so called mystical experience

The next phase in the evolution of human consciousness wil be the existence of beings who have tha capability of being aware of themselves as being of the world --and thereby naturally and without effort resulting in a more unified
earthy community.

Unfortunately my research has shown that WE cannot do this as we are clearly on the path of self consumption.

We cant do it because we dont have the PHYSICAL capability.

It is clear to me that the most unstable aand precious physical state in the universe is the state of CONCSIOUSNESS--awareness--

The Universe is trying to become aware of itself

It is trying to WAKE UP

It is trying to WAKE UP --through us

And now that I am up

its breakfast time .

And i dont know about you but Im going to have an EGO

its better than eating your own brain

any other metaphysical problems--please dont hesitate to ask

Oncological states? Surely you mean ontological? Oncology is about the diagnosis and treatment of cancers.

We are not IN the universe? Then where the Hell are we? There's no other place to be, by definition.

We are OF the universe? Well of course we are. So what? We could hardly be anything else.

You've lost me entirely. Everything you wrote strikes me as either blindingly obvious or completely impenetrable.

Hello Dexter Sinister,
Well, I see you're off on another of your strange tangents China. It's not clear to me what you mean by ego
__________________________________________________ _________________________________________
Ok Dexter,this is not something that is highly pilosophical and difficult to understand.Do you remeber teaching your children to play a ball game for the joy of playing and not to attach to much importance as to who wins ?...to play the game for the love of playing ? I think that all of us parents have done this.So,when the child is playig the the game jusst for the pure enjoyment of the activity ,not caring who "wins",then there is no ego involvment ,but when the child gives to much importance to the result of the ball game it becomes egoistical activity .A scientist may be working 16 hours a day in his laboratory,because he wants to learn about space , he wants to learn how the sun shines and why the sky is blue. That is his interest , that is his passion ,that is what he wants to learn about.In that ,there is no ego. But the moment he starts feeling that he should be the first to discover that ,that he wants to do this in order to get Nobel Prize ,the same activity becomes an ego activity,because then he is not doing it for the joy of learning ,he is doing it for a result , a reward.So an ego process or not an ego process is not a matter of what you are doing or of what you are not doing , but how you approach what you are doing and how you approach what you are not doing
So as you can see DEXTER ,ego arises from the manner in which we approach life.
And my original question still is... Is ego real , can one be free of an ego ?
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________
Dexter Sinister: She's happy, and so am I, with completely different world views. Of course I suspect she's wrong about many things, as she suspects I'm wrong about many things, but it doesn't really seem to matter much, because we're twin siblings and have always loved each other regardless of everything else in our lives. __________________

That is so "human" and beautifull ,Dexter

China

Your queries and messages are a delight in a mundane world of "who's on first". Keep your thoughts peppering and irritating us - they are wonderful to contemplate and chew on.

You raise the bar of contemplation.

ok dex,

lets start at the beginning: prove you exist.

once you do that (which I say you can not), we can move onto "you" being a sum of interactions and thus not a separate being in any natural sense.

To carcal kid

This is China ,not Dex.but let me be the first one to respond to your post .

"lets start at the beginning: prove you exist".
__________________________________________________ ________________________________________

"Proof" weather I exist or not will make no difference to me in how I relate to my self,So, I don't bother trying to find proof. Nor do I need it to justify my beliefs.
In fact, I might point out that in your demands for such proof, you've exposed a lie within your own "philosophy". You're asking me to show you the "truth", which means you are seeking truth from another. And in demanding my explanations, you in turn rely on my words and my definitions, which cannot possibly be "the thing" according to your own beliefs. In other words, my friend, it is as pointless for you to ask for my explanations as it is for me to give them, as according to your own belief structure, they would hold no meaning for you anyway.

china.... it is fun to watch because nobody can prove they exist. It is accepted as an assumption to progress further, but never proven. (much like there is no "the truth", but only "true in respect to".)

So do you or do you not accept the premise of a false separation?

the caracal kid ;
china.... it is fun to watch because nobody can prove they exist. It is accepted as an assumption to progress further, but never proven. (much like there is no "the truth", but only "true in respect to".)
So do you or do you not accept the premise of a false separation?
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________
Dear carcal kid
Does everything has to be proven ?,if so ..."prove, convince me that you are of a sound mind ,otherwise all you want is to satisfy your ego.

china,

prove I am sound mind? I can not. I could prove I am of sound mind in reference to a specific framework, but not universally. Nor do I have any need or want to prove "sound mind" to you or anybody else. Satisfy the ego? That can not be done, if I had said ego to satisfy. Prove I do or don't.

Descartes said it first: cogito ergo sum; I think therefore I am. That proves to me that I exist, it proves nothing to you, but unless your head is full of solipsistic nonsense (and I don't think it is, based on what I've seen of you here) you'd have to take the variety of my posts in these forums as some kind of evidence that somebody calling himself Dexter Sinister exists in some sense.

Do you need more than that? PM me your real name and address and I'll meet you for a drink somewhere nearby. I'll buy. And if you still doubt my existence after that I'll give you a punch in the nose and you can wonder what caused you that pain and bleeding... Well, no, I probably wouldn't do that, I don't like to hurt people, but there's often a very thin line between legitimate philosophical questions and plain old stupid questions.

"I think therefore I am" does not prove one exists outside of a specified framework.

As much I don't like to use Star Trek analogies, it is the simplest one to post. A being on a holodeck may well state "i think therefore I am", yet from the perspective of the crew using the deck, the being does not really exist. It is but a hologram.

carcal kid : Satisfy the ego? That can not be done, if I had said ego to satisfy. Prove I do or don't.
__________________________________________________ _______________________________________ _____________ Hi again "grasshopper", again you are asking me to prove something that you belive can't be proven. Why do you do that? .......EGO,big one too.

its not for me, china. It is an exercise solely for you.

Well my friend , I smell the EGO again.

you smell what you seek, china.

don't project.

The KID
you smell what you seek, china.
don't project___________________________________________ ___________________________________


Yes ,You are right,

Hey kid ,it's me again.

You know the "nice ,warm feeling" that you felt when you've read the above post?....
......that's your big Ego kid.