Ego

[T00ts]

Then are you suggesting that conscious thought and an awareness of the pitfalls through recognition of 'blindspots' as I think you call it, is not something that should be continually called upon? So that at times eg the cinema, we simply enjoy it at a basic level? Surely the film content might leave us 'blind' in exactly the same way if we are not actively 'seeing' and processing. Are you relating this at all to what we sometimes call thought police and an effort to form our own reasoning processes?

Yes exactly. For 2 reasons, firstly it is impossible for a mind not to get lost in thought, and attempting the impossible will only lead to frustration. Secondly as you've mentioned it would seem undesirable to be completely removed from emotion etc. However what is also just as undesirable IMO is people always being lost in emotion, and I think the vast majority of people are in that exact position, never separating the cinema from reality.

Mmmm That's quite a sweeping statement and I'm not sure it is so with most people I know. I think it changes through life depending on what else takes the mind. Yes the mind I believe is infinite, but most of us are mentally busy with jobs, children, forums, or whatever. Childhood is taken up with self and our place within the world seen only from one perspective and maybe adulthood for the reasons already mentioned but in later life when it calms down there is a time for reflection and also decision. Not about mundane things but more about our place within the universe. It is then that there is more room to look and assess and see what we really truly think and feel and also consider those things that are mysteries.

I do feel that everyone has this ability but perhaps they don't recognise it as such. Many will stop themselves from thinking too deeply perhaps from slight fear of what might come to light and then distract themselves from allowing that thought process.

[Nalaar]

Then are you suggesting that conscious thought and an awareness of the pitfalls through recognition of 'blindspots' as I think you call it, is not something that should be continually called upon? So that at times eg the cinema, we simply enjoy it at a basic level? Surely the film content might leave us 'blind' in exactly the same way if we are not actively 'seeing' and processing. Are you relating this at all to what we sometimes call thought police and an effort to form our own reasoning processes?

Yes exactly. For 2 reasons, firstly it is impossible for a mind not to get lost in thought, and attempting the impossible will only lead to frustration. Secondly as you've mentioned it would seem undesirable to be completely removed from emotion etc. However what is also just as undesirable IMO is people always being lost in emotion, and I think the vast majority of people are in that exact position, never separating the cinema from reality.

[T00ts]

Fair enough but if we become too much of a witness thus too far removed from that instinctive thought, is there not a risk that we will become removed from life experiences themselves and thus remote, and perhaps ultimately unfeeling? Alternatively too much thought and feeling could be overwhelming for the emotional/mental limit of human beings. I can appreciate careful thought before we act including attempting to see things from all sides and measuring it against a standard that we have personally set, In fact I am of a mind that too much is said and done without due care to a higher standard (ok I know we part there) but our instinctive selves are born within us. A baby thinks of nothing but itself and it's own needs and demands, thus it is a completely natural state. That begs the question of influence and its affect on us as we grow.

I don't think so, a feeling in the moment is not diminished by knowledge of the Ego.

In just the same way that when you go to the cinema, you know that what you are seeing is not real, but its enjoyment is not diminished.

Then are you suggesting that conscious thought and an awareness of the pitfalls through recognition of 'blindspots' as I think you call it, is not something that should be continually called upon? So that at times eg the cinema, we simply enjoy it at a basic level? Surely the film content might leave us 'blind' in exactly the same way if we are not actively 'seeing' and processing. Are you relating this at all to what we sometimes call thought police and an effort to form our own reasoning processes?

[Nalaar]

Fair enough but if we become too much of a witness thus too far removed from that instinctive thought, is there not a risk that we will become removed from life experiences themselves and thus remote, and perhaps ultimately unfeeling? Alternatively too much thought and feeling could be overwhelming for the emotional/mental limit of human beings. I can appreciate careful thought before we act including attempting to see things from all sides and measuring it against a standard that we have personally set, In fact I am of a mind that too much is said and done without due care to a higher standard (ok I know we part there) but our instinctive selves are born within us. A baby thinks of nothing but itself and it's own needs and demands, thus it is a completely natural state. That begs the question of influence and its affect on us as we grow.

I don't think so, a feeling in the moment is not diminished by knowledge of the Ego.

In just the same way that when you go to the cinema, you know that what you are seeing is not real, but its enjoyment is not diminished.

[Nalaar]

Isn't becoming a witness to your own thoughts another layer of thought which would need some sort of "mindfulness" (hate that term) to witness the  extra layer?

To an extent yes, and this has been the downfall of many people who think they are living a thoughtless life, when in fact they are quite intoxicated in thought.
These reflections (by human minds at least) seem only to be able to be glimpsed at, but even these glimpses represent a huge positive factor to seeing nothing at all.

[T00ts]

@ Nalaar   Are you searching for true self knowledge? Is your hope to recognise ego with the aim of reducing/minimalizing/banishing it from your thought processes/instinctive reactions? Where do you find ego? How does it begin in each person? I think it is born in us. I am not quite sure what you are trying to establish/discuss or if you just want others to be conscious of themselves.

Certainly a large part of this is people becoming aware of a process that is happening right in front of them that they may never of noticed before, and how becoming aware of this allows you to break away from being identified with thought, to become a witness of it.

Fair enough but if we become too much of a witness thus too far removed from that instinctive thought, is there not a risk that we will become removed from life experiences themselves and thus remote, and perhaps ultimately unfeeling? Alternatively too much thought and feeling could be overwhelming for the emotional/mental limit of human beings. I can appreciate careful thought before we act including attempting to see things from all sides and measuring it against a standard that we have personally set, In fact I am of a mind that too much is said and done without due care to a higher standard (ok I know we part there) but our instinctive selves are born within us. A baby thinks of nothing but itself and it's own needs and demands, thus it is a completely natural state. That begs the question of influence and its affect on us as we grow.

[Barry]

Isn't becoming a witness to your own thoughts another layer of thought which would need some sort of "mindfulness" (hate that term) to witness the  extra layer?

[Nalaar]

@ Nalaar   Are you searching for true self knowledge? Is your hope to recognise ego with the aim of reducing/minimalizing/banishing it from your thought processes/instinctive reactions? Where do you find ego? How does it begin in each person? I think it is born in us. I am not quite sure what you are trying to establish/discuss or if you just want others to be conscious of themselves.

Certainly a large part of this is people becoming aware of a process that is happening right in front of them that they may never of noticed before, and how becoming aware of this allows you to break away from being identified with thought, to become a witness of it.

[T00ts]

@ Nalaar   Are you searching for true self knowledge? Is your hope to recognise ego with the aim of reducing/minimalizing/banishing it from your thought processes/instinctive reactions? Where do you find ego? How does it begin in each person? I think it is born in us. I am not quite sure what you are trying to establish/discuss or if you just want others to be conscious of themselves.

[papasmurf]

If you start my quote from the word "thus" ignoring the preceding context that leads to the "thus" statement then you lose all sense of the point being made. Which is to say simply this - The ownership of an object is independent of the system by which ownership is derived. We can easily imagine our own system of consensual commerce. There are other possible systems like 'Might is Right' or 'Divine Right' etc, but whatever the system is, ownership is shown to be a layer of perception that is placed over the object.

Sorry Nalaar but you might as well be writing in Mayan pictograms.

[Nalaar]

If you say so.

But do you think so?

I think the analogy to the optical blind spot is quite precise at what I am trying to convey - Did you lose anything from your sense of vision when you discovered you had a blind spot?
If you meet someone who had never seen their blind spot, and they claimed that in order to see it they would have to abandon their vision, what would you say to them?

But I've said this before - you say things like this...

thus stealing a watch from someone is a legitimate claim to ownership

Maybe its just that I don't get your style, but it seems to me you write things like this to be contrary on purpose - as if you are trying to cause offence by putting forward some theory that the rest of us are too stone aged to understand

It probably is just me, but I don't get why you do it

If you start my quote from the word "thus" ignoring the preceding context that leads to the "thus" statement then you lose all sense of the point being made. Which is to say simply this - The ownership of an object is independent of the system by which ownership is derived. We can easily imagine our own system of consensual commerce. There are other possible systems like 'Might is Right' or 'Divine Right' etc, but whatever the system is, ownership is shown to be a layer of perception that is placed over the object.

[papasmurf]

If you say so. Like I said, I don't get him, so it could just be me. But the way he presents things often comes across as provocatively worded

It isn't just you.

[DeppityDawg]

No, he's saying the watch is independent of whoever claims ownership over it.

If you say so. Like I said, I don't get him, so it could just be me. But the way he presents things often comes across as provocatively worded

[Borg Refinery]

What do you think can help reduce ego? I know of seberal things but what do you use to mitigate yours?

I think observation of self is the best way to notice the Ego at work, and really noticing it is all you need to do, for as soon as you pay attention to the ego itself it melts like candy floss.

When you are angry look for the anger, when sad look for the sadness. Without prejudice.

I think it was Douglas Harding who used the phrase 'Look for the one that is looking' in which he described a thought experiment to look for where you are. Are you in your body? In your head? In your skull? In your brain? In your neurons? In your atoms? Once you know how to look, all that is required is periodic reminders to look.

That absolutely does help, but it's definitely not enough, not for me anyway. Then again, mine is the size of a planet so.. 

[Borg Refinery]

Nothing is being abandoned.

When you discovered the optical blind spot, which has been in your field of vision all your life, did you abandon your vision?

If you say so. But I've said this before - you say things like this...

thus stealing a watch from someone is a legitimate claim to ownership

Maybe its just that I don't get your style, but it seems to me you write things like this to be contrary on purpose - as if you are trying to cause offence by putting forward some theory that the rest of us are too stone aged to understand

It probably is just me, but I don't get why you do it

No, he's saying the watch is independent of whoever claims ownership over it.

He's saying our ego's determine that we're asserting it's "ours". In no way is he saying that we should endorse an alien society's morals where such a thing is deemed acceptable.