368 replies to this topic

[Professor T]

Sherapy, on 15 January 2013 - 10:38 PM, said:

For me, I do not take sides, I try and keep in mind that there are many approaches and theories in Psychology. I think Jung and Freud made major contributions to the understanding of Psychology, both have ideas that have stood the test of time and both have ideas that have been discarded, replaced with current understandings.

Good point..   I can deffinately relate to the whole taking sides senario.. And this has a lot to do with Ego too.

If one takes sides, or chooses to view a subject from a specific perspective, one looses the perspective of the other side as well as looses the ability to view a subject from multiple perspectives..
Take for instance, the conflict in the middle east of Israel v's palestine..
Now I've always been a "supporter of Palestine". and as such I lost perspective from an Israeli point of view and a world point of view because every time the Paletinians did wrong Ego saw it as justified, and every time Israel did something wrong Ego has been spitting tacks about it and wanting retribution because as a Palestinain supporter my Ego feels attacked when they are attacked. (Ego attachment)
  Then A few months ago I got my Ego to let go of it's stead-fast support of palestine.. The result was a vast shift in perspective that allowed me to see more than the evil isralies and the poor palestinians.. It allowed me to see and understand that much of the conflict is unjust from both sides of the fence. But more importantly it opened me up to seeing how picking sides perpetuates the violence, and how much of the war is fed by propaganda that is designed to entice that support from peoples Egos..

Edited by Professor T, 16 January 2013 - 08:11 PM.

[Star of the Sea]

Hi 8ty!

Yes you’re right 8ty, the ego has to develop very early on in life and is an important part of us functioning in this crazy world and helps us to survive. Ego helps us to perceive meaning and also helps us assess our value. It gives us our ‘self-worth’ but it can become inflated and needs to be reined in at times. So therefore, there can be conflict between the ‘self’ and the ‘ego’ which normally peaks at midlife, hence the infamous‘midlife crisis’.


I always understood that the ‘self’ is an unchanging part of us, whereas the ego etc,. is ever changing. Jung compared ‘self’ to a  representation of ‘God within us’. So I always understood it to be transcendent.  I know Jung took flak for implying the ‘self’ is God, but I believe he tried to emphasise that the ‘self’ is only an image of God within our ‘psyche’. It could be considered, what I and other religious people refer to as our ‘soul'.

Edited by Star of the Sea, 16 January 2013 - 09:11 PM.

[Tesla II]

SpiritWriter, on 07 January 2013 - 09:08 PM, said:

What does my ego seem like to you? How do I come across online....? If you don't mind telling me. I know I am different online than I am in real life because I comment on a lot of stuff and in real life I am generally quiet.

Exactly! Same here.. that is why i joined this forums so i can share my piece of mind on stuff i usually don't talk around.

[bLu3 de 3n3rgy]

Professor T, on 16 January 2013 - 08:04 PM, said:

Good point..   I can deffinately relate to the whole taking sides senario.. And this has a lot to do with Ego too.

If one takes sides, or chooses to view a subject from a specific perspective, one looses the perspective of the other side as well as looses the ability to view a subject from multiple perspectives..
Take for instance, the conflict in the middle east of Israel v's palestine..
Now I've always been a "supporter of Palestine". and as such I lost perspective from an Israeli point of view and a world point of view because every time the Paletinians did wrong Ego saw it as justified, and every time Israel did something wrong Ego has been spitting tacks about it and wanting retribution because as a Palestinain supporter my Ego feels attacked when they are attacked. (Ego attachment)
  Then A few months ago I got my Ego to let go of it's stead-fast support of palestine.. The result was a vast shift in perspective that allowed me to see more than the evil isralies and the poor palestinians.. It allowed me to see and understand that much of the conflict is unjust from both sides of the fence. But more importantly it opened me up to seeing how picking sides perpetuates the violence, and how much of the war is fed by propaganda that is designed to entice that support from peoples Egos..

Oh man this is excellent.
That example and exercise of going through that is a major lesson in understanding ego and manipulation of ego, esp in the "them v us" context. Ego does indeed attach very easily and propaganda being a form of manipulation doesn't care for the truth. It's about establishing sides completely and keeping people in the them v us mode. It doesn't just happen in politics or war, but in every day life too. We know and see it as mob mentality in schools, work place, online social sites.

Taking the stance of neutrality, and suspending ego beliefs is no easy thing to accomplish but is what is necessary to start unpicking and perceiving the truth in anything.

Edited by bLu3 de 3n3rgy, 16 January 2013 - 09:45 PM.

[libstaK]

bLu3 de 3n3rgy, on 16 January 2013 - 09:42 PM, said:

Oh man this is excellent.
That example and exercise of going through that is a major lesson in understanding ego and manipulation of ego, esp in the "them v us" context. Ego does indeed attach very easily and propaganda being a form of manipulation doesn't care for the truth. It's about establishing sides completely and keeping people in the them v us mode. It doesn't just happen in politics or war, but in every day life too. We know and see it as mob mentality in schools, work place, online social sites.

Taking the stance of neutrality, and suspending ego beliefs is no easy thing to accomplish but is what is necessary to start unpicking and perceiving the truth in anything.

Beautifully said Blu.

The ego's greatest tool is in letting us know what we have become attached to.  To observe that dispassionately and recognize that those in opposition are only acting in the exact same way as us based on what they have become attached to is a huge epithany and I think the beginning of a true sense of empathy.

" I am that".  Chloe quoted that many months ago in a thread and it really resonated, can't remember where she quoted it from but it is compelling to understand that about each other I think.

[Abramelin]

I haven't read all the pages of this thread, but I'll just add this:

I think that Ego is not something that you 'have' or that's real part of 'you', but develops from the moment your parents, siblings, friends, neighbours, strangers and so on start commenting on how you look, behave and what you say and how you say it.

You develop a response: you reject it partly or totally or you accept it partly or totally, and then you adapt your thinking of self and how you behave.

These adaptations keep going on and on, consciously and subconsciously, until some sort of 'standing wave' has been formed between you and the others around you. This is what is called the Ego, your Identity.

[eight bits]

Howdy, Star

Quote

I always understood that the 'self' is an unchanging part of us, whereas the ego etc,. is ever changing.

That's an interesting reading of Jung's ideas about about the self. Is it a fixed something that already exists, or is it something to be constructed? It's funny; as you may know mathematicians debate whether maths are discovered or invented (built). Maybe individuation and the self are like that: ambiguous as to the precise terms of their existence.

Quote

Jung compared 'self' to a  representation of 'God within us'. So I always understood it to be transcendent.  I know Jung took flak for implying the 'self' is God, but I believe he tried to emphasise that the 'self' is only an image of God within our 'psyche'. It could be considered, what I and other religious people refer to as our 'soul'.

The last fifteen years of his life, after his NDE, saw a lot of movement in his thinking about God, although as a parson's son, nephew to two theologians, and descendant of both a freethinking rebel and a Catholic theologian from way back, Jung had religious thought in his blood.

I understand him to have distinguished between the imago Dei and the self. What I think did confuse a lot of people is that the archetypal respresentations of God and Self were the same, at least sometimes. But I think he intended to keep all three conceptually distinct.

His "definitive statement" about God was a January 1960 letter to the BBC magazine, The Listener, after a television interview in which he said he didn't "believe" in God, but rather he said, "I know." There is a discussion of that letter here:

http://uncertaintist...owledge-of-god/

and the text of the letter itself is available from the "Unlinks" section of the blog.

[Professor T]

Abramelin, on 17 January 2013 - 12:50 PM, said:

I haven't read all the pages of this thread, but I'll just add this:

I think that Ego is not something that you 'have' or that's real part of 'you', but develops from the moment your parents, siblings, friends, neighbours, strangers and so on start commenting on how you look, behave and what you say and how you say it.

You develop a response: you reject it partly or totally or you accept it partly or totally, and then you adapt your thinking of self and how you behave.

These adaptations keep going on and on, consciously and subconsciously, until some sort of 'standing wave' has been formed between you and the others around you. This is what is called the Ego, your Identity.

Well put..

Ego has so many analogies because one needs to place an analogy on something that is non-physical yet obviously real enough to be percieved by 100% of the world.. It's a standing wave, a mask that hides the true self, a false center, a defence mechanism, an auto pilot.. It can't be measured or weighed or touched, and yet in this thread we have weighed and measured and even disected it..... how cool is that!

[Abramelin]

Professor T, on 17 January 2013 - 09:24 PM, said:

Well put..

Ego has so many analogies because one needs to place an analogy on something that is non-physical yet obviously real enough to be percieved by 100% of the world.. It's a standing wave, a mask that hides the true self, a false center, a defence mechanism, an auto pilot.. It can't be measured or weighed or touched, and yet in this thread we have weighed and measured and even disected it..... how cool is that!

I am sure you know what a "standing wave" or a "stationary wave" is, but we can't expect everyone to have a working knowledge of physics in a psychologically oriented forum like this, lol.

So, for those who don't know what it is: you and a friend are holding a stretched out rope at both ends. Your friend starts shaking the rope in a certain frequency, creating a wave. You shake, and keep shaking the rope until you get that 'standing wave". First the rope will wiggle uncontrollably, but at some point you'll get the hang of it, and shake your end of the rope in the right frequency, and the "standing wave" is formed.



But yes, as far as I remember what they taught me in high school, "psyche" is the Greek word for "mask".

It's the mask we create along the road called life.

The main problem is: most people think that that mask is their real self.

[Star of the Sea]

!

eight bits, on 17 January 2013 - 08:20 PM, said:

Howdy, Star



That's an interesting reading of Jung's ideas about about the self. Is it a fixed something that already exists, or is it something to be constructed? It's funny; as you may know mathematicians debate whether maths are discovered or invented (built). Maybe individuation and the self are like that: ambiguous as to the precise terms of their existence.



The last fifteen years of his life, after his NDE, saw a lot of movement in his thinking about God, although as a parson's son, nephew to two theologians, and descendant of both a freethinking rebel and a Catholic theologian from way back, Jung had religious thought in his blood.

I understand him to have distinguished between the imago Dei and the self. What I think did confuse a lot of people is that the archetypal representations of God and Self were the same, at least sometimes. But I think he intended to keep all three conceptually distinct.

His "definitive statement" about God was a January 1960 letter to the BBC magazine, The Listener, after a television interview in which he said he didn't "believe" in God, but rather he said, "I know." There is a discussion of that letter here:

http://uncertaintist...owledge-of-god/

and the text of the letter itself is available from the "Links" section of the blog.

Thanks for the link 8ty!

I think the 'self' has always existed, throughout 'eternity' and to 'infinity' I have highlighted below in red from your article Jung's hypothesis on God and his thoughts, which is very similar to something I read on Jung's viewpoint  a while back regarding his idea of God. This brought me to the conclusion that the 'self' never changes as it is a part/reflection of God within. Ambiguous is a good word for trying to describe something that is essentially 'divine' as it's open to more than one interpretation. You do make a very good point though because from a Catholic point of view regarding the 'soul' or 'self' you ask is it 'built?' or is it 'fixed?' which would tie in with the RCC belief that the 'soul' or aka the 'self' does change/develop, as in different states of Grace. So you have given me much 'food for thought' there 8Bits!

Jung's words are fascinating! I will 'bookmark' this 8Bits   

"I do neither commit the importance of a hypostasis, nor of an arrogant qualification such as: 'God can only be good'. Only my experience can be good or evil, but I know that the superior will is based upon a foundation which transcends human imagination

Since I know of my collision with a superior will in my own physical system, I know of God, and if I should ventrue the illegitimate hypostasis of my image, I would say, of a God beyond good and evil, just as much dwelling in myself as everywhere else: Deus est circulus cujus centrum est ubique, cuis circumferentia vero musqueam."

Edited by Star of the Sea, 17 January 2013 - 10:22 PM.

[Professor T]

Abramelin, on 17 January 2013 - 09:37 PM, said:

I am sure you know what a "standing wave" or a "stationary wave" is, but we can't expect everyone to have a working knowledge of physics in a psychologically oriented forum like this, lol.

So, for those who don't know what it is: you and a friend are holding a stretched out rope at both ends. Your friend starts shaking the rope in a certain frequency, creating a wave. You shake, and keep shaking the rope until you get that 'standing wave". First the rope will wiggle uncontrollably, but at some point you'll get the hang of it, and shake your end of the rope in the right frequency, and the "standing wave" is formed.



But yes, as far as I remember what they taught me in high school, "psyche" is the Greek word for "mask".

It's the mask we create along the road called life.

The main problem is: most people think that that mask is their real self.

Bingo!! And Thanks..

Am reminded now of the infamous double bounce on the Trampoline trick. where instead of creating a standing wave a friend will create a double bounce or manipulate the effect of his or her friends motion or tragectory.. Am sure there is a physics term for this.. But as we are discussing Ego right now, am wondering if you are aware that this kind of manipulation occurs on an Ego Level? or to be more honest, just occured on you?

[notoverrated]

ok what is mine, Prof. T?

[Abramelin]

Professor T, on 17 January 2013 - 10:00 PM, said:

Bingo!! And Thanks..

Am reminded now of the infamous double bounce on the Trampoline trick. where instead of creating a standing wave a friend will create a double bounce or manipulate the effect of his or her friends motion or tragectory.. Am sure there is a physics term for this.. But as we are discussing Ego right now, am wondering if you are aware that this kind of manipulation occurs on an Ego Level? or to be more honest, just occured on you?

I'm sorry to say, but your analogy fails here.

And the physics therm is "action = -(minus) reaction"

It has nothing to do with intentionally change things.

.

.

Edited by Abramelin, 17 January 2013 - 10:12 PM.

[Professor T]

Abramelin, on 17 January 2013 - 10:09 PM, said:

I'm sorry to say, but your analogy fails here.

And the physics therm is "action = -(minus) reaction"

It has nothing to do with intentionally change things.

.

.

Sweet as. It's quite subtle, I'll come clean regarding my intention here.
(btw, this is me picking your ego apart, which is kind of the way this thread has progressed)

Abramelin, your Ego is I think very sceptical in nature. Have not really been invoved with many of your posts, but what I've seen tells me that you are one for facts and figures, things you can measure and calculate and appreciate scientifically. Ghosts, Spirits, these kind of immesurable things are laughable in your opinion, and your big defence against these things is that they cant be measured or weighed or touched physically.. Also you measure and weigh your-self on the quality of information..

So I thought to myself, hmmmmmm, I'm going to manipulate his Ego into responding by placing emphasis on measuring the immeserable..

Professor T, on 17 January 2013 - 09:24 PM, said:

Well put..

Ego has so many analogies because one needs to place an analogy on something that is non-physical yet obviously real enough to be percieved by 100% of the world.. It's a standing wave, a mask that hides the true self, a false center, a defence mechanism, an auto pilot.. It can't be measured or weighed or touched, and yet in this thread we have weighed and measured and even disected it..... how cool is that!

And your ego couldn't resist but respond with.

Abramelin, on 17 January 2013 - 09:37 PM, said:

I am sure you know what a "standing wave" or a "stationary wave" is, but we can't expect everyone to have a working knowledge of physics in a psychologically oriented forum like this, lol.

So, for those who don't know what it is: you and a friend are holding a stretched out rope at both ends. Your friend starts shaking the rope in a certain frequency, creating a wave. You shake, and keep shaking the rope until you get that 'standing wave". First the rope will wiggle uncontrollably, but at some point you'll get the hang of it, and shake your end of the rope in the right frequency, and the "standing wave" is formed.



But yes, as far as I remember what they taught me in high school, "psyche" is the Greek word for "mask".

It's the mask we create along the road called life.

The main problem is: most people think that that mask is their real self.

So, going back to the "Double bounce on the trampoline analogy".. From my perspective, I just double bounced your Ego into a direction/responce.. Don't think of this physically, because there was nothing physical about it.. It was my intention to get you to respond to measurement by enguaging you Ego.

Does that make sense?
"Or am I wrong?"

[Asadora]

“ Ego is the biggest enemy of humans. ” -- The Rig Veda

[A polite request: Please don't flame. I am  just inserting a relevant quote to a relevant thread.]


Thank you.