Lay this to rest: Ego vs Selflessness

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ghaleon12
 


Why does it have to be ego or selflessness? Can't it be both?

I actually believe in both purely selfish acts and purely selfless acts. But I think 99% of human actions are a mixture of the two.




posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 01:47 AM
link   
I dont see myself as egotistical in anyway, but the irony of it is that in itself could be described as massaging my own ego.

The answer to your 1st question "who is more important, me or you?"

The answer is me, because without me, you dont exist, at least not to me anyways.



[edit on 17-10-2008 by Horus12]



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 07:48 AM
link   
This is very nice debate and everyone brings up some very valid points. But let me ask some questions concerning the heart and love.

Why is it that a boy who is in love with a girl would sacrifice his own dignity for a girl who doesn't even know he exists?

Through his own self-sacrifice he is reaching out to this girl, he wants her to love him back. This is a function of the boy's ego and only his ego.

Why is it that people use the Heart as an example of a thinking organ? All the heart does is pump blood through your system. The heart is merely an interpretation of emotions that you have. We are all animals that have evolved into much more civilized creatures. Yet we still function on a very primitive level. Your ego is your self preservation and operates well below your conscious awareness and is responsible for a great many of your decisions.



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ExistenceUnknown
 


'A boy' Ok, that one may be desperate for some love and be driven by the ego. But is everybody that way? Does everyone function, without exception, exactly the same as everybody else? Nope.

So What about that boy that puts his life on the line without thought and pushes a total stranger out of the way of a oncoming truck and gets killed in the process? What about him? Is it ego that kicked in, in the fraction of the second he had to do what he had to do or was it something else, a natural inclination, outside of the ego, to help and to lessen suffering.

The first reaction is normally the best one, people say. After that the ego and other constructs of the mind kick in and regularly change the mind. So yeah, you do have people caught in the relational abyss of unnoticed boys with a crush but it is a learning experience. He will come out wiser if he allows it or keep on doing it for the sake of emotions no matter what they are.

The world isn't black/white, people are not all the same, personalities come in more flavors than there are grains of sand on this world.

[edit on 17-10-2008 by Harman]



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 08:30 AM
link   
If you have the capacity to choose your course of actions then you will never be selfless. The soldier who dives on a grenade to save his comrades does so out of sense of duty and friendship all things that appeal to his ego. He also realizes the martyrdom of his act. A mother who gives relentlessly to their children does so to better the chances that her genetic codes lives on. If you have conscious you cannot be selfless. Only a robot who does things without consciousness to benefit others can be truly selfless.



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ExistenceUnknown
 


Nonsense! Can we not transcend our instincts? Have we not evolved to this capability? Is that not what intuitions are?

It could be argued that I am highly narcissistic, in that I view everyone, including myself, as one whole being. I've had this perception ever since I can remember, though it is hard to stay here after adolescence.

I think it's folly to think it's selfish, though. It's more of an understanding that we are all equal in essence. We all originate from the universe, one song, ever dancing creation of life. In this understanding, I transcend my ego's limitations. If you haven't experienced this, it can be hard to consciously comprehend. I get that. Those who think it's impossible, are not using their mind-heart connection consciously and are not receiving intuitions from their higher-self.

This will be my last post on this subject, I don't like talking about this. It really makes me seem like an a**hole to people who don't understand and I don't want to cause friction, although that is just what's needed sometimes to learn. So to those who are open to learning, realize this does exist. Take it as a possibility, and allow your heart-mind connection to manifest. It will happen naturally if you allow it. If you truly try to develop coherence, and it doesn't work, then perhaps you aren't ready, and I guess you can go on disbelieving me.

And no I am no where close to a saint. I am not perfect. Nobody is. Just amazed that many people here are not able to see past their "own" ego. What is it that we truly own, anyways?



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


I take it you are a new age thinker? If you are then you believe in Karma and the golden rule? Both things which are designed to appeal to the very same ego which dismisses my point of view as nonsense.



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 09:07 AM
link   
Karma is like morals, it's for people who have not yet reached the level of conscience, as I see it. I was somewhat of a newager, but saw the serious downfalls in it a long time ago. Conscience, as far as I can tell, manifests from the perception that we are all one being. It's that simple. Recurring actions that manifest from individuals perceptions of this become what we are told is Good and Bad, morals. Life is ever unfolding, situations are dynamic, not black and white, so morals become obsolete and inaccurate when you reach a certain level of awareness.

I already stated that there are times that I do something for another while registering that I will receive pleasure for it. I think the term I used was in fact, karma. I also stated there are other times when I do it out of common sense. Out of the understanding that it's what must be done. Not a forceful must, just the proper way for things to be. It's sort of conscious, while at the same time it's more of a letting go, process. Hard to explain, I guess.



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ExistenceUnknown
If you have the capacity to choose your course of actions then you will never be selfless. The soldier who dives on a grenade to save his comrades does so out of sense of duty and friendship all things that appeal to his ego. He also realizes the martyrdom of his act. A mother who gives relentlessly to their children does so to better the chances that her genetic codes lives on. If you have conscious you cannot be selfless. Only a robot who does things without consciousness to benefit others can be truly selfless.


Instinct is the first thing that kicks in, ego and others are second. So in the case of a split second decision the ego does not have the chance to react. It takes it out of the realm of possibilities. So, a soldier diving on a grenade does not care about martyrdom. The suicide-terrorist is another story, he acts on the ego being twisted in such a way that dying and taking people with ya is a good and noble thing. We are not per definition ruled by the ego, the possibility of being ruled by the ego exists but it is not mandatory for being human. People can live and thrive withhout ego being the ruler of the body.



[edit on 17-10-2008 by Harman]



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Harman
 


I never really thought of it like that! From this view, is intuitions a form of instinct?



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Harman
 


Self-preservation is not also an instinct? Does the boy who saves the man from the bus know without a fact that he is going to die? or is he performing a very generous act in the hopes that both will still be alive after its all said and done?

The soldier makes an instinctual decision on whether its worth more to him to see his friends die from a grenade or for him to spare himself the pain of doing nothing to save them.

Spelling edit and add a point.
[edit on 17-10-2008 by ExistenceUnknown]

[edit on 17-10-2008 by ExistenceUnknown]



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by ExistenceUnknown
 


Self preservation is of course an instinct. I think the point is what you identify with, as yourself. I identify with the cosmic self, more than most, aparently. Man I hate stating these things, as it is most likely deepening my individual sense of self.



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 09:30 AM
link   
I can see that we are not going to convince each other. While I respect both of your opinions I say we just agree to disagree on the subject. Have a good day gentlmen, back to work for me.



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 09:34 AM
link   
You too! No hard feelings whatsoever.



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExistenceUnknown

Why is it that a boy who is in love with a girl would sacrifice his own dignity for a girl who doesn't even know he exists?

Through his own self-sacrifice he is reaching out to this girl, he wants her to love him back. This is a function of the boy's ego and only his ego.


Wanting love, IS an act of the ego. Giving love is not. If love is "an emotion tied to the desire to have something" I would not call that love at all but "desire."

I would argue that although we use the same word, "love" for "desire" or the romantic feeling of wanting or longing, that this word is not equivalent to "love" as it is used in the spiritual traditions. At least, I should qualify, it is not consistent with the form of love pointed to by those we consider the masters of spiritual tradition, Buddha, Jesus, etc.

That love is more akin to "unconditional love" which I often prefer to write as "acceptance" to avoid confusing it with the romantic version.

When your dominant emotion is desire, it IS from the Ego, no question. It is more about your longing to have HER love, (in your example) than it is about an unconditional love of her regardless what she returns to you. There is no need to make a fool of oneself if one is not contriving to gain her love in return.

That form of "love" which I would call more properly "want" or "desire" is also the same thing that drives someone to kill the "beloved" if there is no return of affection, in some cases. Or if affection is first offered then withdrawn.

If your love and acceptance of a thing or person is unconditional, it is also unwavering. It does not turn to "hate" if your affection is not returned or other of your expectations unmet.



Originally posted by ExistenceUnknown
Why is it that people use the Heart as an example of a thinking organ? All the heart does is pump blood through your system.


Thats an interesting question. I would guess that it is because when we feel the emotion of romantic love, or heartbreak, we get a particular physical sensation in that area of the body. Much like certain instinctual or intuitive feelings arise in the same general area as the "gut." But who really knows? It is interesting to think about though.


Originally posted by ExistenceUnknown
We are all animals that have evolved into much more civilized creatures. Yet we still function on a very primitive level. Your ego is your self preservation and operates well below your conscious awareness and is responsible for a great many of your decisions.


Lol. Very true. Studies in decision making bear out the idea that humans are not rational decision makers, but emotional ones who rationalize after the fact. So immediately after the fact for some that they do not realize that the emotion was involved at all.



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harman

Instinct is the first thing that kicks in, ego and others are second. So in the case of a split second decision the ego does not have the chance to react. It takes it out of the realm of possibilities.


I agree with Harmon. Where in time the decision or action originates is the key to whether the act is selfish or selfless.

Consciousness without thought, what you have in the very second something is unfolding, is "selfless" by definition. Once that split second has passed and "mind" or "ego" begins a dialogue about what is happening and begins a decision making process, is "selfish."

If two of you fall in front of a train, and you roll from in front of the train without thinking about it, because your very being shouts, "Move" it is still selfless, even if the other is left on the tracks to die. If your being shouts "push him" and you shove the other from the tracks, and you die, that is also selfless.

If the same scenario occurs, and your being shouts "move" and you have time to consider and you say, "no, it is right to save the other" then your act is "selfish." It arises from the "self" or mental identity with all of its acquired and created shoulds. Likewise if your being shouts "Push him" and your mind says "heck no, I have to run" that act is selfish.

The OP is suggesting that one can tell a selfless act from a selfish one based on the outcome.

What Harmon seems to be suggesting (I dont want to assume too greatly) and I am suggesting is that the origin of the act is the thing. If it originates from "consciousness prior to thought" (which I would say is the voice of the Higher Self, or God) then regardless how that action ends up looking superficially, it is selfless. If it originates in the intellectual mind, or "ego" rather than "consciousness prior to thought" (instinct is as good a word as any) then it is selfish. Regardless how it appears to others.

The Ego or identity, or personal story of you, is created by the mind. It requires "time" to appear. (Where time is an artificial movement out of the present, or "now" which is timeless. Now is always now.

You are hit with a ball, you instinctively flinch, and then in the second that follows it, you begin a story about it. "Ouch, I was just hit by a ball" and maybe you go on to elaborate more about it. So a simple rules of thumb is that actions that originate before there is any story being told are "selfless" and any action taken as a result of a story are "selfish."

Everyone has an Ego, or story, but not everyone acts from their ego an equal proportion of the time.



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   
somebody asked me for a lighter on the station, it is forbidden to smoke there, I just walked past him without any reply.

you can have both



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExistenceUnknown
Why is it that people use the Heart as an example of a thinking organ? All the heart does is pump blood through your system. The heart is merely an interpretation of emotions that you have.


I don't agree with this statement.

I believe that the heart has around 60% of it's cells as Nueral, which means that it fires electrical impulses, just like the brain.

And what do you mean saying the heart is an interpretation? What exactly are you attempting to convey? If it is interperting something then it is thinking, right? How can you interpret without thought?



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by interestedalways
I agree with what Harman said.

All of us don't live simply through the brain and a pleasure reward system.

You are eliminating the HEART and the feeling of LOVE.

It is through intentions of the heart and the awareness of the suffering of another that allows one to give freely.

If that happens to feel good it is icing on the cake, but not necessarily the CAKE.


Unless you dread the feeling of love, it counts as pleasure.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by interestedalways

Originally posted by ExistenceUnknown
Why is it that people use the Heart as an example of a thinking organ? All the heart does is pump blood through your system. The heart is merely an interpretation of emotions that you have.


I don't agree with this statement.

I believe that the heart has around 60% of it's cells as Nueral, which means that it fires electrical impulses, just like the brain.

And what do you mean saying the heart is an interpretation? What exactly are you attempting to convey? If it is interperting something then it is thinking, right? How can you interpret without thought?


Are you referring to SA and AV nodes? Because those are used to regulate heart beat and conduct electrical impulses throughout the heart, but they don't create thought. You're using the association fallacy.

[edit on 18-10-2008 by Syntax123]






top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join