Destroying the ego

reply to post by dominicus


In my thread: 'When you want to lose ego' I spoke about ego being psychedelic and as 'an expansion of awareness'.

You must be with me.

Why are they always lying about you Bluesma. Do you feel like this?

Originally posted by Bluesma
I am not sure I totally understand what you are saying by guilt being "attributable"... If you meant that not resisting and accepting the passive role could stimulate guilt feelings... perhaps yes, IF the target is aware they are a target of such an attempt. Like in the case of POW's, who are aware why these things are being done to them.

I apologise for the confusion, I was referring to what you said here...

Originally posted by Bluesma
It is just as legitamate as the instinct to fight back if someone attempts to rape you.
You do not need to feel guilty for resisting- that is just one of the steps in the technique.
And there is a difference between sex and rape.... just as there is in their mental counterparts.

To reiterate, it is equally legitimate to go limp, or passive, instinctively, in response to attack, not just in humans, many species respond to a physical threat by stillness. In humans it is ‘normal’ to distance yourself mentally from physical pain, so for the sake of my point, let’s call it Fight or mental flight. To continue with your analogy then, how many victims of rape do you think feel ‘gulity’ because they fought their attacker, and clearly voiced their lack of consent, compared to how many who did not resist, and their silence was taken as consent?

Since our ego is (debatably) constructed post-partum, much of the conditioning, particularly in sensory terms, is conducted upon us as passive receptors, our norms and values are inflicted upon us before we have developed the ability to question. We are, effectively, programmed at birth in what to be, it is not until much later that we begin to express who we want to be. Choosing the army for example, after leaving the confine of parental control, simply replaces the parent with an NCO, maintaining a passive role. Note that Officers are not broken, they are trained to think, not feel.

Originally posted by Bluesma
I think in those cases, it is the long term attacking which breaks down the ego slowly. The ego being what has values like "self determination" or loyalty to specific beliefs, ethics, values, it is the source of guilt. The more it erodes, the faster it erodes, if you see what I mean. The agent doign the mind control become the new ego- they become the voice of conscience in that vacuum, so whatever they say is "bad" or worthy of guilt, then IS.

In cases such as this though, and similarly with POWs, the effect is short term. As soon as the dependency ceases the subject usually returns to their previous norms and values. The guilt though, may be residual and pervasive, in part due to the conscious awareness of passivity as a defensive ‘choice’, Patty Hearst offers an excellent example, as does Colleen Stan.

Originally posted by Bluesma
But consider the cases of people who are not aware they are beign targetted with this method. They have no sense they "should" resist, because as far as they know consciously, this is a nice person trying to aid them.

The vast majority of such programming is conducted by a ‘nice person’ trying to aid them...into buying a new vacuum cleaner...or the latest styling product. The vast majority of advertising is targeted to hitting the exterior self perception...the ‘how will this make me look to others’ switch. Hence why we do feel elated or guilty when we buy something ‘new and desirable’.

Originally posted by Bluesma
So by the time the person starts to have a negative experience and maybe it starts to dawn on them that this might not be a friend, they get some nice strokes, a compliment, "you are a good girl/boy", "You are smart and doing a great job"... that tends to head off suspicions as they start.

Then of course you get the beginning of injection of new programming- the God, the religion, the club rules and values, the new morals, ethics, and belief systems.....

Again, all you are doing here is temporarily replacing one set of norms and values with another. The ego is still there, it is merely responding, or adapting to changing parameters. Once removed from the situation, the ego would return to it’s original form. You are not destroying the ego, merely utilising it to convince the conscious mind to acquiesce, the ego is simply only interested in ‘pleasing’ one person, the agent, rather than a wider society for it’s own preservation. The ego, rather than being destroyed, becomes more concentrated.

Originally posted by Bluesma
This is why I think there is a big difference between a target that knows they are being targetted for brainwashing,
and someone totally unaware that is what is happening. In the second case, it is much easier and you don't even need to keep them imprisoned!

Agreed.

Our conditioning, from birth, leaves us vulnerable to passive programming, and our choice, as adults, to remain passive, because we are programmed to desire to be accepted, or admired, based on superficial criteria, makes us unwilling to fight against it. We take ‘help’ offered with a smile because it boosts ego, equally, insults and criticism of our physicality,etc, boost ego. Just differently.

That is why, as someone else points out, no one but you can destroy your ego, they may reshape it or turn it upside down, but only you can destroy it.

reply to post by Bluesma


All of those steps outlined sound to me what an abuser in an abusive relationship does. It comes naturally to an abusive person to go through those steps on their victim.

Sometimes victims of abuse even sympathize with their abusers, Stockholm Syndrome I believe it is called. Anyone can follow those steps and create a very obedient and subservient slave. Cult leaders also use the aforementioned techniques too.

When you stop trying to be independent or you're prevented from being independent you will inevitably be pushed into alignment by others who you depend on. It's self-preservation.

Get up and feel freedom or stay down and feel tyranny.

I think it's up for debate how much "soul" a person can be afforded. Is it best for the survival of a species for its members to be a collective? Or is it best for them to be unique individuals?

In the greater universe, are collectives stronger than free societies? Whichever is most prevalent will be the one that nature pushes us towards. Will we fight against it or will we submit to it?

We live longer because we work with each other. We coordinate. But how far can this cooperation go? Can it go too far? And might it be purely genetic? Is our dna social in nature?

Are extremes always bad or are they sometimes good?

One thing that brings this all to mind is that I've been reading about ants lately. They're eusocial creatures, like bees or termites. They're the epitome of collectivist society. Next to humans, ants have the most complex societies. They have castes: workers, soldiers, queens. They farm fungus and they show examples of animal husbandry. They have waste management. They show examples of teaching. They build and scout and bury the dead. They have warfare. Their soldiers will patrol and defend and raid and assist workers. There're some 100 quadrillion ants on earth.

I was reading about these:
en.wikipedia.org - Leafcutter ant...

I have to wonder if left alone without human interference if ants would ever evolve further? Certainly, they may not even need to, as they appear to be doing fine, but who knows.

I have a new respect for ants and bees and termites and those like them.

Want your mind blown away then please read this:
phys.org -
Teaching ants: First demonstration of 'teaching' in non-human animals...

This explains that ants have a sort of crowd intelligence:
www.insidescience.org - When Ants Get Together to Make a Decision...

(Note that crowd intelligence only produced good answers 90% of the time. So it ain't perfect. However, compared to individual ants, it was seen as much better.)

It explains that humans also use crowd intelligence. One human being can have information overload when faced with the world. There's just not enough time and money in a lifetime for a person to do it all. But when it's distributed across individuals across the world, the right answers are discerned by their popularity. The popularity will build momentum until it's obvious that it's a good choice.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
To reiterate, it is equally legitimate to go limp, or passive, instinctively, in response to attack, not just in humans, many species respond to a physical threat by stillness. ....., how many victims of rape do you think feel ‘gulity’ because they fought their attacker, and clearly voiced their lack of consent, compared to how many who did not resist, and their silence was taken as consent?
..our ego.. much of the conditioning, particularly in sensory terms, is conducted upon us as passive receptors, our norms and values are inflicted upon us before we have developed the ability to question. We are, effectively, programmed at birth in what to be, it is not until much later that we begin to express who we want to be. Choosing the army for example, after leaving the confine of parental control, simply replaces the parent with an NCO, maintaining a passive role. Note that Officers are not broken, they are trained to think, not feel.

The freeze reflex, or "mental fleeing" is just as common a reflex, and in some cases people can develop more tendancy to fall into that reaction that a fight reaction. I do not think anyone should feel guilty about that any more than I think they should feel guilty about fighting/ reflexes.

I do not agree with you on the process that the military undertakes in some branches. Early training often includes insulting and humiliating the person repeatedly, in order to tear own their confidence, and current self image- along with things like sleep deprivation and repetative exercises which lead to extreme fatigue, both mentally and physically. In that phase of the process, the soldier is not encouraged to think- quite the opposite.
Thinking is encouraged after the "correct" type of thinking is introduced.

(I will once again add that I do not think this is bad, I think this is a process that can be quite beneficial to an individual, if it is willingly undertaken and chosen. I think choosing the sources of your programming is part of being an adult, and is not possible as a child.)

In cases such as this though, and similarly with POWs, the effect is short term. As soon as the dependency ceases the subject usually returns to their previous norms and values. The guilt though, may be residual and pervasive, in part due to the conscious awareness of passivity as a defensive ‘choice’, Patty Hearst offers an excellent example, as does Colleen Stan.

The effects can be lifelong, or last years, months or weeks, dependant upon several factors. The guilt you are refering to was encouraged and stimulated by the others in the environment. If I was present and observed that, I would similarly speak up in opposition, as I have here.

The vast majority of such programming is conducted by a ‘nice person’ trying to aid them...into buying a new vacuum cleaner...or the latest styling product. The vast majority of advertising is targeted to hitting the exterior self perception...the ‘how will this make me look to others’ switch. Hence why we do feel elated or guilty when we buy something ‘new and desirable’.

Agreed- to a point. This is a more superificial influence than what I am meaning to refer to. It targets a more superificial layer of the psyche.

Again, all you are doing here is temporarily replacing one set of norms and values with another. The ego is still there, it is merely responding, or adapting to changing parameters. Once removed from the situation, the ego would return to it’s original form. You are not destroying the ego, merely utilising it to convince the conscious mind to acquiesce, the ego is simply only interested in ‘pleasing’ one person, the agent, rather than a wider society for it’s own preservation. The ego, rather than being destroyed, becomes more concentrated.

Here we go back to what I said earlier, that the term "destroying" (and re-birth) is not completely accurate, but more descriptive of a subjective experience.
It is, as I said change- deep change- in the self concept. (change always means a death of one state and beginning of another).
The ego being concerned about pleasing the society is usually more common with children, people who had a passive or absent father figure, or were raised in a highly collectivist culture.
In other cases, the ego is focused (concentrated if you prefer) upon specific models- an individual authority figure, be it an existing adult or a deity. This is especially common in societies hich are highly paternal and individualistic.

As a child, we have the figures imposed upon us, as adults we are surrounded by potential sources, and can choose who we are influenced by and who we are not. If we are aware of our power to do so, and recognize when covert manipulation is being exercised without our consent.

Originally posted by Angle
Why are they always lying about you Bluesma. Do you feel like this?

Uh no... not at all. No one is lying about me and it is not somethign that I usually percieve.

I am not very talented at verbal communication, and also tend to take uncommon slants on subjects,
which often results in people easily misunderstanding me.... and I have to put effort into re-wording or trying again to clarify my meaning. That is not something that upsets me though, as in that process, I get to work out my thoughts and organize them, and find shorter, clearer ways of expressing it for next time.

If this subject ever comes up again in another persons thread, I may have a very short, clear and concise contribution to put on the table- as a result of this miscommunication process. So I enjoy the challenge and "brainwork".

Perhaps you were feeling others are lying about you, and projected that upon me?
That is a common mistake when one is workign on repressing self/other boundry! Lines get all blurry...

Originally posted by dominicus

Originally posted by Bluesma

Originally posted by dominicus

I remember pre-existing prior to this body, as pure awareness, with no ego, no body. It was Me in purest form. I was asked to be born on this planet and help out in whatever ways I can. However I am a reluctant servant, because when I had a preview of what Earth was about prior to being born, I saw that it is a prison cell of egotist masochism, rapes, pillage, wars, murders, addiction. We live in a sickly disgusting hell hole, one in which the only way out of it is Enlightenment or physical death.

See, I have similar experience, except you are sayign this was with no ego, I call it an ego.

How could you be asked to do anything, if you had no individualized awareness??

Who or what could ask "you" if not for a separation between "you" and "not you"?

That individualized awareness is just a drop of water that emerged from the Infinite Ocean.

I'm sure individualized awareness has its own set of higher based intellect and reasoning, compared to the ego/psyche programmed here on earth.

I clearly remember a a child the moment when ego started being formed in me, and there was a fight. It was like a virus entering and taking over, like becoming, and I was disgusted by it. Since that time, there was a hatred of it, being incomplete, empty, dull. Finally when seeing that it is not me and letting it go, is when fullness and completion returned, and eventually of Awareness became evident.

Then what we have here might be just a problem of semantics.
Because I use "ego" to refer to self awareness, self consciousness- the experience of being individualized.

It sounds to me like you are describing what Freud called the "Id", or as I like to call my "body consciousness".

It often seems to me that the anti-ego crowd is usually refering either to the Id (the body urges, drives, emotions and instincts) or the "Super Ego" the inner conscience, or intellectual blueprint of values, morals, ethics, principles.

Funny, more men seem to call their body the evil ego thing, and more women tend to see their super ego as the evil ego thing!

It sometimes seems like females more often identify with their body, men to their intellect...
not all of course, just a trend I noticed.

Originally posted by Bluesma
The freeze reflex, or "mental fleeing" is just as common a reflex, and in some cases people can develop more tendancy to fall into that reaction that a fight reaction. I do not think anyone should feel guilty about that any more than I think they should feel guilty about fighting/ reflexes.

On a reflexive level, I do not understand though, why someone would feel guilty about fighting. That was what I was trying to emphasise. I can understand guilt at being passive, in ego terms, because of the way in which we anticipate the perception of others and how that effects self-worth, but why would someone feel guilty for standing up for themselves? I know they do, but in ego terms, I am trying to understand why, which is what I was hoping you would extrapolate upon.

Originally posted by Bluesma
I do not agree with you on the process that the military undertakes in some branches. Early training often includes insulting and humiliating the person repeatedly, in order to tear own their confidence, and current self image- along with things like sleep deprivation and repetative exercises which lead to extreme fatigue, both mentally and physically. In that phase of the process, the soldier is not encouraged to think- quite the opposite.

Sorry I didn’t communicate that correctly, I was saying that there is a difference in the way in which commissioned officers of a military unit are ‘indoctrinated’ compared to the way in which the lower ranks are. I wasn’t disagreeing with your synopsis of military indoctrination, and ‘breaking’ of the spirit for conformity purposes, just adding the note, that while the rank and file are taught to react to orders, the Officer class,obviously, are not. Therefore the soldier is trained to ‘feel’, while the officer is selected and trained to ‘think’. Breaking, hazing, whatever we call it, would be counterproductive, they are selected by type, not shaped to type. It is an interesting disctinction, in my opinion.

Originally posted by Bluesma
(I will once again add that I do not think this is bad, I think this is a process that can be quite beneficial to an individual, if it is willingly undertaken and chosen. I think choosing the sources of your programming is part of being an adult, and is not possible as a child.)

It is relative. Consider how many service men and women are unable to function in society once they leave the service. Also, and more significantly, consider child recruitment practices. The UK certainly violates international regulations in this respect. Children as young as 16, who’s brains, bodies, and most definitely their identities, are yet fully formed, are subject to such indoctrination. It blurs the lines of what constitutes informed consent.

While I agree that part of adulthood, and even adolescence is making a choice as to which modes of programming you follow, military or otherwise, our egos are still constantly bombarded with images designed to target our self-worth...therefore the routes that we chose are programmed themselves based on external indicators, which can limit our understanding of what choices may or may not be available to us. The emphasis is, in many cases, focused on external verification of identity, rather than on internal, self, verification.

Originally posted by Bluesma
The effects can be lifelong, or last years, months or weeks, dependant upon several factors. The guilt you are refering to was encouraged and stimulated by the others in the environment. If I was present and observed that, I would similarly speak up in opposition, as I have here.

I am not really sure how the above relates to ego and I could do with some clarification of what you mean by ‘speaking up’ in opposition, how would that work in context?

Originally posted by Bluesma
Agreed- to a point. This is a more superificial influence than what I am meaning to refer to. It targets a more superificial layer of the psyche.

Yes, but it appeals directly to the ego, which while being the more ‘superficial layer of the psyche’, is the subject we are discussing. Advertising, mass media etc, maintain the outward focus of our identity, distorting the perceptive ‘whole’.

Originally posted by Bluesma
Here we go back to what I said earlier, that the term "destroying" (and re-birth) is not completely accurate, but more descriptive of a subjective experience.

It is, as I said change- deep change- in the self concept. (change always means a death of one state and beginning of another).

I’m undecided here...I agree to some extent...but I don’t entirely agree with the descriptive...so I will put this to one side for now. Thanks.

Originally posted by Bluesma
The ego being concerned about pleasing the society is usually more common with children, people who had a passive or absent father figure, or were raised in a highly collectivist culture.

In other cases, the ego is focused (concentrated if you prefer) upon specific models- an individual authority figure, be it an existing adult or a deity. This is especially common in societies hich are highly paternal and individualistic.

But that is society, how each society is defined structually is a different matter. For children there is a duality, it is home and school, for example, and the child may or may not pattern their ego according to each environment, changing periodically because it doesn’t like the reflection as perceived by others. Similarly the adult may do the same with work, home, social group etc. If the ego is the ‘front’, the shop window display, as it is viewed by others, and it is therefore required, in a complex society, to be flexible circumstantially in order to receive ‘boost’ positively or to deflect negative ‘boosts’.

Originally posted by Bluesma
As a child, we have the figures imposed upon us, as adults we are surrounded by potential sources, and can choose who we are influenced by and who we are not. If we are aware of our power to do so, and recognize when covert manipulation is being exercised without our consent.

In part I agree, but what we find, as a society, looking round, is that some are less aware of the choices available to them and therefore never escape from the imposition of others, the having to please in order to survive, the being unable to please and not surviving. This is, at least in part, due to those constant appeals to the ‘superficial layer of psyche’ targeted through advertising and mass media. So while I agree with you in principle, I do not think that you are really getting to the nuts and bolts of the issue and it’s resolution.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout


On a reflexive level, I do not understand though, why someone would feel guilty about fighting. That was what I was trying to emphasise.

Ohç!Okay Gotcha! I was specifically refering to when the agent projecting puts pressure on the subject to feel guilty through accusing them of being "argumentative", conflictual, closed minded, un-loving, and egotistical.
My stance is that sometimes it is appropriate to be closed minded, if what someone is trying to penetrate into you is not somethign you agreed upon taking in.

Though it wasn't what was on my mind when writing (I was inspired by something I was witnessing on the forum yesterday) it is perfectly possible to have a reflex of guilt feeling at resisting (in this context or any other) if one holds principles already that dictate it is "bad" to be closed minded, to say no, to be contrary... all that is not being "nice" or "good".

ITherefore the soldier is trained to ‘feel’, while the officer is selected and trained to ‘think’. Breaking, hazing, whatever we call it, would be counterproductive, they are selected by type, not shaped to type. It is an interesting disctinction, in my opinion.

Oh yeah, totally agree then! In fact this method is super efficient in creating a "body" that is organized and efficient, with part of it being the "head" and different parts being the "body", in a sense.
But wait, everyone starts with boot camp and basic training, no? I am trying to remember now- I think I was under the impression that it is after that people can apply for and be selected for officer training?

It is relative. Consider how many service men and women are unable to function in society once they leave the service.

Agreed. That was my point in my OP when I said let's ignore the melodramatic ways this subject can be treated- it is not an inherent "bad" thing. It is relative like everything else.

Originally posted by Bluesma
The effects can be lifelong, or last years, months or weeks, dependant upon several factors. The guilt you are refering to was encouraged and stimulated by the others in the environment. If I was present and observed that, I would similarly speak up in opposition, as I have here.

I am not really sure how the above relates to ego and I could do with some clarification of what you mean by ‘speaking up’ in opposition, how would that work in context?

I was saying the effects of mind control techniques (as we were discussing POW's, cult members, etc.) could be long term or shorter term. POW's that chose NOT to go home after being released being an example.
By speaking up- I consider this thread I authored an assertion in opposition to something I observed. I said I disagree and explained why, in a public way. If I saw someone telling another they were "bad" to be passive, to do a "mental flee", or become receptive to another, I would also either make a public assertion in opposition (in writing, in this context of communication, with voice if it was in person).

Originally posted by Bluesma
Agreed- to a point. This is a more superificial influence than what I am meaning to refer to. It targets a more superificial layer of the psyche.

Yes, but it appeals directly to the ego, which while being the more ‘superficial layer of the psyche’, is the subject we are discussing. Advertising, mass media etc, maintain the outward focus of our identity, distorting the perceptive ‘whole’.

Oh no, it is not the subject I was discussing. I started the OP refering to the deepest layers of self awareness, our base framework of belief and perception about reality, meaning, and existence. These are the types of big changes religions an cults attempt to change, or psychotherapy, or other contexts which use methods of this sort.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout

But that is society, how each society is defined structually is a different matter. For children there is a duality, it is home and school, for example, and the child may or may not pattern their ego according to each environment, changing periodically because it doesn’t like the reflection as perceived by others. Similarly the adult may do the same with work, home, social group etc. If the ego is the ‘front’, the shop window display, as it is viewed by others, and it is therefore required, in a complex society, to be flexible circumstantially in order to receive ‘boost’ positively or to deflect negative ‘boosts’.

I think we are having a different opinion on what "ego" is.
I might need to think about what you are saying more, and might have trouble grasping this because fo my own upbringing. I was rather handicapped in that superificial area. Besides having neglectful parents that ignored me then left me alone at age 9, I was in a school which was all mexican, and being the only white english speaking kid, I was put outside by myself all day for the first two years, as they were taught english.

I was stunted in my social education, and became mute for a few years- but I was an avid reader, and was busy forming ego that way. I began with the Bible and Bhagavad Ghita.... so my concept of self was probably more formed by the examples of imaginary characters than real people. I have never found the acceptation or rejection of society to be very important in my own self concept- though it can be in terms of specific individuals I admire.


The sort of powerless-ness some people seem to have faced with the bombardment from exterior sources, seems to me to be born from an inner trust and belief that the larger collective can provide safety. Ideally, that would be the case, and apparently such people enjoyed that as being true when children- adults protected them.

reply to post by Bluesma

Then what we have here might be just a problem of semantics. Because I use "ego" to refer to self awareness, self consciousness- the experience of being individualized.

As far as semantics go, yes there may be a mistranslation in what we are trying to get across.

I'll keep it simple and go off both direct experience, and the writings of those who reached Enlightenment, and what they have to say.

Ego = The thought, "I Am This Body, name, gender, age, nationality, I am _______(fill in the blank). It is thoughts, a bunch of them, all of them revolving around the thought "I".

Awareness/Observer = That within you that is Aware of an observes the Ego complex mentioned above, in action doing its thing.

Now in meditation. You can be both with Ego and thoughts, or you can be in stillness with no Ego/Thoughts. This is one way that a direct experience proves that the ego complex is not who we are.

In children, this ego complex is not fully formed yet.

It sounds to me like you are describing what Freud called the "Id", or as I like to call my "body consciousness".

Body consciousness is just Awareness being aware of all the nerves and senses running through the body, and the next step is to be aware of the Ego complex refer to the body as 'I'.

It often seems to me that the anti-ego crowd is usually refering either to the Id (the body urges, drives, emotions and instincts) or the "Super Ego" the inner conscience, or intellectual blueprint of values, morals, ethics, principles.

anti-ego crowd is referring to the the I-thought complex and everything that surrounds it. If you have wisdom, in the morning you will see it arising like a swarm of Bee's, and taking its place in the head to filter reality.

the body urges, drives, emotions and instincts arise and pass away, and the "I-Thought" Ego complex attaches to them and labels them as "My urges, drives, instincts, etc." The real you is the observer that observes these things, yet itself is none of these things.

Funny, more men seem to call their body the evil ego thing, and more women tend to see their super ego as the evil ego thing!

In my case, and what is agreed on bu the majority of philosophies and religions around the world, all are in agreement that the cause of ignorance, hatred, war, everything disgusting we see in this world, is as a result of the Animal body and all of its instincts, combined with the Ego-I-Thought complex which deals in selfishness, greed, lust, separation, duality, etc.

The majority of idiocy and ignorance based acts that I have done in my life, was because I was once a slave to the ego and body instincts.

It sometimes seems like females more often identify with their body, men to their intellect... not all of course, just a trend I noticed.

It's a combo of both.

Originally posted by Bluesma
Oh yeah, totally agree then! In fact this method is super efficient in creating a "body" that is organized and efficient, with part of it being the "head" and different parts being the "body", in a sense.
But wait, everyone starts with boot camp and basic training, no? I am trying to remember now- I think I was under the impression that it is after that people can apply for and be selected for officer training?

Not in the British military, I don't know about elsewhere. Structurally, in the UK military, you have a situation where effectively the NCO (Non-Commissioned Officer) assumes the role of 'Mother' and the 'Father' is the commissed Officer. It worked for a long time, the father being distant and benevolent, vaguely despised when it came to the issuing of orders, the NCO, hard and disciplining, but loved because they share with you the same ruler. It is something, a dynamic, that I find personally quite fascinating. That said, those officers, traditionally came out of schools that espoused strict discipline, a strategic, classical education, and, more than a smattering of institutionalised buggery...so...ya know The 'hazing' and conditioning is there, but it is segregated, and class orientated.

Otherwise, I bow out, I think you and I come from a similar place ego wise, and while we find confusion in different places, the cause of that confusion is similarly founded. I have greatly enjoyed the conversation though, many thanks, you have a good mind.

All the best

reply to post by dominicus


yes, the thought, dominicus, but this thought has side effects.

It also puts one on a pedestal now, doesn't it. It exalts one.

don't know spelling for pedestal/pedestial? and exalts/exhalts? exalt = opposite of humble.

Originally posted by dominicus


Ego = The thought, "I Am This Body, name, gender, age, nationality, I am _______(fill in the blank). It is thoughts, a bunch of them, all of them revolving around the thought "I".

Awareness/Observer = That within you that is Aware of an observes the Ego complex mentioned above, in action doing its thing.

Ok. Yeah we were using it differently. I was using it in the psychological way- in which ego is the observer. In statements of "I am...." the ego is "I" - NOT the concepts following.

My emotions, my sentiments, my physical expeirences, my clothes, my actions, etc. Are not my ego. Nonetheless, my framework of belief and value channels the perception, gives it focus and direction.
So change in my principles, morals and values change the direction of my experiences of this world.
To wipe all those away (as one does in moments of meditation, for example, or passivity) leaves the I without movement. If one attempted to live in that state all the time, they end up with their physical body being subject to the intents and choices of others around them. (as children are)

Body consciousness is just Awareness being aware of all the nerves and senses running through the body, and the next step is to be aware of the Ego complex refer to the body as 'I'.

I do not refer to the body awareness as I, no more than I refer to awareness of my mental principles and concepts as I.
Though we could play with semantics on that. This body is an materialization of the I, similar to the nails and hair- they grow from and are part of the body, yet can be cut, removed, colored, curled, shaped.....such is the physical body to I.

The body consciousness, I cannot consider I because it is serves as a communication device which gives me information about "not I"- my environment and others- on even subconscious levels. Sensorial input from others effects physiological changes in my body, making it's experience a combination of I and other.

the body urges, drives, emotions and instincts arise and pass away, and the "I-Thought" Ego complex attaches to them and labels them as "My urges, drives, instincts, etc." The real you is the observer that observes these things, yet itself is none of these things.

No, I do not experience that, as described above. I do nto feel attached to them. They are experiences. though I can choose to prolong them!

In my case, and what is agreed on bu the majority of philosophies and religions around the world, all are in agreement that the cause of ignorance, hatred, war, everything disgusting we see in this world, is as a result of the Animal body and all of its instincts, combined with the Ego-I-Thought complex which deals in selfishness, greed, lust, separation, duality, etc.

The majority of idiocy and ignorance based acts that I have done in my life, was because I was once a slave to the ego and body instincts.

Well, not the majority, but paternalistic religions do. More maternalistic religions feel the opposite.
I do not agree. I think intellect (ones principles, values, conceptions about meaning) can be the source of all that. One very interesting thing about the intellect is that it can be very good at NOT acknowledging responsibility.

I use horseback riding as an analogy here for the mind -body relationship, and in aiding others to work on these things. Often, a rider (consider this the intellect-mind) tells me their horse is unreliable, dangerous, and prone to violent behavior. It is a bad horse.

I say get on let me watch. What I see is that the rider is giving contradicting messages to the horse, hurting it, and not being alert to it's feedback. With the body, it tells it do this, but don't do it. Don't do that, and do it; he tells it to do things, then hurts it when it does, when the horse says back "I do not understand! What do you want?" he ignores completely. When the horse says "That hurts!" he ignores it.

And you get a blow up, and the rider swears and calls the horse bad.

In these cases, it may be necessary for the rider to erase the education and ideas he had about riding and horsemanship and start a new framework. But in rider cannot get off the horse. The intent to experience this relationship was made by the rider long ago and it is now here. It may have had an education which gave it experiences he does not like now, but that can be changed.

The body and it's instincts and drives is not bad nor a source of bad behavior! It is , however, subejct to the orders and commands of the mental- either it's own, or someone elses.


The body brings social instincts- this is something of value!

reply to post by Bluesma


I think you are a very courageous, caring and loving person Bluesma.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


I think we have some similarities in thought, and I too find the whole military structure extremely interesting, from a psychological and sociological viewpoint!

In the US military, we have one slightly different problem to deal with- a culture of individualism. You take kids that have been raised being taught since infancy that "following the crowd" is bad, peer pressure is a source of evil. (this was emphasized during the Cold War, in an attempt to "vaccinate" americans against the potential influence of Communism)


Educational systems are not standardized, as in most European countries- schools are free to use whatever programs and methods they choose.
Parents are expected to raise their chidlren however they want, instilling them with whatever ideas they want, and others are not supposed to get involved in that. (kids belong to the parents, not the society).

So in order to get the structural adhesion needed for military efficiency, you have to destroy some of that early conditioning to get everyone on the same page!


But I thank you for the thought provoking input and aid in helping me work out my expression into words!

Originally posted by Bluesma
My emotions, my sentiments, my physical expeirences, my clothes, my actions, etc. Are not my ego. Nonetheless, my framework of belief and value channels the perception, gives it focus and direction.
So change in my principles, morals and values change the direction of my experiences of this world.

I follow what you are saying here, but...

Originally posted by Bluesma
To wipe all those away (as one does in moments of meditation, for example, or passivity) leaves the I without movement. If one attempted to live in that state all the time, they end up with their physical body being subject to the intents and choices of others around them. (as children are)

...I do not see how you come to this conclusion.

Ego-lessness does not equate to being submissive or malleable to the will of others. Rather, I would imagine that the awareness becomes far keener when not filtered through the lens of the ego-needs and ego-desires, with all thought and action arising directly from the higher spiritual impusle from within.

Originally posted by mysticnoon
this conclusion.

Ego-lessness does not equate to being submissive or malleable to the will of others. Rather, I would imagine that the awareness becomes far keener when not filtered through the lens of the ego-needs and ego-desires, with all thought and action arising directly from the higher spiritual impusle from within.

I do not think Egolessness is possible while there is a physical body. The Observer does not disappear- unless in states of coma, perhaps in states of catatonia.

The self/ego can ignore or repress the bodies drives, urges and needs for survival.
The self/ego can ignore or repress the mental activity and intellectual structure.

This is what happens in states of meditation, for example.


There is no higher spiritual impulse from within in that state. All Is. I am.



You might need to be more precise on what you mean by "egolessness". I am having trouble understanding it.

It sounds to me like you are refering to the self choosing to repress the body awareness, and focus only the experience of the intellect, and it's values, principles, morals, and framework of reality. You will have to help me see what I have misunderstood there.

reply to post by Bluesma


The thoughts about yourself of ego is what awareness is to the observer.

Ego took place of awareness. Or one experiences ego, or one experiences awareness. Both cannot be active and experienced at the same time.

Awareness is the the physical body. The complete body, awareness is not the thoughts of self in the head.