Does Ego exist?

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
21

OG,

Pretty much dead on par with my line of thinking there.
You’d be some fun to hang out with. :wink:

Here’s one for you, since you are into these things.
[tab](This is how I spiritually describe the concept you are speaking of (“Boman” just stands for Balance of Motion and Nature; where nature refers to “your” nature in the same way as the water in the bathtub has a nature to it).

Intransitiveness

Think of your Body as your legs, your Mind as your arms, and your Spirituality as your equilibrium.
Think of your dance around the floor as your Self Nature.

Notice that the metaphor for one’s self nature is the dancing itself and not a, “thing”.
This is accurate to the Boman perspective.
One’s self nature is seen as an action; not a noun.

Specifically; self nature is seen as an intransitive verb; just as it is with dancing.

Again, think of the game of foot bag.
The game requires agility, awareness, and reaction.
The game is only alive while the bag is in motion.
If the bag falls to the ground, then the game is over.
The player must keep the bag off of the ground in whatever manner they can achieve reaching their body (less their hands) to the bag.

So here, the metaphor is drawn that the bag is all of what occurs upon oneself physically, mentally, and spiritually in life and how you react to it is what determines if the “bag” (experiences) is kept moving or if the “bag” stops.

Also notice that in the game of foot bag, practiced responses are only so useful. Ultimately, pure reaction and cohesion between one’s sight and agility determines the ability to keep the game moving.

The way that a person keeps the game moving is unique in the game of foot bag. Very few people move their bodies in quite the same way to keep the bag off of the ground.
Their way of moving is a good metaphor of how to see the unique form of each person’s self nature.

Self nature, therefore, is seen as a way to keep one’s body, mind, and spirituality in motion in the most fluid and cohesive manner.
When all of one’s body, mind, and spirituality are able to be acted upon with ease; then one has found their self nature. They have found their way.

A more tangible line:
Pick a crowd; move through the crowd as to always move forward with the least rejection of stalling or bumping; moving in every rotation and direction needed to continue the pursuit with the least disturbance.

It’s a good exercise, at least I have found for myself, to force the mind to recognize and tangibly grasp the idea of reactive action with purpose in cyclic motions for one overall frequency of motion.
If you do, do this, (actually, you pretty much do in basketball really; here you just do it without the direct goal) try to pay attention to the smallest and largest parts of your body at the same time.
Noticing every shuffle of the each foot while at the same time the movement of the shoulders, the arms, the neck, the fingers, the eyes, but then also (personally, this is the exhilarating part) pay attention to the sounds, sights, touches, smells at the same time…not just how a foot shuffles, but also how it feels; how the arm movement feels through the space of air around people - through people - next to you, etc…

It’s hard to do it all at the same time, but it’s fun practice I find, and the speed is irrelevant.
I’ve done this in a church facility before where no one is moving fast and enjoyed it as much as a busy and crowded street.
Each has their own sense to them.

I even try to find my way for doing dishes just as a practice.[/tab]

22

I like that. It would be fun to hang out, indeed.

23

TheStumps, I would say it isn’t clever to assume what others are or are not looking at.
And I would also say that always trust your instincts - my first guess was about 32 but I thought I would give you a few years more.
I can also say that your view will change in time - as mine has.
32 to 37 is an interesting age - but it too changes as your notions too will change.

And I cannot actually believe TheStumps has said this?
Do you understand the ramifications of holding such a view TheStumps.

Non-existence beat frequency? Sorry TheStumps this does not align with wave properties.
I could produce these waves in water and you will see the third frequency.

Now if you are talking about Binaural beats then this is completely different (but similar).
It is due to the different tones in the right and left ears and is essentially related to the ability to directionalize sound.
All the senses display this sort of phenomena in some way due to their need to differentiate.
E.g. If you have two water pipes twisted together and one has warm water and one has cold water.
If you hold this twisted arrangement you will experience an extreme burning pain sensation.
Google thermal Grill illusion (you can make one yourself).

How familiar are you with FPGA design, DSP design, and advanced control theory (state space theory).
It may pay to familiarize yourself with these theories.

But I have to go now and so I will be back later to continue this great discussion.

24

Does I exist?

Bad grammar that.

Do I exist is a better from. :stuck_out_tongue:

Ego is the self, if the self does not exist then nothing makes any rational real sense because I am inconsequential and false.

Are my observations reliable, to proceed as if they were not is probably a slippery slope to solipsism. Pragmatically I must assume that I exist and that my observations are if not correct, at least somewhat reliable.

25

On the other hand, it creates a new idea within your own head that isn’t in their’s either, nor would have you thought of it otherwise.
Assuming what people are looking at is what creates a new understanding of a perspective because after you are done looking at the perspective in the way that you commonly do in your own perspective, you grind through understanding how far off the mark you were from their perspective and slide on over until you reach as close as you can to their vantage point.

Assuming what others are looking at is like the first sling of hoisting line, to me.

I do, indeed.
Do not mistake me though, I do not refer to physical reality of the forms conceived.
I am simply stating that if our experience is counted as existing, then within the confines of things that take place within our experience, those things which uniquely take place in our psyche and physiology are themselves their own reality and universe unto themselves, yet reactive to the physical universe.

I, in short, exist in both universes along with every other human being.
Self identity is just the tip of that human universe.

So when I say that it is therefore a real tangible thing to our consciousness, I mean that it is real and grasped by the consciousness and that is as far as it is allowed to exist.
Never-the-less, it has reflective impact upon our own psyche just the same, and our psyche in turn will create a function of interaction with the physical external word.

Subliminal information is capable of consequential outward reaction.

Yep, I slaughtered their name (a terrible habit I have with those; I constantly end up calling them binomial by accident).
And true with the water as well; I have the ability - through self training - to pull that trick off without using the coil.
I can lie to my body about which extreme is being sensed so that its opposite is conceived and therefore the end result is deadened recognition of the extreme.
I won free McDonald’s as an adolescent because I won a bet with my Dad that I could hold my arm under the Kodiak, Alaskan water in September for one minute.
I don’t really know if I first learned that from somewhere; I just recall taking extremely hot showers and realizing that my skin felt quite the same as it did when I was outside in the winter for too long, and that if I was chilled dangerously and stuck my hand into incredibly hot water the result was a sort of inflammation that was not categorical except unto it’s own sensation.

But anyway, the point of bringing them up was to state that as real as those are, that is the same kind of real that our panego is.

Not really. I’m not terribly fascinated by circuit board engineering.
I more take interest in studying meteorology, oceanography, neurology, electromagnetism, radio frequency, audio acoustics, and psychology.
Basically anything that has a frequency and current organically.

What about them caused you to think this though?
What would I be gaining?
(I’m not opposed; I’m just inherently not that interested in the subject matter)

26

You could gain a better understanding.
http://www.livingcontrolsystems.com/intro_papers/direction_for_psych.pdf

27

Dear Roberto,
After quick glance at inputs under OP, it looks to me like you do believe in [what is usually defined as] Ego. Perhaps I am only misreading you though; could you tell me what aspect it is that you do not believe in?

My personal view on subject is hermitphilosopher.wordpress.com/ … n-the-ego/

28

I do not believe it exists any more than Santa Clause exists.
I believe it exists because we believe it exists.
My personal view is that an observation takes place of a collection of phenomena and memories.
These phenomena and memories are in motion.
The observation becomes so familiar that it becomes background noise.
This background noise is the imagined ego.
If all we ever saw, touched, smelt, tasted and heard was apple then we would conclude I am apple.
But what we become most familiar with is this body, these memories, and these thoughts.
The ego is simply what observation becomes most familiar.
The thing that is always there is then the this body, thoughts, memories – this is the “I”.
Everything that is not always there is not “I”.
What is always there becomes invisible to us - it becomes a part of the furniture and we only notice it when something changes.

In conclusion the Ego is simply the thing observed as most constant.
It exists no more than Santa Claus exists – but a child can still believe in Santa Claus.

But that is only my own view.

29

Roberto:

Elsewhere you stated:

Before something can have a function, it must exist.

Therefore, according to your premise, the Ego exists.

30

I’m kind of embarrassed to say something so lame, but… define ego and define exist?

Sorry. :blush:

31

Nothing lame about asking for clarification of terms. Many a thread in the Religion forum has come unraveled because terms are never defined.

32

Many a thread in the religion forum has become unravelled because people jump in and blurt stuff out without reading the entire thread - maybe a person could be embarrassed in such a case.

And to summarize a little more

When a child believes in Santa Claus it functions to make the child excited and happy.
The belief in Santa Claus exists but Santa Claus does not exist.
Conclusion: Santa Claus has a name it has a function and it does not exist - at all.
But hey, that is another thread all together and another topic.

Felix, do you enjoy bringing in topics from other threads… Are you a Troll? :smiley:

Anyways, back to the topic.

33

I’ll look up the works in the bibliography and see some of the more detail, but at first glance this is mostly what I’ve been asserting.

While not an absolute, this is pretty much the case - especially existentially.

I have a piece of work that is in draft currently which has in the introduction:

34

I read quite a bit of this thread. I noticed Stumps trying to clarify different definitions of ego, while I didn’t notice any definite working definition emerge. I didn’t notice any discussion of the meaning of “exist” at all, but I didn’t read every word of this thread. I’m not embarrassed by that. Should I be?

35

We have been working on defining ego (read the thread and TheStumps comments).

Better still anon, please give to the discussion and contribute your definition of “ego” and “exists”.

EDIT: oops… you jumped in before my post. That reply was for Felix. This one is for you.

36

Yes, and that is why I suggested that it may be beneficial to familiarize yourself with control theory.

37

I don’t have a single definition to contribute that covers all contexts. In a Buddhist context for instance (which is one of the main sources for the question “does ego exist”?), for something to “exist” is for that thing to be truly single, permanent, and independent. When Buddhists reject the existence of “ego” they are rejecting it on the basis that the self does not exist in that sense. Then again, in that sense nothing at all exists.

38

Give some practical examples of how Buddhists would reject the existence of the “ego”.
A person could easily claim that “I” am truly single, permanent, and independent - many have and do.
If the ego does not exist in this sense then why do we think it exists in this sense?

Without explanations it can become a matter of the following endless retorts - “yes it does” - “no it doesn’t”

39

That’s true. I guess I’d ask someone who thinks ego does exist in that sense to give an example of anything at all that exist in a vaccuum - i.e. What exists without a history? What exists without supporting conditions? Or to put it another way - if no man is an island, then no man inherently exists at all. A “person” is an imputation - a convention that does not correspond to an inferred mind-independent reality. There is no “person” who exists independently of the defining. The defining creates the “person”, which isn’t to say, of course, that there is nothing at all there to be defined.

40

So, by that logic the defining must exist inherently.
It is truly existent in that it is singular, non-dependant and permanent.
I could then call this defining the person or the “I” or the “Ego".

Like a knife that cannot cut itself, but yet we can still say that the knife exists inherently.