The Ego

[Fixed_Cross]

James S Saint described the ego to me as follows:

[size=90]The only distinction between the Self and the Ego is that the ego is the perceived self, not necessarily the real self, and not necessarily the false self. In society it is the difference between how people really behave and how they believe they behave. When the Self perceives an ego that is not itself, then it is perceiving a “demon self” occupying the Self’s territory, a sub-kingdom within a kingdom.

The Self is a particle that perceives. And it is a particle that perceives a self to defend that is often not the self that it is. The same of true of every individual, organization, and order in society, the “Particle Physics of Society”.[/size]

I think I agree with this definition. Not because I suspect an ontological absolute behind it the word Ego and think that it is found here, but because this is a useful way of interpreting the concept. One can thus have a well adjusted ego and a maladjusted ego - and this brings about a whole world of creation, a divide between truth and fiction which is filled by all sorts of commercial art.

In every modern artwork, every episode of Breaking Bad or every song by Lady Gaga, there is the allure of the true self - someone who is finding his or her true self and expressing it in a stimulating way - leading us via lyrics and plotlines to an idea of what this self should encompass, if it were the listener or the viewer.

Such notions are always at best poetic in their application to another person than the artist itself, as true self is indeed a self, not an other. Weak teenagers will copy the artists image, stronger ones will try to create a similar power in their own world. The weak will seek to use the others ego as a mask to their weaker self, the strong will use the others egoic power as an inspiration and map to find a proper resonance between their real power and its representation. This is of course not a polarity but a spectrum. Many get lost between truthful seeking and fictional play, and even choose the play sometimes, recognizing in themselves ‘clowns’.

From such clowning, which is the profound loss of ego, - there nor here, true nor false - philosophy of a certain postmodern type has arisen as the sophistication of our culture. It’s allowed to be a total phony, as it’s obviously just a play anyway. Such is the castration of truth - making the quest for it less than a matter of mastery and slavery.

[Orbie]

@Fixed Cross

James S Saint described the ego to me as follows:

[size=90]The only distinction between the Self and the Ego is that the ego is the perceived self, not necessarily the real self, and not necessarily the false self. In society it is the difference between how people really behave and how they believe they behave. When the Self perceives an ego that is not itself, then it is perceiving a “demon self” occupying the Self’s territory, a sub-kingdom within a kingdom.

The Self is a particle that perceives. And it is a particle that perceives a self to defend that is often not the self that it is. The same of true of every individual, organization, and order in society, the “Particle Physics of Society”.[/size]

I think I agree with this definition. Not because I suspect an ontological absolute behind it the word Ego and think that it is found here, but because this is a useful way of interpreting the concept. One can thus have a well adjusted ego and a maladjusted ego - and this brings about a whole world of creation, a divide between truth and fiction which is filled by all sorts of commercial art.

In every modern artwork, every episode of Breaking Bad or every song by Lady Gaga, there is the allure of the true self - someone who is finding his or her true self and expressing it in a stimulating way - leading us via lyrics and plotlines to an idea of what this self should encompass, if it were the listener or the viewer.

Such notions are always at best poetic in their application to another person than the artist itself, as true self is indeed a self, not an other. Weak teenagers will copy the artists image, stronger ones will try to create a similar power in their own world. The weak will seek to use the others ego as a mask to their weaker self, the strong will use the others egoic power as an inspiration and map to find a proper resonance between their real power and its representation. This is of course not a polarity but a spectrum. Many get lost between truthful seeking and fictional play, and even choose the play sometimes, recognizing in themselves ‘clowns’.

From such clowning, which is the profound loss of ego, - there nor here, true nor false - philosophy of a certain postmodern type has arisen as the sophistication of our culture. It’s allowed to be a total phony, as it’s obviously just a play anyway. Such is the castration of truth - making the quest for it less than a matter of mastery and slavery.

I agree with th above in most part. Charlie chaplin is a good example. In the Great Dictator, his description of the ontological authority, is clownishly amusing.

How does are represent reality? Or vica versa? In the masking of pain, the clown resides under a painted smiling mask, similarly, with the Joker, in that famous film, where he had his lips sewed upwards into a perpetual smile. Mona Lisa’s beguiled Smile is too, just a faint shade inauthentic. Why? Where does this come from?

Nietzsche, too referred to himself as a clown. Why? Because the ontology was destroyed, the contradictions could not be Singularly re presented.
Contradictions are best described by the genius yes, but only by the veritable genius of Mankind in general. Sure the mask, originating from ancient greek theatre, has adhesive power, which is at the source of any will to act.

But we all know actions are more definitive, therefore the statistics rule out anything else.

Adhesion between popularism and authenticity was defeated when existentialism lost it’s socialist face. The facade was created out of the anti ontological. That was material worth thinking about: a greek dialectic of purity, dressed up in wolf’s clothing. So what is the result:

Hyper image consciousness, madison avenue style, and belief in what is being seen as presented from a believable forum.

No exit here, brother, only 2: a crazy fox, and a foolish clown. Which one can be played more convincingly?

This is why the part I disagree with where the clowns are a bunch of look alike stand ins. The good ones, like Emmett Kelley was, go through the thing, and manage to survive. The best clown in film , Julietta Massina in La Strada, was convincing to the extent
That one knew, she knew what it took to play the role. It was no more imitation,than as the OP implies, a true characterisation.

For the unitiated, untested, it must be sheer hell.