Rod
My DAAARRRRLIN’ you have written a lot of interesting commentary here. Sometimes I think we, you and I are riding on the same psychic wave...
MacD
Here are some questions:
Is the task at hand to encourage thought through the creation of an object? Or is it to measure the impact of its expression (validation)?
Rod
I think the “object”... the product?, be it material or philosophical is what arrives out of thought, incidentally... idealistically... thought and the freedom of thought, being the objective
MacD
And just how does one measure that impact? Through societal means? i.e. recognition, praise, money, publicity, demand? These are ego pursuits.
Rod
Is “ego” learned? and if it is, then it is a parasite on the back of praise, recognition, etc., for survival… in fear of demise. I do have an ego but, it seems to be waning in face of my need to develop eloquence or perfection, which are the products of the external world... applied ego? If we succeed at survival... at the skill, for instance, of killing a beast, we feel better, as our belly is full and future killings require less energy, more productivity, more leisure time. Does ego arrive at this point? you teach your child the skill at successful procreation. Then arrives ‘satisfaction’... pride, with pats on the back. Everyone is happier. If it is for the success of the tribe...is it evil? Is it ego or does it become ego if it rewards only yourself and not the community, where others are placed in servitude for your benefit, your ego?
I think a performer on stage, giving people delight, is healthy for the audience [tribe]... If the performer, the teacher is skilful, the tribe becomes more healthy and gives a pat on the back or a buck in the pocket from the knowledge imparted to the tribe, with a new level of awareness.. an enhanced level of survival. The performer becomes the hunter/teacher. Ego arrives if the hunter does this for his own profit, that leads to the servitude of others.
As you can see...I am stumbling my way through this investigation of the meaning of “ego”. Now I say “eloquence and perfection’ are not externally applied but, come from within, as one’s skill grows, that ideally brings with it the success of the tribe. Ego is a corrupt character flaw that is influenced from a genetic default... the selfish gene, which is socialized out from childhood but, is ever present and brings debauchery, when ego steps into the theatre of the absurd. ”
MacD
So it's all about getting one's voice heard, then validated as influential---but how do we ever determine its influence?
Rod
Its influence is validated/successful if the tribe is truly and honestly satisfied or happy, without regret or cynicism.
MacD
I'm thinking of a lone canary singing a beautifully brilliant song. He sings and sings, not a mating cry, just a long and uniquely precious voice singing away without thought of an audience. He sings because he can and because he needs to, and it is enough. He cannot know that the tiny child a mile away is so taken with the canary's melody that his inner music is awakened and he becomes a talented composer. The canary sings because he has a voice, and it is enough.
He isn't seeking praise or payment or even impact.
There is a conflict of interest in our needs. One is to express. The other is to receive validation for the expression. One is clear and true. The other is a societal package. How can they both live in the same body?
Rod
If they live in the same body there is conflict... external, destructive conflict.
Of course, this is all from my source of Poetic Authority
MacD
Lately I’ve been wondering if I've lost my mind….or finally found my voice. I'm hoping it's the latter. I feel like I've made a wonderful discovery that answers a million agonizing questions I've had through life. And here I am writing to a man that knew this all along. Like I've jumped out of the mainstream into mental clarity.
Man needs his life to having meaning and purpose, whether it's misconceived, illusionary, or bang on the money. Isn't that the driving force behind ambition no matter the goal? Once he's figured out the vehicle to reach that goal, he seeks confirmation of having achieved it.
Rod
Morally and ideally, he seeks confirmation by a happy tribe, lest he arrives at internal conflict and external unhappiness, which of course can lead to a multiple of disastrous outcomes from an ego in decline.
MacD
The artist creates to express himself, to draw attention and interest, and his measure of achievement is in concrete results.
Rod
The artist creates to educate himself, to improve his skills
MacD
Attaining the result is the most difficult and unpredictable step in his quest. The lack of a desired result can look like failure based on our social constructs of success. But I believe the unique expression in itself is the validation. If Man undoes his cultural packaging and expresses a new vision, the goal is achieved. It is a life of meaning and purpose and does not require external validation. The imprint of his work is permanent and not measurable under the terms of society. Validation is achieved when another man is directly or indirected ignited by the flow of unpackaged thought, but how and where can we be sure the flow originated with another person's expression?
Rod
I believe in the “unpackaging” to achieve new vision, new skills
MacD: Validation from society is an ego pursuit...
Rod: If there is corruption.
MacD
The consciousness I have spoken of before lives outside of the ego and is the part of us that has no ego, but it is still within.(In my view it is connected with all living things). Easier name is Higher Self, if you will. My personal goal is to live through that part of myself, and less through ego. Higher Self is present when we are born, but ego takes over because it's the channel of humanity.
Ego currently rules the world. People like Mother Teresa may have been able to live fully in their 'higher selves'. And maybe the Buddha, Jesus, Krishna as well.
But society is run by a collection of self serving egos operating as politicians. The real leaders are the big money corporations whose 'ethic' is bottom line and not humankind. We've allowed the real leaders to shape us, tell us what we want, need, must have. Corporations have written the acceptable status code for our society through years of advertising manipulation. Fucking bastards.
Your comment that validation for the artist comes when the tribe is happier or successful….I'm working on that one. Happiness as a goal makes me somewhat uncomfortable. It might just be semantics.
There is an expression…..you can define a man by how he rewards himself. We live in a happy-crazed society where everyone's goal in life is to 'be happy'. It's not achievable as a goal externally, in my view. To me happiness is the byproduct of serving mankind well during our lifetime.
I'm sure I'll have more to say……….I've tuned in to a couple of Alan Watts' videos on YouTube….are you familiar with him?
If I change the words "Higher Self" to Eloquence, is it still bullshit?
Rod
WOW... here is a very quick impulsive response, as I am right in the middle of other writing stuff. That sounds like a lot of Jungian, Freudian, etc, etc rhetorical bullshit in a “box” which I have red about along the way . But, I am anxious to get to a more considered reply to you shortly….
I read through you letter again and I still come out with a similar sentiment. The challenge I have before me is to articulate my emotion, my passion on that box of this ego mumbo jumbo stuff. I have been reading Jung, which includes his assessment of Freud, his former teacher and friend. They parted company over Freud’s sexual emphasis. I parted company with Jung (temporarily) with his religious emphasis... that was about half way through the book, which was given to me by a psychologist friend of Lulu’s... “Memories Dreams and Reflections”.
It is interesting that one often hears about psychologists needing their private psychologist... because they are “so fucked up”? It is also interesting how so many people need psychologists these days and what do they, the psychs do ... ask the client questions and provide no answers. This HUGH psychology industry
(religion?) has so much invested in their dogma that they must keep coming up with new mental issues to feed themselves and they do this by ever sectioning out parts of the brain to a new problem. They will soon be using a microscopic sectioning device.
I have never been to a psychologist and will never venture there. They are highly over rated and terrified, no doubt, of creating crazies out of their clients.
“These victims of the psychic dichotomy of our times are merely optional neurotics; their apparent morbidity drops away the moment the gulf between the ego and the unconscious is closed. The doctor who has felt this dichotomy to the depths of his being will be able to reach a better understanding of the unconscious psychic processes, and will be saved from the danger of inflation to which the psychologist is prone” Jung pg 144
This is interesting...I just picked that book up again, as I carry these thinking motivators with me in my van and I simply opened it to a page and wrote down the first line that registered in my eyes.
I have a problem with the unconscious being “closed” as I feel it is never so. It is
often on the surface, during the day and at night in dreams.
I never had a problem with “ego” as I never knew about it except in casual conversations like... “He has a big ego”. They were called bullies and you put them in detention and don’t let them have a piece of that birthday cake, that they love.
Here it is here... just found this which will help me to start helping to articulate my feeling on all this boxed rhetorical psychology bullshit on ids, egos, anima/animus. I need to trust myself more... with my poetic authority. Yet I do have duty to not be rude or arrogant in responses. I must be articulate and eloquent, which I feel has nothing to do with ego...
Overview http://www.textetc.com/theory/jung.html
Jung's psychiatry is as much a myth as Freud's, and no more successful in treating mental illness (i.e beyond providing a listening ear), but does provide a broader perspective. Artists are not seen as neurotics, and Jung's archetypes resemble Lakoff and Johnson's schemas.
Introduction
Carl Jung (1875-1961) rejected the mechanistic and reductive aspects of Freud's work and broadened psychoanalysis to include art, mythology and the thought processes of native peoples. He was much closer to common sense than Freud, and gradually moved away from a causative model of personality. Psychic energy was not entirely or even fundamentally sexual in origin. Not all neuroses were rooted in childhood development: one needed to consider the present circumstances, and what hopes the client entertained towards the future.
Jung saw the psyche or total personality as several interacting systems. In place of Freud's superego, ego and id, Jung recognized an ego, a personal unconscious and a collective unconscious. In the personal unconscious were to be found various complexes, and in the collective unconscious were archetypal dispositions to think, perceive and act in a certain way
.
WOW... this is exhausting... but, thanks for opening this up... am sure we will continue I think... I will go back to Jung for a bit. I simply find too much typical, over used, worn out ideology in that tired old box of words and phrases
MacD
Well Mr. Malay, move on from Jung to something more recent. While valuable, it is quite tired and dated. You can trust that I've spent a lot of time on the subject of psychology. A lot has happened in the discipline since Jung and Freud, but they were the originators who lived in extremely sexually uptight times. It is what it is. A good jumping off point for study. Early medical doctors 'bled' people, remember?
When I read your words I am reminded of Scientology…which espouses the same views towards psychologists.
It is difficult to be objective when considering a line of thought. Our biases scream first, our brain jumps in second. Roddie, my friend, I feel your vehemence against any mention of God or soul or spirit. You are certainly entitled to your opinions, but I'm saddened that other positions are not allowed air without insult.
Who of us is certain about what is and what isn't?
I've been to many psychologists and a couple/three psychiatrists (the difference being they become medical doctors first). I didn't like it or benefit from it. I suspect most therapists are glorified social workers. But it doesn't mean the discipline is without merit, or that there are no effective psychologists out there somewhere.
The Ego is a central concept in any kind of work I've read by any psychologist. It may have a different name, but it means the same thing. It is one's concept of himself within the context of his world. I'm not sure one has to be a good student of psychology to have insight into his own thoughts and motivations.
I believe along with you that the population is pretty fucked up today. That's a whole other subject I've thought a good deal about, but that's for another day.
This is all material for THE BOOK. I've been inspired by you and I'm already knee deep.
By the way, the dictionary lists "rhetoric" as a synonym for "eloquence". Interesting.
Rod
Yes... you are right... move on but, you did ask about ego. I gave an opinion and not an aggressive one and you came back with a authoritative declaration on the subject that I read as not poetic rather written in stone from another era, that I found challenging. So I grouped around on the subject attempting to articulate a response, that even I was not all that happy with.
“Ego is self!” is that a recent declaration or did Freud declare it so or is that your invention, your discovery. I never really gave it any thought, except because of your letter that started all this intrigue, where I responded with a separation of ego from self ."Ego” is an ancient descriptive of one’s essence, I suppose and it really does not have a favourable reputation so how can it be the “all” of self, when the self is composed of other character descriptives, that are more favourable.
“The consciousness I have spoken of before lives outside of the ego and is the part of us that has no ego” you say. Is this not a contradiction against “Ego is Self”.
I have never studied scientology but, I would not want to be in that club. Tom Cruise and a few other Hollywood ding bats are members. In fact I do not want to be in anyone’s club
.
You are a challenging lady my “DEAR” friend
Now lets see the other issues.
Yes, I definitely have an issue with ignorance. I was awaken out of sleep this morning with this thought: All religions are hate crimes against humanity. Religions become a target of ridicule as they violate civil liberties and human rights. This is especially so in the case of women, as well as many other social issues... homosexuality, stem cell research, abortion, euthanasia and others I forget. So this is a contradiction to the so called “benevolent God in Heaven” or where ever in hell he lives. So why should I be tolerant of religion, of “GOD”. There is some parallel here, though certainly not as extreme, with recent journalists espousing an “ideology” of the “Islamic State” to explain their debauchery, when they are simply reptilian butcherers.
This is not me feeling insulted... it is me challenging the dumbing down language of: “Who of us is certain about what is and what isn't?”. In my Poetic Authority... there is no “is” Rhetorical it is yes... eloquent it is not. I will not hide my opinion on this nor will I challenges any who do not challenge me on this subject but, it is bedding down with law breakers.
Words have different meanings in different contexts. There is no question that some politicians are eloquent rhetoricalists, the bastards... Harper not included, though a bastard he is. For me, eloquent means expressiveness, poise, wittiness if possible, articulation in my search for creative invention but not for the parroting of worn out hackney proverbs.
Bon soir MacD
Here we go again. There is definitely a problem discussing/debating/exploring subjects when not face to face. Seems like we both put our "dukes" up. You asked questions about the 'ego', and I told you what I knew, perhaps not well. Then you called it bullshit, then I felt insulted, then I insulted you so-to-speak, and on and on. The written word is not the perfect communicator.
You asked me about ego. I didn't make the term 'ego' up. Even the dictionary on my macbook defines it as "a person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance", which is rather vague I agree. But I feel clear about its meaning in psychological terms and don't think I asked you for an explanation. Why do we get so hung up on semantics? It takes me so far away from the crux of my intended message. Like a skirmish on the sidelines.
But perhaps digging into words helps crystallize the argument for one or the other. On the subject of speaking with a voice that is heard as "authoritative and not poetic", I surrender. We've been through that one and my understanding of how you 'hear' my words is still fuzzy, so it will likely continue as I don't know how to change it, even if I wanted to.
I'm grateful we have these exploration of ideas and thoughts that we exchange. You do frustrate me, as I do you, but I feel I am expanding my knowledge and understanding and I hope you see it that way too.
I heard this expression years ago, and I try to keep it in mind, "He who argues with the loudest voice is still trying to convince himself".
Rod
I am not upset, frustrated or insulted. On the contrary, what I am finding ever more intriguing is the glib use of our language, a use that spreads across all languages. The word “Ego” so easily and mindlessly slips off the tongue that it is pragmatically ineffective. This is so with a huge percentage of our language.
I am actually, methodically, working toward a more effective voicing in how I use language and so shy away from words that are so commonplace that the listerner has stopped listening. I have not yet succeeded in precise, economic use in my utterances. But a lot of people have achieved that goal and they become my tutor heroes in the art of communication. The ego crap of my genetic code has a lot of influence in my indoctrinated behaviour. I see it as the hegemony invader... like Putin. I suppose ego, if it is “self” might be akin to cancer cells, that I understand rests through the human body but remains dormant... in healthy bodies, with high immunity firewalls?
Can I get back to the “original'’ mould, to speak from my own centre where my personal receptors have not been tampered with by the predominance of trespassers.
MacD
I'm asking myself these questions:
The brain, the mind, the ego, the subconscious and the conscious self….how would I define their meaning in relation to each other?
Where does 'consciousness' fit in? Is the mind separate from consciousness?
Interesting. I like your idea regarding words/communication.
I do agree that many words today have lost their meaning, such as 'depression' when referring to being bummed out or sad. "Grow" your business---that's another one, and "branding" yet another. But I think 'consciousness' has probably the most confusing and misunderstood usage. Today there is a 'consciousness movement', mostly online social media driven which is huge. I enjoy it and I'm delighted to see a younger generation fed up with how we currently do things. That doesn't mean I agree with everything posted. I'm also okay with my usage of 'ego'.
The trouble is that the list of words we think are overused or misused are different for everyone. I happen to think 'bullshit' is overused, and certainly doesn't possess it's original meaning. It's value is in packing a punch, like slamming a door.
And I do like the word eloquence in the context you intend. Frankly, I think it would be easier to replace the word rhetoric, and keep 'eloquence'. I don't think people use 'eloquence' to mean rhetoric or persuasiveness.
Well today I've been up and down working on final negotiations on a house we're selling. This is the buyer's fourth offer, and we've been at it for 4 months. So no work on THE BOOK today.
Rod
Consciousness goes back to my thoughts on genetic memory and my Secular Cell… a simple biological explanation, void of the myths of psychiatric authority.
MacD
It occurs to me that we both possess "buttons" I'm thinking of this now, not as it relates to discussions between us, but in terms of the ideologies we possess and espouse in general. I see 'buttons' as emotional triggers resulting in a conditioned knee-jerk reactions, learned over time, for whatever reason. I also see them as weaknesses. Personally, I would like to overcome these buttons I possess so that my thinking remains clear and open and not hijacked by unidentified emotional baggage that clouds my reception and consideration of alternate ideas. Having certain buttons that kick off a reaction may be very understandable given someone's history, but they steal opportunities and take away from learning. Like a wheel rolling along new ground and suddenly slipping into a well worn and unhelpful rut.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to once again try to see my buttons for what they are, and tamper them back down where they belong.
Rod
Yeah... true but, some buttons are precious and should not be junked carelessly. They often are gut reactions to important issues that define our identity, that make us human, lest we might simply be robots. No need to apologise, take offence or indeed, defend. Let the buttons flash red as demand arises but, hang onto humour to moderate the passion, yet not so to depreciate the importance of the issue.
Sir John A Macdonald comes to mind... Drunk in the Parliament House, he throws up and responds with, '’Every time I look across at the opposition I throw up”
MacD
That's funny! It reminds me of Winston Churchill, when being told by his (not well liked) hostess, "Churchill, you are drunk!!", to which he replies, "Yes, I am. But you, Madam, are ugly. And I will be sober in the morning."
Play
No comments:
Post a Comment