Feelings/ego/magic

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Feelings/ego/magic

Post  highnoon on Mon 20 Dec 2010, 22:23

I was analyzing my thought process how feelings override logic.

scenario..your child is burning in a housefire, if you're a normal parent, you will be compelled to risk your life to save your child. the situation doesnt have a logical component. if you're afraid, lets say youre a stranger, part of you might want to save the kid but there are some strangers that wont be influenced by feeling to risk their life. your logic can talk in the background, but its really up to when and how a feeling comes before an action will take place. the talking part that we do with ourselves is like mixing chemicals so that it have a result. you know that its possible that by changing views you can change how to feel but you dont know until you've thought it if it has worked or not. but for the stranger unlike the parent, there isnt any process that is encouraging a will to save the child. youre just not a hero. but then somebody says something that you didnt think of and magically you have a change of feeling. youve now had a change and are going into the building.

its a giant tug of war. but how do we know if the action is good for us or not. if somebody is pre-disposed to negativity, it might be like everytime an alchemical reaction is about to take place or is taking place. they can always find the appropriate A B C fire repellent to put it out. negative people might not let wills grow that are starting up, but it has to be because they value not reaching the result that the will would take them to, which is in some cases, should be anathema to the success and survival of somebody

ive re-evaluated my stance on the ego. i think its good, but its not altruistic. i think ethics are what is supposed to be weighed against the ego, but i want to leave ethics out because its complicated.
my new defination of the ego isnt to think of it as good/bad but to identify what it does.
The ego is simply a force to make sure we stick to certain ideals, which are important to our personal survival. a bunch of ideals fall under the umbrella of the ego, which it serves to protect. ergo you will not protect those ideals if you have a weak ego or no ego.

There is a question ive been wondering. how can some people not have strong egos and consider it a good thing, if it can be defined as a force to make sure we stick to certain ideals. the ego is a source of passion and determination.

we just dont see more than 3 out of 10 people developing an ego. or if they do it can be in the context of their inferior category of lifestyle. for instance the socialite people have strong egos, but those who play fantasy card games, the dorks and nerds. they can have gigantic, annoying egos, pertaining to game theory, skills etc. but if they arent in they're element of a fantasy wargame or something, they're reduced to somebody who cant even speak with confidence in the presence of a pair of good looking people dating each other.

they're feeling state and ego scope only covers their subsect of society. I would even say that while the ego functions in the same manner, they hold different ideals. therefore the ego can be trained to operate towards the attainment and maintenence of a set of values different from basic/natural sexual prowess. an ego might even function to hold a person back while presenting the attainment and maintenence of a set of values. its really just locking values into place and generating energy in motion

if you feel youre inadequate, how can you have an ego because you would be therefore "protecting" inadequacy? i think this is the problem with people who dont find themselves receiving positive peer feedback . the default logic is, the ego shuts down "because" the individual is worthless. it doesnt think in terms of transformation into a new individual and therefore the protection of that future individual and attainment and maintenence of that future individuals ideals. the persons brain just tries to create an environment to kill whats currently there, and whats amazing to me is that this is the self killing the self. humans on average dont fight designations or labels. they accept them. and self destruction commences on behalf of the benefit of the people doing the labeling.

and naturally the default logic of the superiors in society is a nature view too. but the nurturing view is the only thing that will change your nature. but both sides default to nature. the individual thinks i am because i am and the superior says to that individual you are because you always will be. and the ego stops functioning in any capacity to take that individual to the heights of other people with functioning egos
avatar
highnoon

Posts : 568
Join date : 2009-11-18
Age : 32

Back to top Go down

Re: Feelings/ego/magic

Post  KapitanScarlet on Tue 21 Dec 2010, 01:00

highnoon wrote:I was analyzing my thought process how feelings override logic.

scenario..your child is burning in a housefire, if you're a normal parent, you will be compelled to risk your life to save your child. the situation doesnt have a logical component. if you're afraid, lets say youre a stranger, part of you might want to save the kid but there are some strangers that wont be influenced by feeling to risk their life. your logic can talk in the background, but its really up to when and how a feeling comes before an action will take place. the talking part that we do with ourselves is like mixing chemicals so that it have a result. you know that its possible that by changing views you can change how to feel but you dont know until you've thought it if it has worked or not. but for the stranger unlike the parent, there isnt any process that is encouraging a will to save the child. youre just not a hero. but then somebody says something that you didnt think of and magically you have a change of feeling. youve now had a change and are going into the building.

Whatever they said, activates either the ego or maybe even the conscience aspect of the conscious i for reasons relating to new introduced people relating associations or responsibilitys

its a giant tug of war. but how do we know if the action is good for us or not. if somebody is pre-disposed to negativity, it might be like everytime an alchemical reaction is about to take place or is taking place. they can always find the appropriate A B C fire repellent to put it out. negative people might not let wills grow that are starting up, but it has to be because they value not reaching the result that the will would take them to, which is in some cases, should be anathema to the success and survival of somebody
I like the analogy for judging whether feelings are aloud to create actions or not

ive re-evaluated my stance on the ego. i think its good, but its not altruistic. i think ethics are what is supposed to be weighed against the ego, but i want to leave ethics out because its complicated.
my new defination of the ego isnt to think of it as good/bad but to identify what it does.
The ego is simply a force to make sure we stick to certain ideals, which are important to our personal survival. a bunch of ideals fall under the umbrella of the ego, which it serves to protect. ergo you will not protect those ideals if you have a weak ego or no ego.
What you say here reminds me off a healthy egocentric condition, but there is also an unhealthy egotistic condition where ideals are not so much the drive as an obese attention for the self and as you say an unhealthy condition where there is even a repressed ego

There is a question ive been wondering. how can some people not have strong egos and consider it a good thing, if it can be defined as a force to make sure we stick to certain ideals. the ego is a source of passion and determination.

we just dont see more than 3 out of 10 people developing an ego. or if they do it can be in the context of their inferior category of lifestyle. for instance the socialite people have strong egos, but those who play fantasy card games, the dorks and nerds. they can have gigantic, annoying egos, pertaining to game theory, skills etc. but if they arent in they're element of a fantasy wargame or something, they're reduced to somebody who cant even speak with confidence in the presence of a pair of good looking people dating each other.

I see 2 stages of ego expression or lack of it, in the i-consciousness, first is realized an ego-desire which i would term a virtual ego condition, then when that virtual desire has been realized, as in manifested in reality experience, the 2 stages are completed, and the person aquires a little reality ego.
Consistent failures to manifest a virtual ego desire into reality could also have a detrimental effect on the reality ego development
So what can occur, is someones ego in their virtual mind / thoughts can be huge, but their reality ego which is the virtual ego that has been manifested in real events with other people could be tiny or even non-existant or even in a negative-equity condition dependent on how they have been able to transmute their virtual ego into a reality ego .
In the past, the majority of ego development took place around ones peers or associates, ego development was very closely related to physicality and communication skills , but now with the development of the virtual scene, the first stage of ego expression has been given a life of its own that does not have to be reality tested, just virtually tested against other consciousnesses.
The spectacled 98 pound guy on the beech can now kick virtual sand in the 240 pound muscled guy in a virtual encounter



they're feeling state and ego scope only covers their subsect of society. I would even say that while the ego functions in the same manner, they hold different ideals. therefore the ego can be trained to operate towards the attainment and maintenence of a set of values different from basic/natural sexual prowess. an ego might even function to hold a person back while presenting the attainment and maintenence of a set of values. its really just locking values into place and generating energy in motion

Any example of the holding person back theory which sounds authentic possible to me

if you feel youre inadequate, how can you have an ego because you would be therefore "protecting" inadequacy? i think this is the problem with people who dont find themselves receiving positive peer feedback . the default logic is, the ego shuts down "because" the individual is worthless. it doesnt think in terms of transformation into a new individual and therefore the protection of that future individual and attainment and maintenence of that future individuals ideals. the persons brain just tries to create an environment to kill whats currently there, and whats amazing to me is that this is the self killing the self. humans on average dont fight designations or labels. they accept them. and self destruction commences on behalf of the benefit of the people doing the labeling.

I think the inadequacy comes from consistently failing to transmute a virtual ego desire into an ego reality gain , or even just being around people whos egos are attuned to a completly different rythym to the selfs , leading to a self turning on its self, because it cant seem to get what it wants from the society around it

and naturally the default logic of the superiors in society is a nature view too. but the nurturing view is the only thing that will change your nature. but both sides default to nature. the individual thinks i am because i am and the superior says to that individual you are because you always will be. and the ego stops functioning in any capacity to take that individual to the heights of other people with functioning egos

A very stimulating piece high noon, my comments stimulated by it, when i read your piece , i got the FIRST impression of Pirsigs writing style
avatar
KapitanScarlet
Admin

Posts : 3292
Join date : 2009-11-16

http://darythymdivine.forumotion.net

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum