Positive Egotism: "I am great."
Negative Egotism: "I am shit."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Followers
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(190)
-
▼
December
(18)
- A Charming Vision
- Big-Band Music
- Mythic Benevolent Post
- Mammon
- Belief System
- The Count
- Road to Ruin?
- CIA Rendition Jet crashed with 4 Tons of Cocaine
- Another Literary Breakthrough
- Murder-Mystery Mystery
- New Pelevin Work on Horizon
- Language and Madness
- Art is
- Tolstoy: Master and Man
- Non-Accumulation of the Superfluous
- The Two Faces of Egotism
- Language and 'Language'
- Doubt, Wittgenstein, a Refutation
-
▼
December
(18)
15 comments:
Interesting...though what you mean I think is that both forms of egotism (positive and negative) are actually negative, in the sense of being bad? I'd agree with that.
Is there a genuinely positive egotism, or is all egotism bad?
And the relation between egotism and self-respect and self-love?
I spose I do infer that the two are both chimeras of the self, and the two, rather than contradictory are virtually one and the same.
And I suppose as far as ignorance of self, or a false filter imposing itself upon life and awareness, then both are bad, or ensure against oneself being a living reality, as opposed to a kind of computer programme.
I'd very much have a natural affinity with Krishnamurti, in the sense of not being too concerned with the ego's self-analysis, or with trying to destroy the ego, so much as all this is the creating of problems by the mind, whereas all that is needed is very simple. Though even there, there is nothing needed as what is in no need of anything!
Though we're not simply existing within a real of pure consciousness either, so in the question of egotism as it relates to ordinary human life, positive is obviously far better than negative, but I think this sense of self is solved through the simple experiencing of the real in the first place.
I'd substantially agree with your depiction of the self. And I say 'The Self', becauue I believe that we all have far more in common than we suppose, depsite the apparent and actually experienced sense of alienation we so often and so widely feel from one another in this age of the 'Wasteland'..this era of collective fragmentation.
I suppose Krishnamurti was essentially criticising the traditons of Asia with regard to their customs of manufacturing closed systems of ego explication, or ego diminution. These seem to have replicated in number massively in recent years..as any visit to india, or indeed the new age belt of America might suggest.
But I'm an not sure what you mean by 'real'. One man's reality is another man's illusion. As I felt last night when I listened to Richard Dawkins (a pleasant man so it seems)
I'd agree with virtually of all that, but would disagree with the idea of one man's real being another's illusion. On a subjective level this might seem to be so, but such a realm of gradations of reality is a world of filters over the real, and Dawkins is dwelling in a psychological world of illusion, or has constructed a false, intellectual versions of reality with limitations set upon this reality that are merely the products of erroneous reasoning. If one man's reality is another's illusion in a total sense, then there is no truth, everything being subjective.
It's obviously very difficult- thankfully- to stress what one means by 'the real', and if we could confidently say "this is the real" followed by some intellectual formula, then what kind of value would that have? One could say, I suppose, that the real is what is & the unreal is what isn't, & only the intellect is capable of producing the unreal...
The industry of ego analysis & spirituality you mention, I'd certainly have strong qualms about.
What i really meant was that people have different understandings of what constitues 'the real' and that as such using the word 'real' can lose and confuse readers. I didn't mean that there was no single actual reality (though i would question whether we can ever understand this reality perfectly).
As for who is wrong and who right re the Dawkins issue, certainly I believe that Dawkins is wrong..adding that the God he denies the existence of is in fact an idea of God, not God in-him/her/itself. He seems predominantly to be opposed to religion, and in this I can agree with him in much. To his credit he accepts that there is no proof against God and merely seems,as far as I can see, to be revealing his own lack of transcendental experience (though I suppose he may consider real testimonies of that in others to be caused by cenbrebral malfunctioning or something as yet scientifically inexplicable).
By you saying that Dawkins lives in a world of illusion just begs the question of whether he'd say the same about you (and me)...:)
how does one berak out of this impasse in theist-atheist dialogue?
I like the idea that only the intellect creates the unreal. Could be.
I'd define reality as the totality of all that is created and uncreated, as perceived by an infinite, cosmic consciousness from every conceivable angle and perspective.
So pretty inaccesible then (and obviously ludicrous if one rejects the existence of God). But one can have then gradations of the real..and the form, the lense, by which we peceive the real in the only-relative way we can is through the form we call truth (which, unlike reality, is always a human cognitive, contingent system). This is not relativism as conventionally understood I believe? Such a relativism denies that there is an objective reality that can be known truthfully- at least to an extent.
I like your reality definition.
Regarding "I suppose he may consider real testimonies of that in others to be caused by cenbrebral malfunctioning or something as yet scientifically inexplicable" which seems an accurate summation of the Dawkins type view, this is simply bizarre reasoning which, with no possible justification, attempts to interpret phenomena in terms of other phenomena. I wrote a little parody here on this. It is so devoid of sense that it's hard to know even where to start, but my analogy in the given piece of explaining a symphony in terms of simply being the vibration of air molecules seems a fair analogy. It's actually madness if seen in its truth, as imagine living life, & with every emotion and experience that your mind is rattling away telling yourself that this feeling of joy or sadness etc is actually to be explained in terms of bacteria, genes or whatever and so this emotion is not really real. If someone were to manage to live like this for any length of time, they would simply go completely mad; that's what madness is- a false filter upon reality. To think something can be described as not real because we can say it is explained by something else is meaningless.
'To think something can be described as not real because we can say it is explained by something else is meaningless.'
Yes, I'd agree with that. And it also seems to be implying that everything that is real is real because it can be explained by science. If it can't be so explained then it is supposed either that it is fictitious or that it is potentially real but that science cannot as yet understand it and so prove it real. Dawkins seems to be saying the latter about God: that despite the fact that he, Dawkins, is almost certain there is no God, that if there is then one day we will be able to explain God scientifically. So even if God does exist, the presupposition seems to be that he will prove to be explicable to our science...or thats how I see it anwyay.
Why the presumption, I ask myself, that science has to prove God's existence, or moreover the presumption that God considers that the scientific method is a viable method of compassing reality anyway? That double presumption itself seems like a
pre-judgement in science's own favour somewhat on the basis of grounds that have themselves not been shown, far less proven, to be to be solid or viable....
But as I say, I think Dawkins' main point is that he hates religion. To a great extent so do I. So, I think, does God. If you created the universe and people in it, would you want them to relate to you though bizarre ritualitic formulae and to obsess about how wonderful you are and how wretched and unworthy they are? Wouldn't you rather just that they took notice of you so that you could then show them how happy they could be?
To go to your final paragraph: I'd agree with to a large extent, though not to the point of saying devotion to a God one believes to be infinitely good, forgiving etc is necessarily without value...that can be a very efficacious way of surrendering self and entering life in a deeper way. Also, as personality types, Dawkins and us are presumably comparatively intellectual which isn't naturally so much devotional, but this is probably a minority type, and there are great numbers of people who find this devotional faith natural and essential to their sense of self. I don't see religion as necessarily involving telling people about their wretchedness, and bow down before the great one, etc. That seems to be imposing a structure on religion that is far from true to itself, though organised religion does often assume something like that very form.
However, the isolated ego is certainly wretched as a psychological fact.
An awfu llot of trouble arises from the taking words far too seriously. Because we have a word God, and words tend to refer to definite out there objects, then God is imagined to refer to an out there object, which is essentially a form of materialism, and a divided universe. And from there people try to prove or disprove this object or being referred to by the word God, though this very mode of thinking means that what is actually referred to by the word is utterly beyond their understanding.
Interesting that you thought I meant tht religion was without value. Though i can understand why you thought this. It's becasue of the problem of implication, related to the fact that our language is not pure..i.e utterly on the surface and unambiguous.
I think the fact that God may hate religion to a great extent is not incompatible with his acceptance of the need for religion as a temporary bridge towards him. I think in all matters God is condescending to our level and allowing himself to be understood in forms that can make sense to us. Sometimes, when we are barbaric ourselves, this has unavoidbly meant that he has needed to assent to his own depiction of himself as somewhat barbaric.
I know you kind of said how you understood as much afterwards, but when you write that to a great extent you hate religion, then you're sending out a very strong attitude towrds religion. Hatred being a lot more powerful than, for example, indifference.
I take it for granted that paradox and therefore sometimes apparent contradiction has to necessarily lie at the heart of God's dealings with humanity. I think this has alot to do with the way we reason..dualistically and by oppositions and exclusions, while God sees and thinks holistically and according to highly fine shades of difference, as well as on many different levels simulataneously, in accordance with the aspect of the creation he is dealing with at any given time. In my opinion, anyway.
By a hatred of religion I was merely referring to the frustration, oftentimes acute, that I imagine God must feel being confined into these religious boxes. Indifference would be something quite separate.
However, out of love for humanity and his creation, he accepts that this religious confinement of his infinity and wondrousness into an essentially moralistic and sclerotic straightjacket has been inevitable. ..at least for a while. A while I hope that is drawing to a close.
Of course I could be totally wrong but little makes sense to me if I'm not.
shit..I mean if I'm not right! This starbucks coffee is clearly doing my head in.
I understand, though I'd have a more mystical notion of God...I don't really see God as a separate entity, but at the same time such a notion might be helpful as, like you say regarding religon, a bridge to help one across. I'd also be quite open to Dostoevsky's idea in the Legend of the Grand Inquisitor regarding what is imagined to be religion. The idea, for example, of papal infallibility is an idea so arrogant and proud that it is utterly incompatible with a sense of the divine and the virtues of humility, etc. To declare oneself to be infallible is to declare oneself to be God.
And now I'm off to get some coffee!
How do you take your coffee I wonder, and must it be filter? Here at work they seem to have run out, except for the Turkish variety....
I can see how I spoke suggested a transcendent, separated God. I believe God is like this. But that he is also very immanent, indeed to all intent and purposes identical with the creation, and therefore with Mankind.
God is Man, but Man is not God..in the sense that I am my thumb (as well as my feet) but my thumb is not me (becasue Im also everything else). God includes and surrounds man as a part of himself..but is more than man. God is not just a feature or a property of Man.
PanENthesism..as opposed to the anthropomorphic, projective inventions of 'God' rightly attacked by atheists (and Dawkins I believe)
T.S.Eliot speaks in a way I love, about 'something' being closer than the blood and more distant than the stars.
By an large God as-identified-with-the creation lives a life of slavery, containment and suffering..symbolised most powerfully by the crucifixion of Jesus. In his transcendent aspect, however, he doesn't suffer at all...and indeed doesnt even know what evil is..being pure innocence and delight...or at least doesn't see it (both of which points help him to be forgiving, of course). This understanding is an outworking of the Trinity, according to my way or seeing things.
If you check out my MA paper on Abiezer Coppe (see profile) I go into a fair amount of detail about the immanent-transcendent relation..at least as it relates to my understanding of his work.
Do you actually live in Africa? I read something somewhere about the Congo.
Filtered coffee with cream, I'm not a purist as yet. I'll give your paper a look, and I'd have a natural affinity with the gist of what you write of God.
Not in Africa- Ireland, but I was forced to gove a place and occupation, so enemy of the prosaic that I am...
Post a Comment