Ego? Duality? Nonsense!

[Chicodoodoo]

=========

Warning: Sacrilege ahead.

=========

Reminder: Do not shoot the messenger. Attack the ideas.

Purpose: The pursuit of truth.

Catalyst: Go home and rethink your life.

Tools: Question everything, dismiss nothing.

Hypothesis: Duality does not exist, ego is not necessarily bad

Summary:

There is no duality. We are steeped in the idea of duality, but it is an illusion. It is a function of our language and our way of comparative thinking. These are not “polarities”: Yin – Yang, Male – Female, Good - Bad, Selfless - Egotistic. They are simply points on a continuum. We identify them as opposites, but in truth they are relative measures of a particular thing. Think of this measure as a slider, like the volume control on an amplifier. When the slider is all the way to the right, we have “loud”. When all the way to the left, we have “quiet”. The thing we are controlling, or measuring, is the amplitude of the sound waves. It is a real phenomenon, it exists, and we have labels to describe it.

Male and female are variations of the same thing, a measure of gender. We like to believe you are either one or the other, and this is true most of the time. But there are exceptions that challenge our notions of gender. And from the embryonic development standpoint, it is clear that the same physical structures are present in both males and females, though highly modified.

Good and bad are measures of the same thing, a measure of benefit. Those that say there really is no good and bad are, in a certain sense, correct. Good and bad are really only relative positions on the slider measuring benefit. However, benefits do exist, and they are real.

Then we come to egotistic and selfless. What are we measuring there? We measure the degree to which self benefits as opposed to others. But here the slider model doesn’t really work. It is possible for the slider to be in two positions at once, i.e. we can benefit others and ourselves. Our sense of self, our internal identity, is what we call the ego. It has very little to do with what we are measuring here. In fact, I find it very unfortunate that the labels we use to measure the relative benefits to ourselves and others are “selfless” and “egotistic”. When we greatly benefit others with less benefit to ourselves, have we lost our sense of self? No. To the contrary, I think it is a very mature sense of self that allows us to behave in this admirable manner. Likewise, it is an immature, poorly developed sense of self that makes us behave in a “selfish” manner (another misleading label). Given the unfortunate choice of descriptive words we use here, it is easy to see why the confusion is so great.

Several times in the Avalon forum, I have remarked on the immense difficulties of communicating clearly with the language we have at hand. “The words get in the way.” Even when you choose your words carefully, misunderstandings are rampant, because people understand the meaning of words differently.

“It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is,” said Bill Clinton.

[greybeard]

There is no need to worry Chicodoodoo.
Every enlightened teacher says virtually the same thing you have posted here.
They live in unity consciousness.
All belief systems to go, all concepts etc.
They have to meet us where we stand though.
They know that ego is just a thought an identification with the me story in the head it has no foundation in reality it is nonexistent it is the illusion the creator of Maya.
It is ok to have good self esteem, you are a unique aspect of One, that is not ego in this use of language.

So having met us where we stand in duality they help us to remove obstacles to see clearly that we are in union with all.
In that state the enlightened one is more alive more aware that we are in a normal state.
They see things as they really are without the filter of subconscious mind
Scientists are now proving that we are linked to the furthest star and everything else.
There is only one energy which solidifies at different vibration rates to take up the billions of forms in the universe

Its a complex subject though considering it is talking about an illusion a mere thought.

chris

[giovonni]

Thank you my Friend,

Sometimes when you do thinketh too hard, i have to admit it is truly worth pondering upon

[king anthony]

I say, 'it is what it is'; why need to complicate the uncomplicated as most do - (with labels); as such things only feed arrogance and give comfort to those in need.

Does it matter to a picture, which color is more; or does the observer see the picture as it is - in the whole!? Do not the divisions of 'black and white', 'he or she, and 'them and us' create what unity is not!?

How does separation of anything aid in the survival and judgment of the whole!? Does not the voice of one, or some, continue the struggle which the whole wishes to escape from!?

Are not things simply what they are - cycles within existence with drama created by thought!?

I say, how is denying one way and accepting another better; does not the possibility to repeat that which has been before exist - cannot there be something new, such as true equality without resurrecting old ways!?

Duality is an illusion, a tool for the few and comfort for those who need.

I say, take heed not to perpetuate inquiry, as nothing will ever be gained; and the birth of duality is by the womb of 'ego'. For sure, words have power based on meaning, 'depends upon what the meaning of the word is' - only those with ability, will understand.

[Zook]

Posted by Chicodoodoo (here)
=========
Warning: Sacrilege ahead.
=========
Reminder: Do not shoot the messenger. Attack the ideas.
Purpose: The pursuit of truth.
Catalyst: Go home and rethink your life.
Tools: Question everything, dismiss nothing.
Hypothesis: Duality does not exist, ego is not necessarily bad

Summary:
There is no duality. We are steeped in the idea of duality, but it is an illusion. It is a function of our language and our way of comparative thinking. These are not “polarities”: Yin – Yang, Male – Female, Good - Bad, Selfless - Egotistic. They are simply points on a continuum.
[...]

Well, Chico, everything that originates from the zero point is part of the continuum, technically speaking. Even dark matter and light matter can be argued as extensions of the same continuum. Having said that, light matter and dark matter can be argued as dualistic extensions of the continuum. Taken further, unity can be argued as an attribute of the zero point; and indeed, the very definition of the zero point prior to expansion. Coaxed off the zero point, unity doesn't exist so much as itself, but as an extension of itself ... one of these extensions being duality.

To wit, duality is an extension of unity; indeed, it is the most common extension of it ... certainly, humans understand duality better than they do either unity or the trinity.



ps: I'm a dualist myself, which really means I'm of the unity, e.g. an extension of it.

ps2: I like the way you think ... and the way you challenge thinkers to better thought.

[Chicodoodoo]

Posted by Zook (here)
Well, Chico, everything that originates from the zero point is part of the continuum, technically speaking.

{Chuckle} OOOOkaaay... That doesn't tell me what the zero point is, if it even existed, how we know it existed, how it could exist, what came before it, what "space" (container) it existed in, and on and on down the list of unanswered questions.

But you sure make an impressive-sounding argument. Are you sure you weren't one of those ancient Greek philosophers that could argue the pants off any opponent, and then switch sides on the issue and do it again? It's almost enough to make me believe in reincarnation!

To wit, duality is an extension of unity; indeed, it is the most common extension of it

As I see it, it is a misinterpretation of unity, not an extension.

I like the way you think ... and the way you challenge thinkers to better thought.

Thanks. I am here to challenge rigid thinking, both my own rigid thinking and the rigid thinking of others.

[Teakai]

I agree, with that, Chicoodoo.
My visual take on it is like people standing in a line each shining a torch (flashlight) on a wall. The closer you hold the torch, the smaller and more defined the light, as you draw back the torch the circle expands the the line of definition blurs - going back even further the light of each of the torches blends and becomes unified.

In regard to the duality part it is just looking at the before = separate individual consciousness and the after = united consciousness.

Different perceptions of the same light.

[truthseekerdan]

Posted by Chicodoodoo (here)
Thanks. I am here to challenge rigid thinking, both my own rigid thinking and the rigid thinking of others.

To be able to do that, one needs to "free the mind"...

[ROMANWKT]

Chico, one cannot function here as light or darkness, one has to assume the centre of scale, hense there you are and from that stance a choice is made by you of who you think you are. and that will set a role you wish to play, hense ego. Light, ego, dark, the real trinity?? form still centre all power to you.

Did you ever read my nonsense????

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...onsense-part-1

[truthseekerdan]

The ego in its natural form is best suited to harmonize or give unity to the mind. The ego in its simplest form is best equipped to organize and provide balance to the mind. Balance means that one is harmonizing with and not resisting the forces that begin to alter perception and the sense of self. However, a complex or inflated ego can block us from understanding the source of any fundamental truth, including our love of life, others and essential nature.

[Chicodoodoo]

Posted by ROMANWKT (here)
Did you ever read my nonsense????

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...onsense-part-1

No, I haven't. I just took a brief look at it (I didn't realize it was so long), and it is quite the elaborate belief system. Whenever I see something that elaborate, I always question the premise, which in this case is in the first sentence: "We know that there is a law in the universe, and all others are derivatives of this law." How do we know that?

Sorry, I can't help myself.... It's that darn "question everything" tool.

[RedeZra]

Nature is neither good nor bad but neutral


Nature is united til Man comes along and divides it by his thinking

still Nature is united but Man is divided by himself and in himself


Unity can not be reached by a clever thought but by an honest heart


God has put His standard in our hearts and not our heads

[Teakai]

Posted by truthseekerdan (here)
The ego in its natural form is best suited to harmonize or give unity to the mind. The ego in its simplest form is best equipped to organize and provide balance to the mind. Balance means that one is harmonizing with and not resisting the forces that begin to alter perception and the sense of self. However, a complex or inflated ego can block us from understanding the source of any fundamental truth, including our love of life, others and essential nature.

I know there's a lot of theories about what ego is and what it's not, but in the end - isn't ego simply the belief of who we are attained from the five senses?

I think our society - those driving and designing our society - have played and preyed on us believing that we are the illusion they feed us.

I have wondered what humanity would be like - if from the day a human is born they are raised and educated knowing that they are not simply the information taken in from their 5 senses. If they were educated in the ways of things esoteric and with true knowledge - would ego then exist?
Does it only exist today due to the lies we are told about ourselves?

[Zook]

Posted by Chicodoodoo (here)

Posted by Zook (here)
Well, Chico, everything that originates from the zero point is part of the continuum, technically speaking.

{Chuckle} OOOOkaaay... That doesn't tell me what the zero point is, if it even existed, how we know it existed, how it could exist, what came before it, what "space" (container) it existed in, and on and on down the list of unanswered questions.

The zero point is the limit of the extrapolation of time and space back to the original state. The singularity of time and space in the narrative of the Big Bang. In other narratives, there is no zero point but the state of space in zero time. Which begs the question, can we negotiate the conscious realm with an understanding of infinity that falls short in some details? If so, we can also understand the zero point without knowing all its details. Regardless, the proposition of unity understands that discrete boundaries are a part of the unity, like walls in a house.

To wit, the separating wall between two rooms creates duality ... the two rooms and the separating wall each belong to the larger unity called the apartment. Alternatively, to each of various nested unities (e.g. upstairs; downstairs; the whole house; the whole neighborhood; the whole municipality ... etc.; etc. ... the whole planet; the whole system of planets; etc.; etc.).

But you sure make an impressive-sounding argument. Are you sure you weren't one of those ancient Greek philosophers that could argue the pants off any opponent, and then switch sides on the issue and do it again? It's almost enough to make me believe in reincarnation!

They gave Socrates hemlock when he wanted hope. You give me hope, Chico ... you have my gratitude.

To wit, duality is an extension of unity; indeed, it is the most common extension of it

As I see it, it is a misinterpretation of unity, not an extension.

Two rooms and a separating wall inside an apartment observe both unity and duality. It is easier to make the case that unity (e.g. apartment) accommodates duality (e.g. rooms) ... than that duality accommodates unity. Ergo, I've extended unity to duality. A mother and her twins, as it were.

I like the way you think ... and the way you challenge thinkers to better thought.

Thanks. I am here to challenge rigid thinking, both my own rigid thinking and the rigid thinking of others.

Like I said, Chico, you give me hope.

[Davidallany]

Hi Mr. Chicodoodoo. Is it ok if I reply to this thread?

[Gardener]

Hypothesis: Duality does not exist, ego is not necessarily bad

I agree, simply put, the world and the ego do not exist to be overcome becaue they are assumed 'bad'. A well integrated person has ego 'strengths' which assist with interactions in the world which benefit others and in doing so benefit self; ego antipathies are learned usually before the age of 5 for protection from hurt. They have a purpose at the time.

The continum of opposites I fully agree with, sort of a see-saw, standing in the midle balancing the ends according to personal perception. However, evil as a construct, I see as working against another for self gain.

Ok its late here, but just wanted to stick my oar in on this interesting subject. (ty chico)

g

[Chicodoodoo]

Posted by Zook (here)
The zero point is the limit of the extrapolation of time and space back to the original state.

Extrapolation, as practiced by humans, is a straight line. It assumes no variation, no changes, nothing complex, nothing unexpected, and nothing yet to be learned. If the state of reality is represented by some complex curve (I seriously doubt it's a straight line), and we are somewhere on that curve, extrapolating back in time using a straight line has almost no chance of arriving at the curve's starting point, even if the curve had a starting point. And we want to talk about that theoretical zero point as if it has meaning? I just can't do it. Another premise lost.....

To wit, the separating wall between two rooms creates duality

To me, that's like dividing a number line and saying we have duality. No matter how many times we divide the number line, there is only one number line stretching off into infinity in both directions. Wait! There is duality! Two directions! Oh, right, somehow they both go to the same place, infinity, so we're back to unity.

They gave Socrates hemlock when he wanted hope.

I'm still angry about that.

Like I said, Chico, you give me hope.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=XgDrJ5Z2rKw

[Chicodoodoo]

Posted by Davidallany (here)
Hi Mr. Chicodoodoo. Is it ok if I reply to this thread?

You need not ask. The thread is open to all. Be my guest.

[Gardener]

Chicodoodoo

To me, that's like dividing a number line and saying we have duality. No matter how many times we divide the number line, there is only one number line stretching off into infinity in both directions. Wait! There is duality! Two directions! Oh, right, somehow they both go to the same place, infinity, so we're back to unity.

Come back from infinity, we are'nt there yet , we are still in 3D (well I am), take away direction, 'out there, over there' Ok, add context, where is duality now?

[truthseekerdan]

Posted by Teakai (here)

Posted by truthseekerdan (here)
The ego in its natural form is best suited to harmonize or give unity to the mind. The ego in its simplest form is best equipped to organize and provide balance to the mind. Balance means that one is harmonizing with and not resisting the forces that begin to alter perception and the sense of self. However, a complex or inflated ego can block us from understanding the source of any fundamental truth, including our love of life, others and essential nature.

I know there's a lot of theories about what ego is and what it's not, but in the end - isn't ego simply the belief of who we are attained from the five senses?

I think our society - those driving and designing our society - have played and preyed on us believing that we are the illusion they feed us.

I have wondered what humanity would be like - if from the day a human is born they are raised and educated knowing that they are not simply the information taken in from their 5 senses. If they were educated in the ways of things esoteric and with true knowledge - would ego then exist?
Does it only exist today due to the lies we are told about ourselves?

Hi Teakai, great question. I would say that as long as one (soul) is born in a physical body that has a brain, will also have a 'natural/basic instincts vehicle' a.k.a. as the ego. I did mentioned in my last sentence, that a complex or inflated ego can be somehow compared with a driver in a car, thinking that (s)he is actually the car itself and not the driver. The identification with the body thru conditioning, etc., creates a defensive "animalistic behavior" of separation that is called an inflated ego. Hope this makes sense, if not -- read more here.

Blessings ~ Dan