Explanation of paradigm differences

[Senthil]

Certainly a goal is to rid oneself of the ego 'I', and become more soul-like in nature. So if it doesn't speak occasionally, I guess we're getting nowhere. But it can 'speak' in a sense, to the ego-self, in the form of flashes of insight. Intuition and direct cognition are the languages of the soul. So this would remain silent within the individual, as the minute it comes out telling others, it is no longer from the soul, but from the ego-self, and this is often termed a spiritual ego ... and another reason why mystics are taught to keep quiet.

It is a long road.

 

[Thomas]

But it can 'speak' in a sense, to the ego-self, in the form of flashes of insight. Intuition and direct cognition are the languages of the soul.

Indeed, and nicely put. This I would say is the 'dark knowing', that is often written off as 'blind faith' simply because it does not arise from the normal intellectual process.

One of the big questions I have with the modern world is the priority of 'objectivity'. It's become something of a holy grail, and yet whilst there is objectivity, there is duality. Non-duality is a non-egoic subjectivity.

At the start, subjectivity is an impediment because it is ego-oriented, so the virtues to be practiced, detachment, humility, meditation, prayer etc., are the disciplines of 'putting the self to one side', as it were, and of course suggest objectivity.

At some point it switches, and with the ego properly disposed towards the cosmos, then one can appreciate authentic and trans-egoic subjectivity, or rather a state in which their is neither subject nor object...

 

[Senthil]

Too much analysis for me, I'm afraid. The mystic intellect is full of dense fog. I need to go dig in the garden.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

This reminds me of the Zen saying, "What do we do before enlightenment? Chop wood, carry water. What do we do after enlightenment? Chop wood, carry water."

 

[Senthil]

Two renowned sages met, and sat together in silence for a few hours. Later a devotee asked, "Why didn't you say something?"
"Nothing to say," was the response.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Non-duality is a non-egoic subjectivity.

I get stuck here, where do duality-non-duality and subjectivity-objectivity intersect?
And do subjectivity necessarily imply ego-orientation? I understand how it does in the many topics that have popped up over the years, but I don't think my own subjectivity is so much a result of my ego as much as the general chaos of the world, that is the lack of objectivity.

 

[Thomas]

I get stuck here, where do duality-non-duality and subjectivity-objectivity intersect?

They don't. They can't. subject-object is dual.

And do subjectivity necessarily imply ego-orientation?

I think it's fair to say the general tendency is 'look after no.1'

... but I don't think my own subjectivity is so much a result of my ego as much as the general chaos of the world, that is the lack of objectivity.

Objectivity might well be the illusion.

The distinction might well be between 'me for me' subjectivity versus 'me for thee' subjectivity. That's the difference between 'eros' and 'agape' in Traditional Christian metaphysics.

In general terms I wonder if what psychology designates 'the ego' is just the self which sees the world as something there at its disposal. Someone who 'transcends the ego' is simply someone with a tad more empathy or altruism?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Generally agree to your post. The only way to get out of the illusion is to take help of science.

 

[Thomas]

The only way to get out of the illusion is to take help of science.

Ooh, steady There's some scientists who propose that science is subject to certain illusions! There was a lengthy article in New Scientist recently in which a group of scientists were arguing that certain accepted axioms of science are not 'written in stone' and might well be illusory ... the data is right, but because of our preconceptions we read it the wrong way ...

But I agree, with the reservation that we rely on science only so far as its axioms declare it reliable. Beyond that, it's faith.

 

[wil]

I have come to realize that science contains its own religious fervor and zealots.you

 

[Aupmanyav]

Beyond that, it's faith.

You mean beyond that it is one's fancy?

I have come to realize that science contains its own religious fervor and zealots. you

No, wil. I am well aware of the short-comings of science.

 

[Thomas]

You mean beyond that it is one's fancy?

Well when people start making claims for science that the science itself does not make.

Sometimes it's fancy. Sometimes its misunderstanding. Sometimes I think it's a claim made to boost book sales. Stephen Hawking seems to have a sharp eye for the latter.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

The distinction might well be between 'me for me' subjectivity versus 'me for thee' subjectivity. That's the difference between 'eros' and 'agape' in Traditional Christian metaphysics.

Yes I see, but I don't really know. Is 'me for me' subjectivity more common than 'me for thee' subjectivity? It's hard test these things, all we can go on is our experiences I guess. There must be a something equivalent in Objectivity? People using a system for their own purpose? Either a ego-centric system or a corruption of any other system.

I believe the human is what the human is, the system whether it is subjective or objective will only reflect what is already there. Be it 'me for me' or 'me for thee'.

In general terms I wonder if what psychology designates 'the ego' is just the self which sees the world as something there at its disposal. Someone who 'transcends the ego' is simply someone with a tad more empathy or altruism?

That I think is the 'Id', unless you where talking about psychology that completely reject Fraud's thoughts. I don't know enough about this to make a trustworthy description but I'm thinking 'the ego' is more the self-aware part of the psyche.