Stosh

Doesnt that mean he is connected to a chart?

Handling is one thing, liking is another.

You do realize , that there is a cosmic price to be paid for that.

You said similar yourself recently , so yes , all discussion on this should end right there. There is nothing more of use for anyone to contribute once the true answer is supplied. Anything else is just plain wrong and argumentative. Except for explicit and enthusiastic agreement which should be allowed, but not too much.

Assuming you can run both programs simultaneously, Ill proceed as follows , I really like that iceberg diagram. And I am examining what it suggests, the lit part of the berg, is what we are currently aware of at any given moment. It suggests that one is never conscious of the ID. But if a person is happy or has desires , they know about it , and so at least part of that ID needs to also be in the lit area. The ego, or the person who I think I am , may be very strongly judgemental , having been raised that way , so If my ego agrees with the superego , that its verdicts are both reasonable as well as right, It is no longer simply mediating between the Superego and the ID , so we should erase at least some of the line dividing ego with superego and if I am self indulgent I am siding with the ID, so some of that line should be erased as well. If both my superego and id , along with my ego , were all at least partially above the water, then I would be aware of all of that and my identity would actually be all three, not just in the ego. This would give me the ability to identify with A my desires, B my judgements, C my rationality. Those feelings would all be considered by me to have originated from me and would constitute my Identity to the extent that I was aware of them. If you ask someone 'normal' about their feelings , they will say they are all their own. When stuff arises they arent aware of , then it possibly seems as if its from somewhere else. So what part of the psyche places ownership on any given emotion behavior judgement? Im thinking it has to be the preconcious, not the ego. So when one meditates they clear the preconscious , lose their sense of identity but maintain awareness and retain data - unexamined.

I vote to ban the next person to say ban ,ooops nevermind.

Hey I have a novel idea, maybe other people treat us the way they do, because they have their own motivations! Trying to configure the scenario so that one feels like they have more power over situations than they do, shifts blame and accolades from where they belong. Its not that there is not a feedback going on, there usually is.. but one really needs to realistic about who, is making what , come about. If all the power was yours,,why hasnt the other got any?

What part is it that YOU say is conscious?

When I say to myself , hey! I am being all calm and reasonable. I should roll with this, the very next impulse ,,,yep, damn the torpedoes ! Thats wu wei ,right?

No, but I often enjoy the self validation of a well earned finger salute.

I dont understand that last question. Why the mods dont try to correct what ? behavior. They banned you. Thats what they feel is the fix. You feel your actions should have been accept-able, and they may have been, but they didnt feel so. Sure it would be handy to have a higher authority to appeal to, one who was always just, correct all seeing and understanding... and would correct the injustices including wrong moderators. Such a one would validate web morality, uphold it ,embody it. I guess it would essentially be a web-god. The question remains however, if the webgod bans you, who would you appeal to? You can win battles here and there,but you wont win them all,,sometimes its their turn, move on. Wave em a middle finger if you want. But just move on.

Please someone post something to distract from my corny musing. Its sitting there like an inappropriate epitaph. Loathe to delete a post, I hear the Jumanji drums of the warpath and the cognitive dissonance is going down harsh.

Dreambliss , Ok, you want to see subconscious before you believe it exists. Theres lots of indicators, and you can see those. But theres an admission fee. The fee is posted as follows. You are required to accept, any manifestation which you did not consciously include, as to have been supplied by your subconscious. If youre good at visualization, this should be a very short ride. Do you accept the terms? Or will you consider the fee null and void due to the somewhat circular reasoning that If you became aware of it, it wasnt ever subconscious.

Rtyh, guytrbh, ?

What did I write Nungali, that you dislike so much ? I didnt think I was saying anything very abrasive today.

Well we ain't as far apart as we might be, nor match as close as two could hope. Maybe some time will change that. Thanks for the input so far.

When I was little , my mom took us to the beach, I still love it there, but anyway, Coney Island had rock breakwaters which jut out into the sea. My mom didnt want us to slip on those rocks , which would really scrape a kid up pretty nasty with the slime and barnacles etc. Well , I ended up with a healthy dose of inherited paranoia about wet rocks like that. That scenario is a much more narrow example of the same principle of the wolf scenario, and being so narrow it undermines my endorsement of archetypes having real distinction vs the normal experiences of social living.

This seems really rather supportive of my post to me... Are we disagreeing? The body decays , Brahma returns to its true realm, having been requiring of the body to be manifest 'depending on the object to which it is attached' para 5 but its not extinguished. The self we think we are , subject to death , sin , old age, grief, and desires - is of the body ,, and the 'divine' ether is the greater self. The good actions etc bringing to us the experience of the Brahma state , makes us essentially one with it, and we then are freed in all the worlds. The body is transient , required for manifestation but is or can be transcended. Its lovely. If I do disagree with any of this tradition, I'm thinking it lies elsewhere. If you are really just correcting my inclusion of awareness as being gross , about halfway down in post 25... I stand corrected , I was associating the manifest aspect of awareness, not the larger principle of -or Brahman and didn't communicate that.

Lodged in our subconscious..everything is lodged there. All the data,all the habits and paradigms everything I can think of except our present experience which is filtered through ,and tht which is currently on the docket.What might get called archetype, just depends on what one has been exposed to. I have no archetypal kangaroo, no rainbow lizard... but lets use the moon one, What special significance has the moon got when lodged in my brain? Would that not depend on the stories I heard about the moon or my aesthetic sense ? Is not archetype suggesting the universalality of some experiences? The argument I am making is that these things really arent universal except by chance, so there isnt anything special about archetypes, to give the word significant distinction. It is therefore an artificial distinction . But it does make for fun cross social comparison.:-)

I am if you can give me the short of it, though I admit, I am not trying to explain anyone elses worldview.just my own, and how it makes sense to me. Nor would I want to burden you if it took a lot of work ,since I am rather stubborn and dont want to send you on a perhAps fruitless task. But I really would like your synopsis....if you are offering them ,rather than a redirect. A quick googling does seem to show some potential analogy to Brahman-Atman and conflict with a universe capable of change. So I agree youd be correct that I am not on the same page as the Upanishads generally speaking.

Nungali, Im not considering a neverending regime of meds as an actual cure indicating that freud knew about anyones mind structure.. I can pacify a cat with thorazine but that doesnt mean I know anything about her mind. The medical community holds the keys to the pharm cabinet, but ... Nah , I dont want to go on this rant. The moon thing, archetype? Is a horse an archetype? Doesnt that make anything recognizable an archetype? What if I was blind? , one might as well use the term ,recognizable thingie.

Depending on ones use of the word ego, one is either speaking about the antisocial aspect of the ID , or ones identity as an individual. The two definitions merge, when one considers the affirmation of ones individuality , as being inherently antisocial which may indeed often be the case. If, as I have heard some notable speakers describe, awareness is umm... a universal principle - which we each partake of as individual minds- then we are all part of a real unified WHOLE awareness , and simultaneously we have our awareness concurrent with our ego identity. Impermanence is fact ,our bodies are made of atoms , which come and go,while breathing and eating and pooping etc . Clearly there is no physical part of us which could not be replaced , we replace our parts as we age and grow. SO There is no thing which is us that is permanently unique to us , other than our experiences , which ALSO change and grow and are forgotten etc. Since there is no specific constant material THING that defines one of us, our awareness and Identity is a circumstance of atoms that happen to be in a localized area , we are impermanent .... merely a continuation of past through to future of a pattern -called a body. Our awareness is simply a principle brought into being by the proximity of certain groupings of atoms. Thats IT ! simple fact. Our ego , is essential for the continuation of the patterns in the world such as it is,( we individually need to eat, be clothed, breathe etc). Ego is functional to the manifestation of our awareness,,, without a body , awareness isn't experienced . However, in pursuit of our own lives we often obstruct the other lives - the other manifestations of awareness- and so , the antisocial aspect of the ego is born. When we recognize each other as also being either , like us , or important to us , or literally all one big social cooperative version of us... we tend to be nicer since we aren't seeing the divisions anymore. We can share our lunch , protect the planet , relate and love one another as we love ourselves, or even more than that.

Sure it sounds reasonable , maybe its possible, but, I dont think the neurons in the gut are configured like the brain itself, and some of the structure of the brain is task specific. Proven by damage having predictable effects based on what parts are affected. Yes tasks can be reassigned ,but I think theres a limit to that which falls short of enteric neurons replacing frontal lobes.

I went ahead and read the disclaimer , seems they leave it to the audience to decide whether the info presented is valid,, which I don't consider it to be.