Lz,Zz and ego

[Stosh]

So as not to far divert another thread I bring this ego thing up afresh here. It surprised me that the attitudes on ego..by the two authors,,is considered dissimilar.

Now a days, joy and sorrow are viewed as funtions of the freudian id. If Zz felt the id was problematic, as well as the ego, which mediates between the id and superego , then his sage is a man operating from only the position of the superego and lives a joyless mechanical extrinsically motivated life. Whereas Lz is fine with joy and sorrow, but not the ego, and so his sage is an irrational emotion driven one. Right?

[Marblehead]

 Right?

I have no freakin' idea.

 

However, as I did comment to this in the other thread I feel bound to speak to it here.

 

Two sided coin here and I may end up contradicting myself but it wouldn't be the first time.

 

Lao Tzu is much about ruling others.  That's ego.  This can't be denied.  However, he then says that the ruler should leave the people to their own means.  This is without ego.

 

Chuang Tzu says to leave the people alone but yet acknowledges that the country needs be ruled.  He acknowledges that there will be those who willingly serve the government.

 

Lao Tzu does, in Chapter 80 speak of a country, or villages, being small and with few people who are happy with their conditions and therefore needs little government.  I think this is consistent with Chuang Tzu's thoughts.

 

But then, neither actually spoke to the concept of ego.  I guess it just wasn't a part of philosophy back then even though many of Chuang Tzu's stories surely speak to the concept.

 

Perhaps it could be said that Lao Tzu spoke of those with inflated egos whereas Chuang Tzu spoke against having an inflated ego?  But I must add that Lao Tzu was aware that we should not have an inflated ego.

 

Joy and sorrow, I have suggested, has its roots in our ego.  If we have an inflated ego we will rarely find our self contented and that would bring about sorrow.  And likewise, if joy is had only when we have been successful then our joy is had only when our ego is satisfied.

 

Then again, if we are beyond joy and sorrow we can just drag our tail in the mud if that is what we wish to do.  No joy, no sorrow, just being.

 

And I will stop here for the moment.

[Stosh]

Ah, the very thing you feel undeniable, that ego has something to do with ruling others, is the one undeniably I feel makes a hash of the ten thousand other things. we arent going to agree on this, I sense it in my bones, but what is interesting about this subject is that does feel very central to my own views on what these guys were talking about, ,, and what you just said appears to be pivotal to yours.

Thanks for the thorough response though it shows us to be miles apart on some things.

[rene]

So as not to far divert another thread I bring this ego thing up afresh here. It surprised me that the attitudes on ego..by the two authors,,is considered dissimilar.

Now a days, joy and sorrow are viewed as funtions of the freudian id. If Zz felt the id was problematic, as well as the ego, which mediates between the id and superego , then his sage is a man operating from only the position of the superego and lives a joyless mechanical extrinsically motivated life. Whereas Lz is fine with joy and sorrow, but not the ego, and so his sage is an irrational emotion driven one. Right?

 

Thanks for starting the thread, Stosh (-:

 

IMO, the concepts of id, ego, superego - are ideas created to form a toolset that can be used to put behaviors etc into manageable categories for exploration/study/whatever. Not sure of the efficacy of overlaying one toolset on another, but it is fun to see how things correlate, eh? I'm not versed enough in Freud's concepts to contribute to this exploration, so all I can offer is my take on LZs ideas on this or that, as I understand them to be.

 

I'm not sure LZ's sage is an "irrational emotion driven" one; rather perhaps one who does not deny what is natural and does not cling to joy and sorrow. What comes, comes - stays as long as it does - and then flows away naturally, of it's own accord.  Well...that's what I do anyway. LOLOL Extremes are experienced but they dont last long. S'cuse if that was too far off-topic.

[Stosh]

Im totally on board with not overlaying tool sets, and suggest that it can be avoided by not using the term ego at all. To do this the person bringing up an idea for which they wouldve used the word ego ,but not in the Freudian sense of it, would be motivated to actually use some other descriptive. To me it appears that Mh thinks ego has something to with being socially influenced or influencing... and yet farther along, that its this social situation exclusively which brings joy or sorrow. This reading poses a suggestion that a hands off policy , each respecting other folks to guide the course of their own lives prevents sorrows and joys from being experienced. Your own rendering of Lz appears to also set joys and sorrows opposed to something.... naturalness, if one tries to maintain joys and avoid sorrows.

 

Frankly I cant imagine a more natural thing than to want joys rather than sorrows and so suggest that the term natural is also not what is meaning to be said.

Ps, I dont mind wandering topics. ..... as long as responses connect with prompts..you can take it where you like. Heck! Please do.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

 Thanks for the thorough response though it shows us to be miles apart on some things.

I doubt we are as far apart on this it is initially appears.  If the discussion continues we will clarify definitions along the way and I'm sure we will see more commonality.

 

Now remember, I have always been a supporter for the need of ego and emotions.  But in moderation.

 

If our ego exceeds our capabilities and capacities we will spend many hours in failure and sorrow.

 

Joy and sorrow depend on our expectations.  If we have no expectations there would be no support for joy or sorrow.  We would then be in a state of moderation.

[Stosh]

This again is strange use of wording. But it may clarify. I would say hope, felt now, is about future, regret felt now, is about past. Joy felt now may be moderate or extreme, sorrow felt now also could be moderate or excessive. So I dont see where this zone of moderation, felt now about now, is delineated because it requires moderate joys not to count as joys, and I think it would mean in your terminology, that ego was excessive joys or sorrows about relating to others. See ? this wording really needs upgrade.

 

[rene]

Stosh, hi,  ooops...my words didn't express my meaning... lol no surprise there... may I try again, begininning with yours?

 

 Your own rendering of Lz appears to also set joys and sorrows opposed to something.... naturalness, if one tries to maintain joys and avoid sorrows. Frankly I cant imagine a more natural thing than to want joys rather than sorrows and so suggest that the term natural is also not what is meaning to be said.

 

To me, feeling joys and sorrows is natural. To deny or suppress emotions is not only unnatural but can be physically debilitating. It is the not clinging to either, rather to experience them fully and let them run their course, is the way of rene. I dont know if it's the way of laozi.

 

To me, it's natural to prefer joy to sorrow! Who wouldn't?? That said, all things change in every moment, yes? Grasping at a fleeting joy, trying to keep it from leaving - rather than living in it fully while it is here - hinders the full experience, imo. In similar manner - letting sorrow cycle out naturally (time is a great leveler), it seems to hang around less... without energy feeding it or focus devoted to its removal or avoidance.

 

Of course, your mileage may vary. (-:

[rene]

This again is strange use of wording. But it may clarify. I would say hope, felt now, is about future, regret felt now, is about past. Joy felt now may be moderate or extreme, sorrow felt now also could be moderate or excessive. So I dont see where this zone of moderation, felt now about now, is delineated because it requires moderate joys not to count as joys, and I think it would mean in your terminology, that ego was excessive joys or sorrows about relating to others. See ? this wording really needs upgrade.

 

Well Said !!

[Stosh]

Ok, I have a bowl of steaming fragrant jasmine rice on the left,and on the right theres a cold small bowl of cheap minute rice starting to harden. If I take the bowl on the left somehow Zz thinks I will be worse off, and Lz says I can take the one on the left, but if that one is gone im supposed to be just as happy with the other . Confucious probably says to give the one on the left to my father, or the one on the right to my wife. But they all say to give the best one to the King, so Zz gives the king the cold bowl Right?

Edited June 28, 2015 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

 But they all say to give the best one to the King, so Zz gives the king the cold bowl Right?

Nah.  He gave it to the beggar down the street.  The king already has an excess.

[Stosh]

Nah.  He gave it to the beggar down the street.  The king already has an excess.

I thought Zzs sage was useless to other men , did not interfere, choose winners nor losers ,nor render judgements. Which he would have to preferentially do, the karmic retribution would be that the king had either been slighted or the sage would have to go without.

[dwai]

So as not to far divert another thread I bring this ego thing up afresh here. It surprised me that the attitudes on ego..by the two authors,,is considered dissimilar.

Now a days, joy and sorrow are viewed as funtions of the freudian id. If Zz felt the id was problematic, as well as the ego, which mediates between the id and superego , then his sage is a man operating from only the position of the superego and lives a joyless mechanical extrinsically motivated life. Whereas Lz is fine with joy and sorrow, but not the ego, and so his sage is an irrational emotion driven one. Right?

Read this book -- http://www.amazon.com/Nine-Nights-Taoist-Master-Waysun-ebook/dp/B0056J6F2M

 

This presents the DDJ in a very unique and refreshing way, and perhaps present Lao Tzu in a manner not before encountered in the innumerable translations and commentaries.

[Stosh]

What does it say? ..... in the sample I see connecting to god, so its not for me , makes no sense, has nothing to do with the correct reading. IMO the whole thing evolves from looking at this human experience without deities, and thats what makes it special . I already have an interp which inserts god and contemporary morality into the teachings, so I am aware there are card carrying Taoists who believe along those lines.. and consider them all to be wrong.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

What does it say?

It says:  "Read me!"

[Stosh]

It says: "Read me!"

Yeah , but I dont bite every bait dangled....either. Edited June 28, 2015 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

Yeah , but I dont bite every bait dangled....either.

I read the preface and the first two chapters right there at the Amazon site.

[Stosh]

I read the preface and the first two chapters right there at the Amazon site.

And...

[rene]

And... he was able to have a small meal without having to swallow hook, line & sinker.   

Very ZZish.

Unless he enjoyed it.

[Stosh]

I dont imagine he did since I was really really bored by ch 4.

[Marblehead]

But you must admit, it is a different perspective.

[dwai]

What does it say? ..... in the sample I see connecting to god, so its not for me , makes no sense, has nothing to do with the correct reading. IMO the whole thing evolves from looking at this human experience without deities, and thats what makes it special . I already have an interp which inserts god and contemporary morality into the teachings, so I am aware there are card carrying Taoists who believe along those lines.. and consider them all to be wrong.

I'd say keep an open mind and read it

[dawei]

So as not to far divert another thread I bring this ego thing up afresh here. It surprised me that the attitudes on ego..by the two authors,,is considered dissimilar.

Now a days, joy and sorrow are viewed as funtions of the freudian id. If Zz felt the id was problematic, as well as the ego, which mediates between the id and superego , then his sage is a man operating from only the position of the superego and lives a joyless mechanical extrinsically motivated life. Whereas Lz is fine with joy and sorrow, but not the ego, and so his sage is an irrational emotion driven one. Right?

 

I tend to agree that Joy and sorrow are a part of the 'id'... but we might need some basic agreement on what the three parts loosely mean.

 

I'd go for:

 

Id = instincts, wants, needs, desires

Ego = Caretaker of the Id... decides how to best meet what the Id wants and needs.

Superego = The inner critic of the Ego... self-evaluation of whether the Ego did its job right or wrong.

 

Unless I'm viewing this wrong, I think Lz and Zz both tend towards Id driven ways but disagree as to how the Ego should achieve it.   Lz is more practical; Zz more aloft.

 

IMO, neither would appeal to the Superego except if it meant for Lz to change with the times and adapt to 'now'.  That would be his practical side.  Zz would, to me, ignore the times and just continue to just 'be'...

[Stosh]

I very much like where you went with that. I consider the things which both of them eschew to primarily the province of what we call superego. This is the trained morality and dictates one can legitimately call unnatural. Animals dont have this ..for the most part. Joy and sorrow , I would lump with id , guilt and hubris go with superego , understanding the pitfalls of that rollercoaster, is the job and benefit of ego. And so it would make sense to me, is to be focused on the present , id- the Ox , guided by ego -the drover or master. The dictates of superego get considered false ,superficial, problematic,inflexible.

Confucious doesnt want to discard the influence of superego because it is very effective socially, despite its heavy weight directly on an individual. So he looks to more of an allegience between ego and superego to dominate the id. And thats it in a nutshell

 

[Marblehead]

I don't have any argument with what you have said except I will still suggest that experiencing joy and sorrow will be controlled by ego as well as id.