To: K-list
Recieved: 2002/09/26 16:18
Subject: Re: [K-list] Re: Re: Ego???
From: Mystress Angelique Serpent
On 2002/09/26 16:18, Mystress Angelique Serpent posted thus to the K-list:
At 07:56 AM 24/09/02, Joseph Miller wrote:
> > > > >...there is no personality without your ego.
> > > >
> > > >If that were true, then all enlightened beings would be very
> > > >dull, they would all be exactly the same, interchangeable.
> >
> >You sure like to pick fights, eh, Joe? :)
> >
> >First, I said nothing about killing the ego. I did not mention ego
> >death in any way. Yet, here you are arguing against what I did not say....
> >hello! What I said and what you heard are different things...
>
>OK I was following things like this:
>..."no personality without ego."
>...."enlightened beings would be very dull, they would all be exactly the
>same" (which I, I think very logically, took to imply that you were stating
>they have no ego).
Well obviously you interpreted it that way, but I also said that plants
have no ego, and still have personality.
I'm really more interested in the nature/nurture debate. The basis of
personality. Whether there can be personality without ego. I think there
can be, as in my experience even trees and starfish have a personality. You
do not seem interested in chatting about that tho... :(
>So what were you saying if you were not saying they have no egos? Hello!! I
>think, given your words, what I took it to mean is the most logical way to
>read it. Perhaps you should be more clear next time.
oooh, the S word.. "Should". What part of your ego wants me to be
different than I am, and why?
> >Of course, how "Ego" and "personality" are defined in the individual
> >lexicon, can be the source of much confusion and disagreement. For
> >convenience of this list, we define it as the aspect of consciousness
> >that has fears, experiences limitations and judgments, that eventually
> >goes into the light... dies. That is not the psychiatric definition or the
> >dictionary definition.
>
>It appears in thousands of dictionaries with a different meaning and with
>this meaning it appears in NO dictionary,
Did you look in every dictionary to make sure I am right about that? :)
>all according to you, and using it
>in a way used no where else on the planet
:) Actually, no... there are a lot of new age books ;) :P and a few
yoga books, and self realized Masters who use that meaning of ego. The
essay I posted to the shared files, is taken from books about Ramana
Maharishi (sp?) and I don't think anyone would say he is not a Master.
>is "convenient" (?????) If you
>want to make up a word it would be less confusing to make up one that isn't
>in the dictionary already.
Yeah, I do that too... all the time. Terms like Mystress, Shaktizap
online, Kundalites, domin8rex... it is fun! :) Actually, I did not invent
the term Kundalite, but it is list-specific.
... but pretty much universally, on spiritual lists, if someone is
talking about ego, they mean it as I defined it. I did not make up this
one. It is contextual. What a psychiatrist means when he says ego, and what
Yogananda or Stuart Wilde means, is different. When an engineer is speaking
of a train, it means something different than when a bride speaks of hers.
His is an engine, and hers is the trailing lace back of her gown.
We can take a poll, if you like... :) We have taken polls about how
people define enlightenment and kundalini, and love. Time to take one about
ego? How about if you start, since I already offered my definition. What do
you mean by ego, Joe?
Just for fun, I did a web search on the word "Ego"... ah, scrying the
internet can be such fun! Goddess in all... with randomness of search
engine. The first few dozen listings, it was the name of various types of
technology... from solar power to Windows software. Aha, the power and the
programming of ego. How apropos.
I found one listing where it was the acronym for Evil Geniuses Org...
that is an even funnier irony... http://www.tempchin.com/ben-bob/ego.html
I found a page by Osho, that I know you will hate...:)
http://www.deoxy.org/egofalse.htm
He talks about morality there too... another opportunity for you to be
ranting! Go Joe! Go Jo-ego!
Then I found www.egodeath.com Wow. Mother lode of links... technopagan,
mostly...
Also this essay from 1894, I liked the archaic style of language, and found
it resonant with this thread. It goes on like this:
>The same point may be briefly repeated from the ethical side. When one man
>says to another, "You did that, and I shall hold you responsible for it,"
>he means by his "you," not a metaphysical ego, but a definite individual
>-- John Smith. Every step away from the concrete individual, John Smith,
>with his special aptitudes, habits, desires, ideas, and ignorances, every
>step towards an ego in general, means a weakening of the connection
>between the man and the act, and a release of the man from responsibility
>for the act. Determinism means that the individual and his act are one.
>What does libertarianism mean? Will not some libertarian explain to me the
>agency of the ego in volition in terms of some concrete self, instead of
>in terms of a metaphysical ego?
Classics in the history of Psychology.
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Dewey/ego.htm
His frustration sounds similar to yours. Darn metaphysical people!
Always playing games with what the word ego means! LOL! So this argument
is old, old...
>I guess if you define 400lbs as skinny for someone who's 5'2" we could put a
>lot of diet folks out of business, but what have we accomplished? Besides
>making people "feel good" about bringing on an early death maybe.
Well, that was quite a leap of logic...
Just for fun, I got out my giant 3 volume Miriam Webster's dictionary.
It was a prize for selling 10 sets of encyclopaedias...
I looked up "Fat" the first reference reads: obj, a large tub, cistern
or vessel.
Heh... never heard of that meaning, before... The various meanings for
the word are extensive... a column of this giant dictionary. One word, many
different meanings.
Next I looked up ego, and it gave many definitions... not nearly so
many as for "Fat" tho. What it meant according to Descartes, Kant, Hume,
Fichte... Interesting, eh? These great philosophers all felt a need for
their own definition of what Ego means... and it varies from Will, Self,
Self esteem,. the soul...
Kant's definition is: the consciousness of an individual's being in
distinction from other selves. That is pretty resonant with how I am
defining it. The part that gives you the sense of separation from All that Is.
What gets interesting, is looking at the compound words of ego. I liked:
Egocentric predicament: The epistemological predicament of apparently
being unable to get outside one's own mind because all that the knower can
know will be what is present to his own mind.
In other words, what you see is what you are. Very cool, did not know
there was a fancy term for it... but it really illustrates the
pointlessness of the topic of discussion, eh? Of any discussion, really...
all folly. The list itself is folly. All these posts talking about
something that, by definition is not definable in words. We have a label,
"Kundalini" but nobody can really explain the infinite. Still, we like to
talk... and the sharing of love is more important than the words that carry
the energy.
The words are not important, Joe... you know this. The "namaste" at the
end of your posts, is the real communication. Words are a game, a vehicle.
All human communication is like the "Far Side" cartoon, "what we say to
dogs and what they hear." What you hear of me, is only what is present in
your mind, filtered through your dogmatic spiritual education, and your
attachment to what was. Our conflict is an inevitable as any generation
gap misunderstanding.
Tell me what your definition of ego is, and then we will know if we are
speaking of the same thing... or at least, have the illusion of
communication...
>Words are important, from what is supposed to be a common language, they
>are supposed to improve the ability to communicate ideas, not stop people
>outside a "tribe" from knowing that is being discussed.
True enough.. and yet, I think a lot of people on this list are
sensitive enough, that the energy communicates the message, more than the
words. When you post, your energy is often quite aggressive... even though
I know you are a gentle being, at heart. I respond in kind, but it is a
game to me. No offense, and none taken.
Language is not a static thing, it evolves with every tribe and
culture. You want it not to? Might as well argue with the wind. Language
itself, is not a precise thing, as this discussion demonstrates. What I
said to you, and what you heard are two separate things.
A Specialist speaking to another specialist would not be able to
communicate so easily with someone in another discipline, or "Tribe".
Language invariably evolves, and in a regional way.. into expressions,
dialects, shared jokes and figures of speech. From the dictionary
definitions, it appears even Descartes and Kant would not be able to
discuss ego without explaining what each of them means by it.
Ego, expressed as the aspect of yourself that has limiting ideas about
what you are, and experiences fear, pride and separation from all that is,
does in deed die with the process of Kundalini... it dies in fragments,
with each bit of karma that is surrendered, till finally it dies altogether
and is reborn as a lens of perception that allows one to interface with
linear reality. Even so, you can grow a new one... if there are new
attachments formed. Some Gurus fall from grace.
Descartes referred to ego as the soul... and obviously an enlightened
being still has a soul. Possibly, if you define what ego means to you, we
will discover that we are in agreement, after all...
> >Even Christianity is based on the idea of death and
> >rebirth. From the death and rebirth of Christ as ascended master, to a
> >zillion "born again" Christians...
>
>I trust we aren't going to say they have no egos. Or is that what you are
>saying?
We are saying that the transformation of aspects of consciousness by
going into death and rebirth is an old and sacred idea. Been there, done
that... and will do it again if I feel the need.
Am I egoless? Heh... that is an eternal "trick question." According
to Egocentric predicament I can never really know. No-one can.
Perhaps it is like alcoholism...According to the AA, and alcoholic
remains an alcoholic, even if they have not had a drink in 20 years.
At various times, I have described my own ego as dead, fragmented,
transcended, I have experimented with growing egos deliberately, in acting
school and spiritually... and even considered it metaphorically.. like a
big fat lizard with a fully belly, sleeping on a rock in the sun. Alive,
somewhere... but not active.
> >Why is your ego so invested in its superiority game? Just
> >curious...
>
>My ego is invested in trying, and I have come to realize the effort is most
>likely futile, to limit the application of Gresham's Law to discussions of
>spiritual matters, particularly those involving Kundalini. I feel I owe that
>much for all I've been given.
What is Gresham's law? Sorry, I am not a scholar like you. :) I'm a
wild, natural talent...
Does that bug you? Here you are, all those years invested in following
the old ways, sitting at a feet of a Guru, and along comes this upstart fem
who does not even know all the sanskrit names for the chakras, yet is
inexplicably blessed with a wild talent for nurturing the Kundalini
process...
I like you, because we are so different... and yet, the same. One.
Did you ever consider the possibility that your dogmatic adherence to
what you were taught, might be an attachment that limits your experience?
Just wondering... I think it is possible that a self realized person could
be cranky and dogmatic, but... you do not seem free.
>Why are you so defensive and given to throwing charges at those who have
>differing opiinions, and address you as Agelique rather than the
>self-depricating "Mystress"? Been curious for some time.
I never noticed that you do not call me Mystress, actually... The title
is fun, but I am not attached to names and labels. Mystress means many
things. It is a playful mix of Mistress (the fem of Master) Mystic, amd
Mystery.
First of the meanings, in my mind is the Mystery of Me. I dunno what I
am, I think it is not possible to know. So, I have a title that has many
meanings but is essentially meaningless.. how fun!
I actually have a sack of titles, from my various spiritual pursuits and
disciplines. They look very impressive on my business adverts, but really
mean nothing to me.
Wanna hear them? I am a Reiki Master, a Shaman, a 3rd degree High
Priestess of the most ancient Horsa coven, A Shaktipat Master (you may not
think me a very good one but you cannot deny that I am one.. of course you
will tho.. heh) .. etc.
Plus I have a whack of titles given to me by various astral beings,
some of them quite funny. Queen of the Machine Mind is a good one. (and
BTW, I am not experiencing any of the electronic side effects of the energy
increase) and Queen of Alien Hybrids... that one still gives me the
giggles. Orion Queen... la la. Took me a few years to realize Queen is a
title conferring responsibility... functional when I am being asked to deal
with some critter's karma.
"Mystress" was a gift of Goddess. I will not allow anyone else to take
the title, (not that I could stop them.. ) and have considered trademarking
it. It is in no dictionary, and conveyed by no earthly lineage. It is me.
My name, more than Angelique Serpent is. More than the name my birth mother
gave me, or any of the titles.
I like to hear it, everyone likes to be called by name, even the
nameless that I AM... but I would not force anyone to use it. That would
nullify the value.
Discussing different opinions is what makes a discussion list. When I
feel aggressive energy, it is like an invitation to play... :) Your energy
is aggressive, judgmental.. and it amuses me to respond, in kind. I'm not
offended by it, it is a game.
There is a joke: Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island went to war. The
Newfies were throwing bombs at PEI, and the islanders lit them, and threw
them back...
My grandfather was a giant of a man, so of course his nickname was
"Tiny." He raised and raced horses, and in that circle he would often get
little guys coming up and trying to pick a fight. He was not into that, so
he would say in a threatening voice... "If you hit me.... and I find out
about it... !!!" Heh.
I have been curious for some time, about what is your issue with "New
agers", and me in particular. Don't consider myself a new ager, but
apparently you think so. OK, you have stated it before... people taking old
terms and ideas, and making them mean something else. You think it is
disrespectful. I feel the same way about the term "Shaman"... but I also
know that there is nothing I can do about it... language changes, things
come to mean something different.
"The devil can quote scripture to his own purposes." An old expression
that I find amusing because it is what every human does. We take what we
like, cook it as we please and leave the rest.
Master, to me means attainment of self realization, but the original
meaning of the word, was an unmarried male of a noble house. These days, a
few reiki initiations and you can call yourself Master, and in the SM scene
there is big issues from "old school" Masters who spent years in slavery
being trained for the role, annoyed at inexperienced chat room dilettante
players adopting the title.
So it goes...
Blessings...
spam deletedPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/AtTslB/TM
http://www.kundalini-gateway.org
http://www.domin8rex.com/serpent/spirit/kindex.htm
DISCLAIMER!
Home | Archive Index | Search the archives | Subscribe
K. List FAQ | Kundalini FAQs | Signs and Symptoms | Awakening Experiences | K. list Polls | Member Essays | Meditations | List Topics | Art Gallery | Cybrary | Sitemap | Email the moderators.
symbol.