PDA

View Full Version : Ego & Illusion : Connectedness & Truth (Nature of Altruism and Selfishness)


earthatic
20-03-2012, 08:59 PM
This topic is going to be about spiritual development and how it relates to to the qualities of an individual, which gives rise to altruism (subjectively good) and selfishness (subjectively evil). I recommend that whoever decides to read this, should read it thoroughly.

In the broadest sense, there are only two ways a person can perceive reality (with varying degrees) which ultimately influences their behaviour, development, and gives the result of their spiritual frequency.
This is the way of ego (dense), or the way of connectedness (expansive).

I chose the difference in colour to represent the fact that red is a low frequency of light, while purple is a higher frequency. I will be making a lot of comparisons like this.
I am not trying to demonstrate an absolute polarity between individuals, as almost all of us fall in between. But for an analogy, a substance cannot be a complete solid or a complete gas at the same time.

As result of a person focusing on them self, their spiritual energy contracts, becomes low and hardened. This gives strength to the ego (their sense of self), and needless to say, the individual automatically becomes subject to these characteristics and behaviours to varying degrees:

- Pride/Arrogance:
* A feeling or deep pleasure or satisfaction derived from one's own achievements, the achievements of those with whom one is closely associated.
* The consciousness of one's own dignity
* The quality of having an excessively high opinion of oneself or one's importance
* Expression of superior manner

- Depression:
*Severe despondency and dejection, typically felt over a period of time and accompanied by feelings of hopelessness and inadequacy of oneself.
Analogies/Same definitions: The action of pressing down on something
A region of lower atmospheric pressure.
The lowering or reducing of something

- Hatred/Hostility:
* An intense feeling of dislike. It may occur in a wide variety of contexts, from hatred of inanimate objects or animals, to hatred of oneself or other people, entire groups of people, people in general, existence, or everything.
(This is an emotion expressed by how one relates/reacts to something external, or internal. The point is, it is expressed as a self-centred view)

- Infatuation:
* Enamored: marked by foolish or unreasoning fondness
* An idealizing, obsessive attraction, characterized by a high degree of physical arousal.
(Both hatred and infatuation have to do with a self-centred view of something that either pleases them, or displeases them. So even when a selfish person does experience positive feelings, it has to do with what pleases oneself...which can actually be considered negative and low depending on how you choose to view it)

- Insecurity:
* Uncertainty or anxiety about oneself; lack of confidence

- Jealousy:
* covetous: showing extreme cupidity; painfully desirous of another's advantages

- Fear:
* An unpleasant emotion caused by the belief that someone or something is dangerous, likely to cause pain, or a threat.
(Whether this is fear for a oneself, afriend or a family member... it is a reaction oneself feels in relation to an external condition)

- Power-seeking, Domination, Survivalism:
* All of these characteristics above can lead to this. Power is really how oneself is able to effect something external to itself in order to achieve what he/she wants to accomplish, provoked by whatever self-centred emotion they are feeling.

- Criminal behaviour, Immorality, Amorality, Taboo:
*The quality of not being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
Having no bearing on, declining to be influenced by, or making no reference to, moral values or judgements.
(Because, the person is self-centred, they are indifferent toward what others consider right or wrong. The reason they may follow societal laws is because they don't like the consequences and punishments...Criminals will simply try to get around laws, or avoid getting caught breaking them in order to accomplish what they want)
Again, I want to point out that not all selfish people are criminal or immoral... Although, all repeated offenders and criminals are ego-centric sociopaths, are they not?

I'm just going to point out the obvious and say that all these emotions/characteristics relate to each other and all are a result of selfish/ego-centric behaviour. I am going to avoid labelling these things as negative in order to remain impartial.

As a reference to what this can imply...Atheistic or Deistic Satanism is generally the same as Ethical egoism, in that the highest good is acting in one's own interest. Satanism has essentially been called "Egoism with ritual".
I've heard many Satanists say that "True power is not without charity", but this is because the charity one commits is to empower one's own self image, as to express "Look at me, aren't I a generous person?" but their heart is not in it, and it is NOT done out of genuine concern for who is on the receiving end. Freemasonry (which some conspiracies claim to be Satanism at it's core) is a good example of this.

Okay...So, how this relates to spirituality should be apparent. After all, the denser energies of the subtle regions are generally where selfish entities dwell. These entities are usually stirring up trouble, and causing pain and torment to others in order entertain themselves, or because they enjoy negative energy (psychic vampirism).
This is also where the genies of ego dwell, giving people materialistic power, or lower spiritual power. This lower form of spiritual power is called Black Magic, Sorcery, and Witchcraft. These powers can destroy or heal, and cause pain or pleasure. It really depends on how it is used.
You do not have to go through these beings in order to learn energy manipulation, or become successful in the world, but these beings generally have intense knowledge of how it is done (some may not, and will just try to deceive you)...Many of these beings will try to limit you and stop you if you ever to try cultivate personal power, so that you will be forced to go through them. They'll almost always want something in return for their efforts...It could be something as simple as gratitude. They may also want energy, worship, or even your soul.

Because of the dense nature of the subtle realms, this is the reason why Patala (Hell) is depicted as being within the Earth.
This is also the reason why the minor chakras in our feet, which connect the root chakra to the Earth (frequency of red to brown), are of the lowest vibration. The vibrations of the Earth give off a very low hum/growl. There are even more minor chakras below our feet, where the frequency appears to turn brown to black. The darker/lower frequencies are from the underworld.
Increased activity in the lower chakras leads to more inactivity in the higher chakras...particularly the crown chakra which is responsible for making a person feel more connected with their environment. I'll get into that later...

As a person's frequency continues to condense, they become more lost in the darkness of the ego. Absorbed within themselves, they become more driven by their desires and fears. I believe that what the Bible calls "the flesh" is actually another word for "the ego".
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I've gone about as far as I can with this, and now it's time to explain the way of connectedness and how it gives rise to altruistic behaviour.

The more an individual recognizes itself less as a separated isolated being, and more as being part of a whole, this leads to more selfless behaviour.

As humans, most of us are inherently flawed because of the fact that we are created separate from one another and unable to naturally consider others as we are only aware of our own consciousness. Really, when we look at a person or environment, we only see the body/energy (the object), and are only aware of how it effects us. This is only an illusion of the ego. As you expand your consciousness beyond yourself, your higher spiritual nature helps us move beyond what is flawed and instinctual, and makes us recognize that we are, in fact, connected and one with everything.
Really, the matter you are composed of is the same as another individual, whether they're human, animal, or insect. Everything is interconnected. When you express humility and surrender your ego, you no longer feel inferior or superior to what is external. This eliminates senses of pride, arrogance, insecurity, and depression. You feel more compassionate and loving towards your environment. As you turn more outward, your spiritual density decreases and the expanse raises your energetic vibration. As this happens, a person becomes subject to having these behaviours and characteristics:

- Humbleness/Humility:
* The opposite of vanity
Feeling that you have no special importance that makes you better than others
* Freedom from pride and arrogance; a modest estimate of one's own worth.
* "We are what we are. Nothing more, Nothing less."

- Joy:
* Gladness, contentment
* The state of consciousness of the Soul as it recognizes and seeks to serve the One Life. Often mistaken for happiness which is a condition of the persona as it realizes an accomplishment or acquires a new possession.

- Compassion/Empathy:
* A deep awareness and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others.
* Is the desire to identify with or sense and care for something of another’s experience (as opposed to hate, where the person is only concerned with themselves and how it effects them)
I've heard some people say that you cannot hate things you cannot comprehend. The opposite is true. Hate stems from ignorance : Compassion stems from understanding.

- Infatuation is not real love. It's sort of expressed the same way hate is, except instead it is something external which pleases the self. True love/compassion, when fully developed, is felt no differently for a stranger then it is toward a family member or friend.

- Insecurity and jealousy is not felt by someone who is enlightened for the same reasons that pride/arrogance isn't felt.

- Courage:
* The ability to do something that frightens one
* A quality of spirit that enables you to face danger or pain without showing fear.

- Egalitarianism:
* All of these characteristics above can lead to this type of mindset and philosophy.

- Lawful and Considerate, moral behaviour:
* Thank God that there are laws, or else the world would be even worse than it is. Many laws are unrighteously put into place, but in general they're made to protect us - especially from criminal, immoral people. If everyone on the planet were like Buddha or Jesus, there would be no need for laws because honest and just behaviour would be second nature to us. To some of us, it already is. This would result in a peaceful (subjectively idealistic) world.

Again...How this relates to spiritual development is clear. As a person realizes they're connected to their environment, their crown chakra begins to open, which starts to diminish ego. Their energy expands upward into a lighter, less condensed state. They become less concerned with worldly things. This seems to be the path of many religions (Hinduism, Buddhism). This is probably why heaven is depicted as being in the sky. It's not really about going up or down, but about expansion and contraction (our Earth is spherical).

By doing this, you are gaining true freedom by getting rid of power and stripping yourself of your ego/illusions in order to ascend. “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Matthew 19:23-24
A rich man would have to give up his ego and everything he possesses. They're usually very unwilling.

** I realize many have already learned these lessons, but I felt compelled to create this thread anyway to demonstrate my understanding of how it appears to work. Maybe it will serve as a reminder, or put some things into perspective.
It was mainly to show why focus on ego and non-ego leads to (subjectively) negative and positive behaviour, contraction, and expansion, ect. It sort of shows why the popular advice "be happy, it'll raise your vibes" doesn't explain enough.. I hope this helps. **

Quintessence
21-03-2012, 12:37 AM
I found this post interesting, but there are a lot of things I disagree with; enough things that I'm not currently going to spend the time pointing out all of them. In general, I think this entire dichotomy is false and set up in an arbitrary fashion. There's nothing on either of your lists that I couldn't see being on the opposite list as well. It also really bothers me when folks keep insisting that a focus on ego leads to bad behavior, even in a subjective sense. This simply isn't true. I often do not care what the motivation or intent behind a person's behavior is. I care about the tangible, real-world impacts. A person who donates $2000 to a charity for an ego boost is helping others as much as the person who donates $2000 out of altruism. As outside observers, we have no way of knowing for sure what their intentions were anyway. Any behavior can be explained as egoistic AND as altruistic.

earthatic
21-03-2012, 01:28 AM
I found this post interesting, but there are a lot of things I disagree with; enough things that I'm not currently going to spend the time pointing out all of them. In general, I think this entire dichotomy is false and set up in an arbitrary fashion. There's nothing on either of your lists that I couldn't see being on the opposite list as well. It also really bothers me when folks keep insisting that a focus on ego leads to bad behavior, even in a subjective sense. This simply isn't true. I often do not care what the motivation or intent behind a person's behavior is. I care about the tangible, real-world impacts. A person who donates $2000 to a charity for an ego boost is helping others as much as the person who donates $2000 out of altruism. As outside observers, we have no way of knowing for sure what their intentions were anyway. Any behavior can be explained as egoistic AND as altruistic.


I am not saying that egotistical behaviour is bad, only that it is subjectively so among most people. Opinions don't count as being true or false, but the behaviour is defined as it is. The external effects of the charity could be the same, I was simply saying how the varying differences between being selfless and selfish motivate the action. Of all the people/organizations who donate to charity, do you think the amount of donations would stay the same if the person/organization got no recognition for it?
The system isn't arbitrary. I know where you are coming from, but as singular human beings we can really only have ability to turn outside ourselves and/or within, but as I said at the beginning most of us fall in between these two categories and are balanced. I realize the post is pretty long, and it may be tempting to only skim over it, but important points will be missed along the way.
Judging from the types of comments you made, it appears you do not understand the post, as well as saying that you "do not care of the motivation or intent behind a person's behaviour" says a lot about your own nature as a person.

Quintessence
21-03-2012, 04:56 AM
Oh, I understand just fine that you suggest most people fall between the categories. What I'm disputing is how you set up the dichotomies in the first place, which apparently I didn't make clear in my last post. Why is "fear" in category A (egoism) instead of category B (altruism)? I can see it being in both, and this is why assignment of particular attributes to the respective poles strikes me as very arbitrary.

Also, do not mistake "often do not care" for "do not care." It's not the same thing, and I prefer to not be misquoted. Regardless, judging me on a personal level is not even remotely important for discussing these ideas. Spare me.

Thinker108
21-03-2012, 04:58 AM
interesting post

earthatic
21-03-2012, 05:52 AM
Oh, I understand just fine that you suggest most people fall between the categories. What I'm disputing is how you set up the dichotomies in the first place, which apparently I didn't make clear in my last post. Why is "fear" in category A (egoism) instead of category B (altruism)? I can see it being in both, and this is why assignment of particular attributes to the respective poles strikes me as very arbitrary.

Also, do not mistake "often do not care" for "do not care." It's not the same thing, and I prefer to not be misquoted.

You say you "understand just fine", but the comparison of "A (egoism)" and "category B (altruism)" were not the comparisons I was making. The comparisons were: Egoism and Connectedness, which give rise to selfish and altruistic behaviour. This distinction is important because it explains the difference between intent and action. I hope this is more clear now.

I apologize for the misquote by saying "Do not care" instead of "Often do not care", as I found this distinction to be superficial because you said " I often do not care what the motivation or intent behind a person's behavior is. I care about the tangible, real-world impacts."
If you often do not care, in not just the cases of charity, in what other situations would you often not care about the motivations/intent of a person?

Why is "fear" in category A (egoism) instead of category B (altruism)? I can see it being in both, and this is why assignment of particular attributes to the respective poles strikes me as very arbitrary.

Again, that wasn't the comparison being made. But to explain a bit further, I'll present a situation:
A person decides to run into a burning building in order to rescue a person they do not know. A person experiences much less fear for oneself because they're more concerned for whoever it is they're rescuing.
The difference I may appear to be making between fear for another and concern for another may seem like I am splitting hairs, but there is actually a difference.
There is a distinction because of how fear is felt in respect to the ego, whether it's out of self preservation, or fear for another because of how another's death may effect oneself. One does not usually feel fear when someone they do not know is about to die. What an ego-centric would feel when it is someone they DO know is fear because they think things like "I'll never be able to see that person again.", "I'll miss them so much.", or in the case of a child "Who is going to take care of me?". Notice that the fear is generated in relation to how oneself feels toward the external situation, even if another person is involved.

Genuine empathy/concern is felt from a person who feels connected, which will make them behave more altruistically. They will care less of how it affects them self because their sense of empathy and concern is stronger for the person they're rescuing. The strength in which a person feels fear for the self, or concern for the other depends on their focus (they may find themselves somewhere in between).
This may seem like a simple situation, but there is other things one can take into account. For instance, to what extent will others be effected by my death if I do choose to run into this burning building?

The point I'm trying to make is that courage comes from empathy/concern by feeling connected to another, while fear is only in relation to the self (being courageous as a defensive strategy is actually just based on fear). This is why they're placed into these categories.

Quintessence
21-03-2012, 04:29 PM
Eh, I added the bits in parentheses after the categories last minute. It was a mistake on my part; I meant it to reflect your red/purple categories but typed in the wrong word on one of them. Go figure, as I've been out of it relative to normal since this weekend. >_<

At any rate, I don't disagree that there's a difference between the fear someone feels due to egoism versus a sense of wholeness, but one could still technically put fear on either list. It seems you were trying quite hard to not be biased, but you still stick all the stereotypically "bad" things on the egoism side and the stereotypically "good" things on the connectedness side. Why? Why not put all things on both lists and explain how each can be understood from each category? Wouldn't this be a less biased way of going about it?

I suppose my main point is that this map is not the territory. There are many ways of making a map to explain the terrain you're looking to cover. I do find this to be an interesting map in spite of my criticism of it, but it isn't the kind of map I would personally decide to use. If, after all, most people don't fall to either extreme, setting this up as a dichotomy is a strictly cognitive construct and of questionable usefulness (to me, at least). There's no right or wrong way to look at any of this as far as I'm concerned. Just encouraging folks to consider things from another point of view and apply some critical thinking skills. Ask questions. Lots of questions. =P

3dnow
21-03-2012, 04:52 PM
This topic is going to be about spiritual development and how it relates to to the qualities of an individual, which gives rise to altruism (subjectively good) and selfishness (subjectively evil). I recommend that whoever decides to read this, should read it thoroughly.

In the broadest sense, there are only two ways a person can perceive reality (with varying degrees) which ultimately influences their behaviour, development, and gives the result of their spiritual frequency.
This is the way of ego (dense), or the way of connectedness (expansive).

I chose the difference in colour to represent the fact that red is a low frequency of light, while purple is a higher frequency. I will be making a lot of comparisons like this.
I am not trying to demonstrate an absolute polarity between individuals, as almost all of us fall in between. But for an analogy, a substance cannot be a complete solid or a complete gas at the same time.

As result of a person focusing on them self, their spiritual energy contracts, becomes low and hardened. This gives strength to the ego (their sense of self), and needless to say, the individual automatically becomes subject to these characteristics and behaviours to varying degrees:

- Pride/Arrogance:
* A feeling or deep pleasure or satisfaction derived from one's own achievements, the achievements of those with whom one is closely associated.
* The consciousness of one's own dignity
* The quality of having an excessively high opinion of oneself or one's importance
* Expression of superior manner

- Depression:
*Severe despondency and dejection, typically felt over a period of time and accompanied by feelings of hopelessness and inadequacy of oneself.
Analogies/Same definitions: The action of pressing down on something
A region of lower atmospheric pressure.
The lowering or reducing of something

- Hatred/Hostility:
* An intense feeling of dislike. It may occur in a wide variety of contexts, from hatred of inanimate objects or animals, to hatred of oneself or other people, entire groups of people, people in general, existence, or everything.
(This is an emotion expressed by how one relates/reacts to something external, or internal. The point is, it is expressed as a self-centred view)

- Infatuation:
* Enamored: marked by foolish or unreasoning fondness
* An idealizing, obsessive attraction, characterized by a high degree of physical arousal.
(Both hatred and infatuation have to do with a self-centred view of something that either pleases them, or displeases them. So even when a selfish person does experience positive feelings, it has to do with what pleases oneself...which can actually be considered negative and low depending on how you choose to view it)

- Insecurity:
* Uncertainty or anxiety about oneself; lack of confidence

- Jealousy:
* covetous: showing extreme cupidity; painfully desirous of another's advantages

- Fear:
* An unpleasant emotion caused by the belief that someone or something is dangerous, likely to cause pain, or a threat.
(Whether this is fear for a oneself, afriend or a family member... it is a reaction oneself feels in relation to an external condition)

- Power-seeking, Domination, Survivalism:
* All of these characteristics above can lead to this. Power is really how oneself is able to effect something external to itself in order to achieve what he/she wants to accomplish, provoked by whatever self-centred emotion they are feeling.

- Criminal behaviour, Immorality, Amorality, Taboo:
*The quality of not being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
Having no bearing on, declining to be influenced by, or making no reference to, moral values or judgements.
(Because, the person is self-centred, they are indifferent toward what others consider right or wrong. The reason they may follow societal laws is because they don't like the consequences and punishments...Criminals will simply try to get around laws, or avoid getting caught breaking them in order to accomplish what they want)
Again, I want to point out that not all selfish people are criminal or immoral... Although, all repeated offenders and criminals are ego-centric sociopaths, are they not?



This is not correct. All others are because of fear.

3d

earthatic
21-03-2012, 06:37 PM
Eh, I added the bits in parentheses after the categories last minute. It was a mistake on my part; I meant it to reflect your red/purple categories but typed in the wrong word on one of them. Go figure, as I've been out of it relative to normal since this weekend. >_<

At any rate, I don't disagree that there's a difference between the fear someone feels due to egoism versus a sense of wholeness, but one could still technically put fear on either list. It seems you were trying quite hard to not be biased, but you still stick all the stereotypically "bad" things on the egoism side and the stereotypically "good" things on the connectedness side. Why? Why not put all things on both lists and explain how each can be understood from each category? Wouldn't this be a less biased way of going about it?

I was saying they become more "subject to these characteristics and behaviours to varying degrees" based on their level of egotism; but that the more egotistical one feels, the more they'd likely feel these emotions and show these characteristics. The less they'd feel connected, the less they'd exhibit altruistic behaviour.
As for why I didn't put them on both lists is because I wasn't making a comparison of the average behaviour of a person. Most people exhibit both sides, as I'm not grouping the human race into being good or bad.
This was meant to be the difference between how one can perceive, and how those perceptions will affect the person.

Fear is only felt by/for oneself because of their own perceptions, while concern is different and felt for others with their perceptions in mind.
It is a psychological approach mixed with common spiritual philosophy and how the two relate. To repeat an analogy I used, "a substance cannot be an absolute solid or a complete gas at the same time." As one cannot be entirely selfish and entirely altruistic at the same time...it would make no sense. But I'm not saying people can't be a mix of both.

I suppose my main point is that this map is not the territory. There are many ways of making a map to explain the terrain you're looking to cover. I do find this to be an interesting map in spite of my criticism of it, but it isn't the kind of map I would personally decide to use. If, after all, most people don't fall to either extreme, setting this up as a dichotomy is a strictly cognitive construct and of questionable usefulness (to me, at least). There's no right or wrong way to look at any of this as far as I'm concerned. Just encouraging folks to consider things from another point of view and apply some critical thinking skills. Ask questions. Lots of questions. =P

That is exactly my point, as I'm not trying to say people fall into either extreme. I don't how many times I have to say this :P
Your criticism seems to be based on misunderstanding. The point of the article isn't to give any right or wrong way to be, despite whatever connotation you believe my words are carrying. I am saying where the origin of these behaviours come from, and how it relates to spirituality. I am glad you are asking questions.

earthatic
21-03-2012, 06:38 PM
This is not correct. All others are because of fear.

3d

True, all emotions stem from love and fear. I'm just explaining why the emotions are there in the first place.

Mountain-Goat
21-03-2012, 08:40 PM
I am going to avoid labelling these things as negative in order to remain impartial. This topic is going to be about spiritual development and how it relates to to the qualities of an individual, which gives rise to altruism (subjectively good) and selfishness (subjectively evil). I recommend that whoever decides to read this, should read it thoroughly. Pass .

earthatic
21-03-2012, 09:36 PM
^ senseless post
It is an individual bias shared by most people but that isn't the message of the article. Whether you agree with it or not, I find this an interesting bible link: http://www.believers.org/believe/bel221.htm
but I guess lot of people aren't at this level of understanding yet.

Mountain-Goat
21-03-2012, 09:44 PM
^ senseless post I am going to avoid labelling these things as negative in order to remain impartial. "Post" is impartial.
"Senseless post" is not.
To remain impartial, one must already be impartial.
Your OP was not impartial, nor your evaluation of my post.
Please, carry on.

earthatic
21-03-2012, 10:17 PM
"Post" is impartial.
"Senseless post" is not.
To remain impartial, one must already be impartial.
Your OP was not impartial, nor your evaluation of my post.
Please, carry on.

My goodness... Stating popular subjectivity that is not my own, is not my own opinion, now is it? Therefore it is, in fact, written impartially.
Labelling something as negative, and subjectively negative are two different things.

Why make a comment saying "Pass" - which I'm assuming meant you either didn't read it fully, and/or didn't take the info seriously based on the secondary/unimportant information you decided to pick out - when it doesn't contribute anything to the thread?
If I were to nitpick bits of info out of your post that didn't agree with me, and comment "I'm not reading it"... This would seem to be an impractical and pointless comment to me (yes that is my opinion).

Mountain-Goat
21-03-2012, 11:42 PM
My goodness... Stating popular subjectivity that is not my own, is not my own opinion, now is it? Therefore it is, in fact, written impartially.
Labelling something as negative, and subjectively negative are two different things.
"My goodness"...more impartiality.
Why make a comment saying "Pass" - which I'm assuming meant you either didn't read it fully, and/or didn't take the info seriously based on the secondary/unimportant information you decided to pick out - when it doesn't contribute anything to the thread?
Yeah...i decided to focus on information that you judge as unimportant.
If I were to nitpick bits of info out of your post that didn't agree with me, and comment "I'm not reading it"... This would seem to be an impractical and pointless comment to me (yes that is my opinion).
Dear sir or madam, you do not have to inform me it is your opinion.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions, please, carry on.

earthatic
22-03-2012, 02:04 AM
"My goodness"...more impartiality.

Yeah...i decided to focus on information that you judge as unimportant.

Dear sir or madam, you do not have to inform me it is your opinion.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions, please, carry on.

Yes, I agree. Carry on as well. This has been an unproductive discussion for me.
I prefer to respond to posts that provide a contribution to the topic.