Psychology and Spirituality: Ego, Personality, Mind, Mental Illness, Mentality

[Kathrin]

After a long lasting phase of newly "seeing" and anaylzing doubts concerning validity of perceptions, I had to dig deeper into clarification on above mentioned concepts. I've reached a point where it is as surreal as real to me how less anyting has more ground than fantasies.

By now, I can more or less indentify my mind's work when investigating any topic. It's evolving, of course. At least, I understand many descriptions of various religions or theories... ideologies... in their "other" language, either in "Science" or in "Spirituality"... I mean roughly... overall basically. Some things I could even translate.

I am interested to read about your impressions on the junctions of the above. How do you interprete above concepts in either discipline, Psychology or Spirituality?

I see mostly the relativity of those concepts, the only gradual differences, gradual junctions and the crossover nature. It matters to me because I find it most helpful to ackknowledge and handle the relative severity and significance of all more appropriately, more adequately.

Mental Illness is very interesting to me, because unclear and mostly avoided in discussions. And Ego as well. I see the Mind working with great dedication to protect a personality, and even an Ego. So much, that it leads to more or less Mental Illness. And what is that anyway? Isn't this concept just an attempt to identify something very common based only on its type of severity? As if everyone's basically mentall ill, but only a few are called that, because their status is more pronounced?!? And how about the junctions to perceptions which are ususally placed in "spiritual discussion"? Perceptions or even ideologies or just plain cultural mind sets may lead one to specific directions, religions, understandings, but what of all that is real? None and all? Which should be considered valid and which not? Doesn't it all break down to nothing being real and everything just perception? Or better, to all being real in the perceptor's mind and from an overall perspective because all thought is valid, existant and never ceases?

Isn't all of humanity's concepts just concepts and therefore nothing "real"? Do we probably just organize and reorganize our interactions as people? Often without realization of the lack of drama from a higher point of overview? From which point on does an Ego have no more relevance? Or a personality?

What would be ideal Works of a Mind? How would it be ideally performing?

[Baile]

Originally Posted by Kathrin

What would be ideal Works of a Mind? How would it be ideally performing?

Too many souls with too many individual (karmic) paths to tread, I would say. Same as the argument against one world religion: everyone hears a different spiritual voice: the voice they resonate with, one that many others do not.

The best we can do maybe is to draw threads from every philosophy until a weaving begins to form, a sort of collective morality garment that applies to all humanity, regardless of the philosophy one follows. The topic of ego for example. It seems clear (to me) that the ego is understood in most streams of philosophy as an impediment to achieving higher states. Therefore learning conscious control of one's ego and behavior appears to be what's required when speaking of ideal works or ideally performing.

And important IMO is you see there are no specific religious and/or spiritual doctrines attached to that observation. If the ideal is to morally advance as individuals and as a race, human beings must learn control of ego. That's the collective observation. Yet at the same time, these understandings do come about as a result of studying religious and spiritual philosophy. Therefore, inherent in those observations and ideals is a very real "spiritual" quality and element. It's just not overtly identified as spiritual. Which is what spirituality is to me anyway; it's quiet and private. You should be able to live and function in the world without anyone ever guessing you're spiritual. For me, it's a practical, common-sense life path.

Next up, your question: Doesn't it all break down to nothing being real and everything just perception? Let's first establish if we're asking from a relative perspective, or from an absolute perspective, and then discuss!

To me psychology is a pseudo-science based on observation and statistics
about social norms. It stereotypes people by classifying them in a cultural
context. It comes up with syndromes and disorders.

Psychologists can't get to individuals' raw data, the quality of their
experiences and how they affect individual lives. They're also often in the
unfortunate position of affecting the outcome by their presence (something
first noticed in the famous Hawthorn Experiment, probably the birth of
organisational psychology).

So I see no junction with spirituality beyond the anecdotal concerning types
of belief. Mental state is sometimes aberrant and can lead to harm (and thus
has to be constrained) but otherwise is the business of the individual. I'm not
even sure how psychologists regard the current splurge of spirituality - I
doubt they can sort out the snake-oil from genuine spiritual pursuit. If
someone wants to believe in an external god that does this and that, that's
up to them.

Spirituality is individual. People try to classify their practices/beliefs in a
broad sense to place themselves in a current but thereafter things
presumably diverge - they might not but as there's no experiential
vocabulary beyond the grossest terms - there's no way of proving anything
either way. (That's why this very forum can exist and be so fruitful.)
Like, psychologists use terms like "pleasant" and "unpleasant" to
refer to experiences but that's their limit. Words like "ecstatic", "beautiful",
"horrifying" are not in their vocabulary.

Even Wilhelm Wundt who sought to work with perceptions was eventually
pronounced a fraud.

This isn't to say that all psychology is useless. The behaviourists taught us
a lot and there's much to be learned from psychophisiology. There's also the
fact that marketers and advertising gurus capitalise on those social norms.
They seem to understand (most) people's minds more than psychologists.

These are just my views though.

[FallingLeaves]

Originally Posted by Kathrin

After a long lasting phase of newly "seeing" and anaylzing doubts concerning validity of perceptions, I had to dig deeper into clarification on above mentioned concepts. I've reached a point where it is as surreal as real to me how less anyting has more ground than fantasies.

By now, I can more or less indentify my mind's work when investigating any topic. It's evolving, of course. At least, I understand many descriptions of various religions or theories... ideologies... in their "other" language, either in "Science" or in "Spirituality"... I mean roughly... overall basically. Some things I could even translate.

I am interested to read about your impressions on the junctions of the above. How do you interprete above concepts in either discipline, Psychology or Spirituality?

I see mostly the relativity of those concepts, the only gradual differences, gradual junctions and the crossover nature. It matters to me because I find it most helpful to ackknowledge and handle the relative severity and significance of all more appropriately, more adequately.

Mental Illness is very interesting to me, because unclear and mostly avoided in discussions. And Ego as well. I see the Mind working with great dedication to protect a personality, and even an Ego. So much, that it leads to more or less Mental Illness. And what is that anyway? Isn't this concept just an attempt to identify something very common based only on its type of severity? As if everyone's basically mentall ill, but only a few are called that, because their status is more pronounced?!? And how about the junctions to perceptions which are ususally placed in "spiritual discussion"? Perceptions or even ideologies or just plain cultural mind sets may lead one to specific directions, religions, understandings, but what of all that is real? None and all? Which should be considered valid and which not? Doesn't it all break down to nothing being real and everything just perception? Or better, to all being real in the perceptor's mind and from an overall perspective because all thought is valid, existant and never ceases?

Isn't all of humanity's concepts just concepts and therefore nothing "real"? Do we probably just organize and reorganize our interactions as people? Often without realization of the lack of drama from a higher point of overview? From which point on does an Ego have no more relevance? Or a personality?

What would be ideal Works of a Mind? How would it be ideally performing?

to add my POV... from what I've seen in my own 'mental illness' and interaction with other people who are 'mentally ill'... in general those who are 'mentally ill' are being exposed to see different pieces of a 'wider' reality than the 'normally functioning' human existance wants to agree exists, to the point that it makes it difficult to interoperate within the 'normally functioning' human existance.

The 'normally functioning' human existance, being based in the knowledge and propagation of 'limitations on a proper life' then gives a derogatory name to such people. And then medicates them so they won't bring light to the facts that 'we've postulated don't exist and therefore they don't'.

as far as ego, I dunno. wanting something so much you hang on to it at ALL COSTS and just can't let go seems like a bad idea to me though.

As far as what everything is... you call it what you please and then go from there. If you ever get tired of the randomness everyone posseses when we are all going off in our own fantasy lands and noone can agree on anything... then maybe you get inspired to start throwing water around and see for yourself what floats and what sinks. Or maybe you don't. But even if you do it that isn't a 'pleasant' experience... much more 'pleasant' just to think the wanton random 'positive' thoughts you are being fed that are highly disassociated with the reality of things (while of course listening to your vanity saying they are no such thing) and not care who you hurt along the path to your own pleasure. So chances are that even if you see a way to start, it won't last very long.

as far as whether to have an ego or not have an ego or balance egoism out, I really don't know. But I am kinda biased against the love &light&oneness crowd, they claim they are nice but many seem mean-spirited to me. Seems like an ego might be a nice thing to have after all if it is what is keeping me out of that rat-infested place.

as far as 'ideal' anything... i get very tired of that topic because every time it comes up I get trampled under foot for not fitting the bill. So I'm going to decline having an opinion.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Lorelyen

To me psychology is a pseudo-science based on observation and statistics
about social norms. It stereotypes people by classifying them in a cultural
context. It comes up with syndromes and disorders.

Psychologists can't get to individuals' raw data, the quality of their
experiences and how they affect individual lives. They're also often in the
unfortunate position of affecting the outcome by their presence (something
first noticed in the famous Hawthorn Experiment, probably the birth of
organisational psychology).

So I see no junction with spirituality beyond the anecdotal concerning types
of belief. Mental state is sometimes aberrant and can lead to harm (and thus
has to be constrained) but otherwise is the business of the individual. I'm not
even sure how psychologists regard the current splurge of spirituality - I
doubt they can sort out the snake-oil from genuine spiritual pursuit. If
someone wants to believe in an external god that does this and that, that's
up to them.

Spirituality is individual. People try to classify their practices/beliefs in a
broad sense to place themselves in a current but thereafter things
presumably diverge - they might not but as there's no experiential
vocabulary beyond the grossest terms - there's no way of proving anything
either way. (That's why this very forum can exist and be so fruitful.)
Like, psychologists use terms like "pleasant" and "unpleasant" to
refer to experiences but that's their limit. Words like "ecstatic", "beautiful",
"horrifying" are not in their vocabulary.

Even Wilhelm Wundt who sought to work with perceptions was eventually
pronounced a fraud.

This isn't to say that all psychology is useless. The behaviourists taught us
a lot and there's much to be learned from psychophisiology. There's also the
fact that marketers and advertising gurus capitalise on those social norms.
They seem to understand (most) people's minds more than psychologists.

These are just my views though.

I agree 100%

There are many posts I see which try and ascribe mystical experiences to brain chemistry - like the release of too much endorphins and such. Maybe some are like it, but to try and simplify it to a chemical or some brain activity in the 'pineal gland' or something like that, is just way too simplistic and does these experiences no justice whatsoever.

When a person experiences a total bliss that goes way beyond the body and mind and has a lasting effect on their consciousness, it's too easy just to say 'oh, you just got a dopamine hit' and when a person experiences religious ecstasy, deep trance states, divine visions...calling them 'schizophrenic' and such just oversimplifies the issue.

Thing is though that people are going to believe whatever they will about anything and there's nothing another person can ever do that's going to change that - not even God can change that.

I have read threads 'why doesn't God appear to us?' and I have thought of saying 'would you believe it if He did?' Then if Jesus Christ walked the Earth today, he'd be thrown into a lunatic asylum quick smart - even after walking on water...I mean, what must God do to prove He exists?

However, when it comes to psychology, spirituality, ego, mind, mental illness and all that, I was given a 'free pass' with the fact I am on the Autism spectrum and my brain is wired totally different from a 'normal person's brain' so I can see all this stuff, hear all this stuff and talk to God etc and no scientific rationality can explain why.

Of course, I get those who say "if you can talk to God, ask Him what number am I thinking of?" and God just says "That's not how I roll" but when I explain it, it becomes "that's because you can't talk to God" - shooting the messenger - I mean, I didn't say it, God did - so we're back at square one.

[Tuesday]

Controlling the ego can come in many form: Even believing in one religion, and also taking bits here and there.

What I see as mental illness is that you are ill when it bothers you. Of course there are cultural differences and unfortunately we see mental illness if we don't fit in this society. Which is why many people are no diagnosed as add or something else. You don't fit the standards so take this medication and label.

If we studied mental illnesses instead of medicating it, we could probably evolve to a more accepting and diverse version.

There is no 'ideal' anything, just your preferred future or utopia. And you can go there by changing your thinking and how you perceive the world. Some people want to go to a different future and they do. People choose different paths and they all lead to different futures. (different dimensions)

[Kathrin]

What if the sane ones are the "mentally ill"? What if the ones thinking they are normal or mentally healthy are the weirdos, because they live in an extremely restricted, constricted reality which they've even created themselves and won't acknowledge? Because of their fear of non-conformistic, seemingly unpredictable, free-flowing, powerful Source of all Life? What if their drive for constricting their reality is in fact godlessness, an egoistic strategy to maintain the ignorance of inferiority? Who is crazier, the one who claims to know about the openness of reality(/ies) or the one who fears?

[Kathrin]

And, isn't that one the most crazy who is unwilling to acknowledge the optionality of reality? Avoiding an acknowledgement of one's own imperfection, of one's own shadows and darknesses is mental illness, I find. Breaking it down to essentials, I can find only that as truly delusional.

[Kathrin]

Oh, how nice, we have a chat! How about meeting there on the weekend: http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/chat/blab.php

[Baile]

Originally Posted by Kathrin

What if the sane ones are the "mentally ill"? Avoiding an acknowledgement of one's own imperfection, of one's own shadows and darknesses is mental illness, I find. Breaking it down to essentials, I can find only that as truly delusional.

Why would you take such an extreme position to make your point. We're insane? Our imperfections? Shadows? Darkness? Delusional? Honestly, that sounds like something you'd hear in a church sermon or cult gathering. I thought we were discussing ideas pertaining to the evolution of healthy consciousness forms.

We are all quite sane. Each human being is further away or closer to the spirit realm, depending upon her/his individual degree of consciousness development and spirit awareness. People with mental illnesses are closer to the spirit realms. But not in an intended and directed consciousness-development way. In a different way, one that is neither better nor worse than sane people.

Middle Path awareness is relaxing into the gentle, loving and generous wisdom-understanding that comes from taking a moderate approach to life and spirit, while specifically avoiding hard, harsh, negative extremist-belief doctrine (fundamentalism).