From where does it arise?

[Altair]

Originally Posted by CosmicValet

From where does the "I" arise in each of us?

I agree with both Starman (the 'I' depends on reflection) and Greenslade (the 'I' develops in childhood and continues to develop).

I don't think you'd have much of a sense of 'I' if you were to grow up among the wolves. Our communication and language(s) make our sense of I possible. Much of our human quirks are learned behaviour. Without other humans around we seem to be the most confused animal.

[PsychicPower]

There are several types of "I"'s.

[Starman]

This world is dominated by ego psychology but there are psychological schools of thought that do not embrace the concept of “ego.” I wrote a paper on “indigenous psychologies,” when I was learning about cross-cultural counseling. There are cultures that have no reference for the word “ego.”

Like some Native American tribal psychology, or other aboriginal psychologies. Some spiritual psychologies, many of them esoteric in nature, do not accept the concept of ego. Many strict behaviorist do not accept the concepts of id, ego, and superego, neither do they embrace the DSM labels.

Now I am not talking about Cognitive Behaviorists rather I am talking about the origins of behavior therapy. They embrace operational definitions and not diagnostic labels, these behaviorists work only with what is measurable and observable. Most strict behaviorist do not believe in pharmacological psychotropic medications either.

They believe more in behavioral techniques, etc. While those who embrace the concept of ego frequently embrace pharmacological meds. I don’t think there is any right or wrong here, just thought I’d point out that while Ego Psychology, and the term “ego” dominates this planet it is not universally embraced. Especially not by aboriginal peoples.

Understanding that psychology started as a reaction against psychiatry, and before psychiatry mental health was handled by religion in most cultures, prior to that healing, both mental and physical, was considered a spiritual endeavor. So what does any of this has to do with "I," as have already been said in this thread, "I" is often thought of as another word for "ego."

[Moonglow]

Originally Posted by Starman

This world is dominated by ego psychology but there are psychological schools of thought that do not embrace the concept of “ego.” I wrote a paper on “indigenous psychologies,” when I was learning about cross-cultural counseling. There are cultures that have no reference for the word “ego.”

Like some Native American tribal psychology, or other aboriginal psychologies. Some spiritual psychologies, many of them esoteric in nature, do not accept the concept of ego. Many strict behaviorist do not accept the concepts of id, ego, and superego, neither do they embrace the DSM labels.

Now I am not talking about Cognitive Behaviorists rather I am talking about the origins of behavior therapy. They embrace operational definitions and not diagnostic labels, these behaviorists work only with what is measurable and observable. Most strict behaviorist do not believe in pharmacological psychotropic medications either.

They believe more in behavioral techniques, etc. While those who embrace the concept of ego frequently embrace pharmacological meds. I don’t think there is any right or wrong here, just thought I’d point out that while Ego Psychology, and the term “ego” dominates this planet it is not universally embraced. Especially not by aboriginal peoples.

Understanding that psychology started as a reaction against psychiatry, and before psychiatry mental health was handled by religion in most cultures, prior to that healing, both mental and physical, was considered a spiritual endeavor. So what does any of this has to do with "I," as have already been said in this thread, "I" is often thought of as another word for "ego."

Hi Starman,

A good post. Gives some interesting points to consider.

I will just add that as I understand it ego seems related to some Eastern beliefs/teachings as well.

Growing up in a Catholic household, the word ego was not used in regards to ones relationship with God and oneself.

I think there is confusion in some respects as to what ego when used in regards to "spiritual" teachings, what is actually being referred to.

As I understand it it is more in regards to how I may think I am being and not that I exist. There seems to be a difference there. Now not a scholar on this just the way it seems to me.

[Starman]

Hi Moonglow, yes that is true, Hinduism most notably considers the concept of ego. But I do think the concept of “ego” is viewed differently in spiritual circles than it is in the field of psychology. Probably the Catholic Church used the word “ego“ first, as they used Latin in their Mass, before it became a psychological term. Although spirituality is not and objective science like psychology and psychiatry are suppose to be.

Frankly I am against having one dominant paradigm, or psychological model, for human consciousness. Its’ like having one dominant world religion, with its particular language and holy book, for all of humanity pigeon hole everyone. I was and eclectic therapist with a lot of different schools of thought in my knowledge base and skill base of psychology. Understanding that mathematics is the only exact science, not psychology or medicine. Nonetheless, all academic disciplines are interdisciplinary.

I would choose a psychological approach that best fit a particular client/patient and not just impose the dominant way of seeing things on them, with its accompanying language, etc. Like people get to choose their religion or have no religion at all. Similarly in medicine; a person can choose Chinese medicine, homeopathy, Ayurvedic medicine, etc., etc., etc. Seeing things only one way leaves no room for options outside of that POV, and in my opinion there are always options and different perspectives to consider.

It's like most societies use behavior therapy, reward and punishment; that is what jail is all about, and keeping your drivers' license for obeying the rules of the road, etc. But psychoanalytic thought is mostly used to diagnose and treat people in those societies. Two different approaches. Behavior therapy is very basic, it is intended to mold and shape a person's behavior, while psychoanalytic thought is more intellectual and it is insight driven. No better or worst, just different, and some will respond more to one than the other.

Thank you for the feedback.
Peace

[Moonglow]

Originally Posted by Starman

Hi Moonglow, yes that is true, Hinduism most notably considers the concept of ego. But I do think the concept of “ego” is viewed differently in spiritual circles than it is in the field of psychology. Probably the Catholic Church used the word “ego“ first, as they used Latin in their Mass, before it became a psychological term. Although spirituality is not and objective science like psychology and psychiatry are suppose to be.

Frankly I am against having one dominant paradigm, or psychological model, for human consciousness. Its’ like having one dominant world religion, with its particular language and holy book, for all of humanity pigeon hole everyone. I was and eclectic therapist with a lot of different schools of thought in my knowledge base and skill base of psychology. Understanding that mathematics is the only exact science, not psychology or medicine. Nonetheless, all academic disciplines are interdisciplinary.

I would choose a psychological approach that best fit a particular client/patient and not just impose the dominant way of seeing things on them, with its accompanying language, etc. Like people get to choose their religion or have no religion at all. Similarly in medicine; a person can choose Chinese medicine, homeopathy, Ayurvedic medicine, etc., etc., etc. Seeing things only one way leaves no room for options outside of that POV, and in my opinion there are always options and different perspectives to consider.

It's like most societies use behavior therapy, reward and punishment; that is what jail is all about, and keeping your drivers' license for obeying the rules of the road, etc. But psychoanalytic thought is mostly used to diagnose and treat people in those societies. Two different approaches. Behavior therapy is very basic, it is intended to mold and shape a person's behavior, while psychoanalytic thought is more intellectual and it is insight driven. No better or worst, just different, and some will respond more to one than the other.

Thank you for the feedback.
Peace

Hi Starman,

Thank you for your feedback as well.

What you share in regards to the psychology and Behavorial fields of study and practices, I see also resides within some practices and teachings under the umbrella of "spirituality".

The question that pops into my mind is are what each field of study and practice that far apart in what may be ideally attempted to be accomplished. Which in a way can be seen as gaining more balance with in and in relationship to living/coping with life?

But, would also add balance is more holistic then just mental or strictly spiritual matters. For me it is both mid, body, and spirit.

I can relate when it becomes about domination or being the most " correct" approach, this is not always helpful ( if at all).

In regards to the OP inquiry, think there is both scientific and spiritual approaches in regards to exploring ourselves ( in general). Different approaches, but in some regards seem about finding what it is to be this human being and relationships with oneself, each other and life here.

What may seem in many ways a personal choice and journey.

In other ways what may be accepted as being "true". Sorting through the set patterns for some, while for others delving deeper into the connections revealed and discovered. Yes, different for each individual in his/her own ways and abilities.

It is interesting and for me keeps life interesting.

With in the differences can find basic similarities. To make sense of things, to be connected in some ways, and to find ways to somehow adjust and get through it.

Can help to mix and match different methods and techniques, but would also say this takes some understanding and research/study in order to get an idea about how these can best be applied.

Yes, many paths and ways, but in regards to this self I am being seems to lead back to this self I am being at the moment and going from there. Atleast for me at present.

Sharing some further thoughts.

Peace and blessings:)

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by CosmicValet

From where does the "I" arise in each of us?

As far as "I" am aware in the sense of actual awareness (and according to Patanjali), the "I" arises from the breath in the cyclical process of the differentiation between inspiration and expiration.

[CosmicValet]

If we strip away all things that give us identity in the physical world, only consciousness remaining, would the sense of being still exist? Would we hang an "I" on consciousness?

[Starman]

Originally Posted by CosmicValet

If we strip away all things that give us identity in the physical world, only consciousness remaining, would the sense of being still exist? Would we hang an "I" on consciousness?

Yes, we would still exist, but we do not need to "strip" away our worldly identity,
rather all we have to do is quiet our mind and there would be no "I." People who
do silent meditation experience this on a regular basis. In quiet meditation we
disappear in our mind but still exist in inner silence without any self identity. Lots
of people have experienced that there is no me, myself, or I in inner silence and
no attempt is made to "hang an "I" on ourselves else we leave that inner silence.

"In meditation the limited sense of individuality is poured into the greater Self."
Igor Kufayev

Originally Posted by CosmicValet

Which speaks for all?

Unless slapping the label on your forehead means your head is wired differently, yes.