One doesn't experience what they do because all experience is 'filtered' by the ego, so using your watch analogy all you experience is the hands going round. Self is the whole watch so if you're going to use the word 'self' then you need to understand what the self (the whole watch) is, if you're going to talk about mindful and conscious then you're talking about the ego. And there is no such thing as the 'ego mind', that's another Spiritual Chinese Whisper the same as the self is.

You are not evaluating what you have Dazza, not until you understand the role the unconscious plays in all of this. How does your cognitive dissonance play a part in how you reply?

No I don't know who I am because the whole framework of who I thought I was get dismantled an put under the microscope piece by piece. So now I am aware that I have an unconscious - and a few aspects of it - that is pretty much the framework of my ego or sense of I am. I am becoming more conscious of what I was not conscious before and working with that.

Thing is Dazza, we're all variations on a theme and while your ego/self is individual we're all built on the same frameworks. I'm not speaking on your behalf I'm speaking of my understanding of Jungian psychology and cognitive behaviour.

You're not so different just because you believe you are, nobody is.

Your experiences are anything you want them to be Dazza, name them to your heart's content as anything you want them for your own reasons. If you want to believe they are cosmic consciousness then by all means but personally I have no interest in that. Personally I won't use the term 'cosmic consciousness' and I know the reasons, because I want to know what makes the watch tick. If all you want to do is tell the time, that's your Spirituality and I respect that.

I don't believe what I perceive but at the same time I have to function in this reality, so for the time being I'll use my ego for the focal point it is. I'm also dissociative so whereas most have a single point of 'I am', I have three which means any 'I' can come into play at any given moment. There is 'something' that perceives that the dreamer is the dream and not the dreamer of dreams. The dreamer of dreams is the ego, the dream that dreams the dreamer is the self. This is why I don't prise them apart but differentiate between them and understand their symbiotic relationship.

You don't have to function in this reality that's your choice mate . This I hear often when peeps believe that I am is dreamy and illusory but while they're here they might as well stuff their faces, smoke and drink themselves into an early illusory grave lol .

None of it adds up . You don't believe in what you perceive but you adopt a theory and use it as your foundation of existence .

You don't believe in the reality perceived and yet you believe that there is a reality to function in .

If you don't believe in the reality perceived and you don't believe in the perception of yourself then it makes no sense does it mate .

Your foundation has to believed in .

Your beliefs in self and ego must reflect a belief in yourself and the reality experienced .


x daz x

Again, you are dividing self from ego lol . Ego doesn't exist unto itself does it .

Just because self in experience can relate to being a man doesn't mean that one cannot experience the heat on their face without one thinking they are a man that has experience of the sun on their faces .

The ego cannot experience anything only what you are can that is in experience as an individual self that can believe they are a manner of all things .

I understand the Self and that is why I am saying what I am saying without dividing up self and ego and the unconscious and conscious self aspects .

What you are is in experience of this world . What you are cannot be divided up in such a way where the ego is experiencing or the unconscious is experiencing .

How on earth can a thought of oneself experience and the self not .

The thought of oneself comes about through the existence of oneself that is aware and conscious of what they are consciously perceiving and experiencing .


x daz x

It's a choice I make but within the context what I feel I need to do.

We've already been through this Dazza. If you want to think you know better than modern psychology and the great minds within it then... But frankly, I've come across such tactics before and they're not something that I would have thought you would try.

I am Greeny :tongue:

There is no divide from I AM and self / ego and the unconscious self or mind .

It's one package deal .

It doesn't matter what goes on under the hood in regards to the unconscious self, but there is an evaluation made at the point of where something is made sense of and believed in .

You cannot resonate with Jung if you haven't evaluated and concluded that what he says makes sense to you .

You have to consciously make sense of something in order to consciously say that .


x daz x

But you don't believe in yourself . You cannot have something in effect that reflects something that you feel that you need to do .

What is this 'thing' that needs to do anything lol .

This is why we always have to break it down into the core of oneself . What lies at the core of yourself that feels the need to do this ..

Is it simply your ego that feels that there is a need to do this or that ..

For the record I just don't want to know the time of day, believe me or not I can go as deep as you like into the inner workings of self and the universe, but there has to be a foundation that works .

I don't get anywhere with anyone who keeps mixing platforms like you do for instance .

If there is no belief in the reality perceived or the self perceiving then it's a complete waste of time isn't it . There really is no point in promoting psychology if the foundation of that is equally dreamy or illusory .

If I am is dreamy then whatever you or I or Jung says will equally be so .

Resonating with a Dreamt up theory will be no more real or truthful or right than it's opposite ..

This one has to understand primarily before making statements that are put forward in a way where they are factual and someone else is wrong or incorrect .


x daz x

Who are these modern psychologists ..

Has the ego experienced the ego lol and then came up with what an ego is or isn't .

You see if there is no self evaluation because of the unconscious aspects and the ego is at play, then everything written in these text books come from where?

If I am is dreamy then who is Jung lol .

Just an illusory self whose ego runs the show, whose ego experiences and evaluates and concludes .

This type of talk is likened to the dream brigade believing in the dream but don't believe that the dream effects their own thoughts on it .


x daz x

When I spoke of what I did about the cosmic consciousness, I was speaking to you and not Jung .

Through my life experiences and realisations I don't need to speak through another's understandings .

I have my own and I understand self and no self, mind and no mind, I understand union and individuality, wholeness, oneness or whatever word suits .

I come across many folk that speak as if they are acting on behalf of Tolle or Ramana or Niz lol, speaking about the nature of mind and the universe as if they have had their realisations .

I tend to prefer to talk to people one on one and discuss how one actually lives and behaves in their ordinary life .

I want to talk to Mr Greenslade more than listen to what Jung thinks . :tongue:


x daz x

This is where you and I part company, Dazza. I don't believe in my foundation because I know that foundation is flawed - it has been ever since I was beaten so badly as a child that my consciousness stepped out of my body as a protection mechanism. After two rounds of cognitive behaviour therapy I found out that one of the prime agents that creates my reality was still flawed and warranted at least a third round. So, no belief in the foundation because I know from a mental health professional that I'm a headcase.

I won't use the term 'self' because frankly, it's pretentious and egotistical. I want to know what makes me tick so I'll study Jung and psychology because I want the 'real deal'. What I don't want to do is follow the herd and the Chinese Whispers that pretty soon only because not the self at all but a projection of the ego. Jung and psychology I can trust, what's inside my skull I can't. So far I've lived enough with the made-up nonsense and I don't want any more of it. People redefining the ego as the bad guy then projecting some imagined fairy-tale notion of the self while ignoring the aspects of themselves they'd prefer not to know about is not what I want as the framework of my reality.

As far as I'm concerned, unless the discussion of self comes from something more than how people would like to perceive themselves as they dissociate from themselves it's a waste of time. If there is no real understanding of self then everything after that is nonsense.

If you're way works for you Dazza, then I respect that because it's not for me to criticise but then often I gain from comparing the same as you do.

So, you wanted to talk to Mr Greenslade, that's what he thinks and the reason he does what he does.

And as far as I'm concerned, cosmic consciousness is egotistical. Using prefixes is the differentiated consciousness of the ego and the undifferentiated consciousness of the self wouldn't use prefixes to differentiate one consciousness from another. But I guess that understanding would be lost when people use Chinese Whispers as their truth.