Ludi
06-30-2004, 06:12 PM
What is the difference between the subconscious and the ego, if any?
Thanks!
Mmothra
06-30-2004, 07:48 PM
Yes, there is a difference. The subconscious is just that, "beneath" the the surface of your conscious mind. It is typically hidden from view to your conscious identity or ego. In other words, the ego is the part of you that self-consciously participates in day to day life; the subconscious is everything your ego has to draw on in terms of symbol and potential energy.
Is that helpful?
Ludi
06-30-2004, 08:01 PM
Thank you.
That is different from what is taught by some, who imply the ego and the subconscious are the same, our uncontrolled selfish impulses...
Mmothra
06-30-2004, 08:06 PM
Hmmm, what you call "uncontrolled selfish impulses" sounds like the Id (or, literally translated, the "It"). The Id is the most primitive aspect of the Freudian tripartate mind and is quite different from the subconscious. The subconscious doesn't have a point of view, so to speak, whereas the Id is all about animal-nature and instant gratification.
Ludi
06-30-2004, 08:18 PM
Yes, I would agree, from a Freudian psychological standpoint, the Id would be those impulses. However, some groups seem to class the ego in that same category, that the ego is selfish or perhaps actually the self itself, but in a bad way, something to be ignored or destroyed. I find this very confusing...
EccentricSage
06-30-2004, 09:02 PM
Now, what is this 'disolving the Ego' stuff that some refer to when they speek of 'enlightenment'. How does one become enlightened by giving up their individual identity and thought? Have I merely misunderstood something? And this goal is that of the RHP (Right Hand Path), right?
Just figured this is a good place to clear this confusion I'm having up.
Albino Crow
06-30-2004, 10:10 PM
The slang ego, and the psychological ego are two seperate entities. Psychological ego, as Mmothra pointed out is what you know as yourself. Everything contained in your life, everything you know about yourself consciously is the ego. The best way to outline this is through sleep. When you're asleep, your conscious bridge is burned and your subconscious is active. The prefix 'sub' attached to 'conscious' becomes very reasonable.
The negative stigma associated with the psychological ego is really a matter of it's realm of control. There is a strong lack of it. Consider it almost infantile, but that is primarily a notion of Jungian (Carl Jung) psychology. The ego is the infrastructure for want, and need. There is desire. We all know that when certain measures aren't met, we become unhappy and sometimes quite miserable. This is the negative stigma of the ego. The so-called pre-requisites for enlightenment do in fact involve the abolishment of the ego as taught by various cultures, as EccentricSage asked. If you do not need or want anything, only to Be, and mentally feel comfortable to exist on the level of 'cosmic consciousness', then enlightenment doesn't sound too far off, does it?
The general idea of enlightenment is to be one with everything, right? Giving up everything you have that you consider individual to you is, truly, is in essence cosmic unity and in every way perfect. This is necessary for crossing the abyss ...
Mmothra
07-01-2004, 08:53 AM
The slang ego, and the psychological ego are two seperate entities. Psychological ego, as Mmothra pointed out is what you know as yourself. Everything contained in your life, everything you know about yourself consciously is the ego. The best way to outline this is through sleep. When you're asleep, your conscious bridge is burned and your subconscious is active. The prefix 'sub' attached to 'conscious' becomes very reasonable.
The negative stigma associated with the psychological ego is really a matter of it's realm of control. There is a strong lack of it. Consider it almost infantile, but that is primarily a notion of Jungian (Carl Jung) psychology. The ego is the infrastructure for want, and need. There is desire. We all know that when certain measures aren't met, we become unhappy and sometimes quite miserable. This is the negative stigma of the ego. The so-called pre-requisites for enlightenment do in fact involve the abolishment of the ego as taught by various cultures, as EccentricSage asked. If you do not need or want anything, only to Be, and mentally feel comfortable to exist on the level of 'cosmic consciousness', then enlightenment doesn't sound too far off, does it?
The general idea of enlightenment is to be one with everything, right? Giving up everything you have that you consider individual to you is, truly, is in essence cosmic unity and in every way perfect. This is necessary for crossing the abyss ...
Nicely stated and parallel to my understanding.
Horus
07-01-2004, 09:38 AM
The best analogy I have heard for the "ego" as in the one the Right Hand Path Magician seeks to abolish is a Pilot riding in a Jet on Autopilot that believes he's the Jet
Dunno how accurate an analogy that actually is, but it sounds neat, hehe.
Ludi
07-01-2004, 10:53 AM
The general idea of enlightenment is to be one with everything, right? Giving up everything you have that you consider individual to you is, truly, is in essence cosmic unity and in every way perfect. This is necessary for crossing the abyss ...
But, if I understand it correctly, that is contrary to the goals of the Left Hand Path. Are you proposing that the Left Hand Path does not lead to "enlightenment?"
Mmothra
07-01-2004, 10:58 AM
That is the traditional point of view, Ludi. LHP practitioners are perceived as looking for gratification of "earthly desires" rather than those that are transcendent, aimed at bringing the magickian closer to Spirit through knowledge and conversation with the Holy Guardian Angel.
However, this only applies if you buy into the belief system lock, stock, and barrel.
EccentricSage
07-01-2004, 11:02 AM
But why bother existing in the first place if you are identicle with everything else, and merely exist...How can one 'enjoy' anything if they can not feal discomfort...
Why do people want this 'enlightenment'? Do you have any individual thought or will leaft at all after becoming 'enlightened'? What does enlightenment acomplish that can not be acomplished without disolving the Ego?
The Ego as mere wants and neads seems a bit off...Ego is self, and consious thought, right? I think base neads are something functioning on another level...after all, a berson's consious choices are sometimes self-sacraficing, or taking the hard road instead of the easy one...Isn't the Id the sourse of want and of instant-gratification...not the Ego? Isn't it the Id that you should seek to disolve instead? (granted I personaly don't know if disolving the Id would be that good of an idea eather...the Id provides motivation)
Personaly, I'm quite fond of my Ego. I still don't see why anyone would want to get rid of theirs.
Ludi
07-01-2004, 11:05 AM
That's why I find all this talk about getting rid of the "Ego" very confusing, EccentricSage. To get rid of the self? Then, what has become enlightened? Surely "I" will not have become enlightened, because "I" will not exist!
EccentricSage
07-01-2004, 11:09 AM
"Surely "I" will not have become enlightened, because "I" will not exist!"
Exactly! You sum it up so well!
Mmothra
07-01-2004, 11:13 AM
Well, I can certainly understand your point, EccSage. I personally don't see dissolution of ego as being a permanent state. Buddha, for example, achieved this and then went on to teach and travel for many years. Surely he still had an ego in the sense of a personality? My take on this merging with "the One" is that it removes the perceived (and illusory)boundaries between our sense of self and the rest of the world. Another way of putting it might be that there is a realization that the "I" through which we interface with the world is not actually who we are; there is a higher, more real self that that is eternal and transcendent--that is God, basically.
Does that make sense?
Mmothra
07-01-2004, 11:14 AM
That's why I find all this talk about getting rid of the "Ego" very confusing, EccentricSage. To get rid of the self? Then, what has become enlightened? Surely "I" will not have become enlightened, because "I" will not exist!This is exactly the point...the "I" that you identify as yourself is not who "you" really are. It is this discovery and the release of identification with the false self that is the "crossing of the Abyss."
Part of the problem here is, I think, that when Ludi asked the question initially, we answered it from a purely psychological point of view rather than a metaphysical point of view. They overlap and are related but come at the problem from different angles.
Ludi
07-01-2004, 11:25 AM
Does the "sense of self" - consciousness, remain upon enlightenment?
Surely he still had an ego in the sense of a personality
How can the personality remain if all of that is "false?"
Mmothra
07-01-2004, 11:35 AM
It is the fundamental knowledge of the ego's falsity that is the key piece. Clearly, without an ego, no one could function. Not an intellectual understanding, but an experiential understanding. The goal is to be able to sustain that understanding in the consciousness at all times, in effect living through the "true will" of the higher self.
EccentricSage
07-01-2004, 11:39 AM
Perhaps it's the 'me' that society shoves down my throught that is false, and enlightenment is breaking down bariers that society instills in us from the day we're born? Like gender roles, forinstance. We could still think...we just don't have such illusions blocking our view anymore? And instead of 'merging with' anything, we just learn to 'tune in', but remain seperate...maybe learn to feal empathy as well.
Now, how does the Id's programing figure into that? It's MUCH more primitive and doesn't evolve as quickly and easily as Ego.
Ludi
07-01-2004, 11:41 AM
Clearly, without an ego, no one could function.
You confuse me. I thought you said the goal was to do away with the false self, the ego, in order to find this true self....
Or, is the ego temporarily dissolved, through meditation for instance? And then of course one gets it back, in order to function, correct?
However, people continually talk about this as though the ego could be permanently dissolved, leading to enlightenment. Which is it? The ego is dissolved? Or the ego is not dissolved?
Or, do you merely come to believe the ego is "false" (whatever that means) and go on about your business?
edited for spelling
EccentricSage
07-01-2004, 11:54 AM
Maybe the extremist RHP followers are just moths seeking to be one with a flame, and the extreme LHP followers are just favoring earthly conquests over all else? Maybe one or the other is not the answer...maybe true self improovement lies inbetween.
Maybe the 'disolving the Ego' stuff is merely missunderstanding...maybe the confines of language make it harder to express the real concept?
Mmothra
07-01-2004, 11:55 AM
You confuse me. I thought you said the goal was to do away with the false self, the ego, in order to find this true self....
Or, is the go temporarily dissolved, through meditation for instance? And then of course one gets it back, in order to function, correct?
However, people continually talk about this as though the ego could be permanently dissolved, leading to enlightenement. Which is it? The ego is dissolved? Or the ego is not dissolved?
Or, do you merely come to believe the ego is "false" (whatever that means) and go on about your business?
Let me see if I can clear this up a bit...bear with me as it is confusing stuff.
The ego or "I" that you indentify with is an illusion. We think of ourselves as having core personality that somehow represents the essence of who we are. This ego is, in fact, the sum total of the cultural, familial, and meta- or self-programming that has occured since we were able to receive sensory data in the womb. Some would say that it includes past life data to be processed as well, but let's not muddy the waters with that just yet.
The goal of the adept is to recognize, through various methods, that this core personality is not his or her essence but really only the cultural, familial, and self-imposed ideas of what a person should be. The secret is that there is a higher self, the true self, that must be perceived by the adept in order to truly understand the relationship between him/herself and the divine.
So, the false, programmed self doesn't evaporate but it is recognized for what it really is and is proactively managed. The focus of the adept becomes more complete understanding of the true self and its true will.
Using the buddha as an example, after he had his "awakening" beneath the bodhi tree, he still continued to live and teach and make jokes and be a human being. What changed was his understanding of who he really was and was not...
Mark
doh
07-01-2004, 12:01 PM
Mmothra, kudos on explaining fairly well something that is harder than hell to explain.
I would recommend, for anyone interested, the book called "A Course in Miracles". If you read this, keep in mind that it is Christian oriented, but you can substitute whatever you wish for the term "God". It was recommended to me by the only in-person "teacher" I have had (he was a shaman from the Sioux tribe) as a method to "break down the ego". Now, I have heard some nasty stuff about the authors, but still read it with an open mind. They have some good ideas that many here may find helpful.
EccentricSage
07-01-2004, 12:06 PM
Meh. Now it's starting to sound like the 'nothing is true' concept of Chaos majic. (the aspect of it I most dislike.)
What defines 'true self'? How do you know that parts of the 'core self' aren't 'true self'. I've seen secret agenda for what it realy is, and know when I follow the rules taught through it and when I don't. I hold up these rules to myself to see if they hold any value at all...most don't...and then proceed however I see fit. Forinstance, why CAN'T I sleep in public? Most people will follow such behabioral rules withought thought...but for me, it's my thought that frees me from them. Thus, I think my 'Ego' is a valuable thing because I'm aware of mine, and use it, unlike others who let it use them, and thet others manipulate it.
Horus
07-01-2004, 12:45 PM
The true egoless "self" doesn't have values or judgements. It is the realization of the mutability of such things and thus their illusory nature. You might not like something today... tomorrow you might... then did you truly ever like or not like it at all? Then can we maybe throw it all out? You say for example "Well I'm a democrat who likes hotdogs who lives in a blue house, yadda yadda yadda." But in reality all that junk could change in a lightning flash. Upon reflection you might find that you never "were" a certain way at all. I guess the idea is that since we are every possible value at one time (containing the value whether we express it or not) that the expression that we assume as the whole is just an illusion. That doesn't mean illusion as in it doesn't exist. But it's muddled into thinking it's all that exists. I know this is probably a terrible explanation. Here:
First there was a mountain,
Then there was no mountain,
Then there was
doh
07-01-2004, 12:45 PM
I don't mean to make this more confusing, but it is a very difficult concept to put into words.
Let me try to be blunt. No offense is intended here.
Your subconscious is what you CAN be. Your ego is what keeps you from being that.
EccentricSage
07-01-2004, 12:58 PM
The subconsious is a mudled mess of knee-jerk instinctual reactions, emotions, and thoughts out of context...The Ego is neaded in order to make use of the subconsious material...in order to focus, in order to stop one's self from doing something detramental based on instinct.
I think the subconcience is wonderful, but I don't think the ego is just a hinderence...the ego is an important tool that alows one to work with the subconcience.
Horus
07-01-2004, 01:04 PM
I disagree completely. I believe the subconcious is most definately "intelligent" and not muddled like you say. The subconcious would seem to me to be the source of "psychic" abilities... things like pattern recognition and synchronicities clairvoyance (stopping yourself from doing something detrimental eh? I doubt the ego is the part that finds the information and "sends" it to the... ego??) it is able to analyze and construct a pattern in a much more complex and intelligent way than the ego.
doh
07-01-2004, 01:09 PM
Subconsious is only as muddled as the everyday things that you do. It becomes more so if you ignore what it tries to say. It is kind of like a "link" to guide you, at times.
Ego is what you have "learned" should be the way.
I don't mean to offend, this is only my intrepretation of it.
Mmothra
07-01-2004, 01:39 PM
The subconscious may appear as a muddle but it is better thought of as a churning vat of potential that is fed a steady diet of new toys to play with through our senses.
It is very, very difficult to make sense of these conceptual "organs" without reaching for metaphor.
And let me say that while ego is something to be transcended, it is a very useful tool! The primary difference between the Western Mysteries and Eastern Mysteries is in how they approach the ego. It could be said that, in the West, it is the "enflame and purify" model, while in the East it is the "observe and quiet" model. Both seek to do the same--recognize that there is something greater beyond what we perceive and identify with.
Ludi
07-01-2004, 03:17 PM
Thank you for attempting to clarify.
I think we are all getting confused by subtly different personal meanings of the words "ego" and "subconscious." To some, it sounds like the subconscious might be closer to the True Self; to others, the subconscious is far from that, more like the Id. Words are a pain in the butt, alas they are all we have to work with in this medium.
Well I'm a democrat who likes hotdogs who lives in a blue house, yadda yadda yadda." But in reality all that junk could change in a lightning flash.
But are people really that attached to this kind of idea? That they are a certain way? I'm not sure I spend much time considering that kind of thing, maybe I'm too shallow!
Both seek to do the same--recognize that there is something greater beyond what we perceive and identify with.
But why the necessity to call "bad" something that is simply unimportant? Why this apparent desire to kill the ego, when we've seen here that it is impossible to function without one? How can a person label the ego as undesirable if desires are an illusion? The reasonable options seem to be, to just go on with life, recognising that everything is transitory (no deep revelation there) or do away with the necessity of the ego by killing oneself (or, rather, by simply dying; ceasing to function, as it were).
Son of mr. gordo
07-01-2004, 03:34 PM
Here's Zen perspective on "enlightenment"
http://www.occultforums.com/showthread.php?t=3763
Son of mr. gordo
Ludi
07-01-2004, 03:43 PM
Thanks!
The part I find hilarious is that someone would actually believe themselves to be "enlightened!"
How can they, when all experience and all beliefs are an illusion?
Son of a Montage
07-01-2004, 04:58 PM
Isn't it strange that some people believe their opinions to be ultimate truths...?
I don't think so...
Albino Crow
07-01-2004, 06:31 PM
Excellent discussion. It's really aided me in personal contemplations of my own. It's almost as if we're engaged in a verbal meditation amongst ourselves, for the questions and queries sound very much like meditative contemplation. In light of that, I think we've reached the point where we find out what all of these puzzle pieces mean to us personally, and put it together. Objective truth is the illusion; when the objective and subjective mesh as one, the attitude for enlightenment is apparent.
EccentricSage
07-02-2004, 07:41 PM
This definetly has been a useful process for myself, as well. And thank you all for understanding the reson I argue. A lot of people think I'm just a disagreable person, when it's realy just a good way to bolth learn and teach, all at the same time.
I'm glad I've found more people who understand this way of doing things. I think that I'm discovering that I'm definetly closer to Left Hand Path than Right Hand Path. Granted I'm less traditional in my enterpretation of how these things work as I learn more about them. It seems like the traditional view is a rule I don't agree with, so I'll work on breaking that rule...I'm going to try to obtain 'enlightenment' of a sort without 'destroying the ego'. I think that I will be able to tune into things I used to filter out while retaining the ability to consiously analise and catagorise them...wich I think is an esential function that Ego provides. I think Id, Ego, and Subconscious all have their benifits and hurdles. No one should be glorified above the other, in my opinion. The key instead is to overcome the hurdles of each while still using the benificial functions of each.
Ego: Benificial functions: Sence of self, ability to think and judge, ability to focus the Subconcience and hold back the impulsive Id, the ability to recognise flaws in what society has taught us and thus 'deprogram' ourselves. Hurdles to overcome: The ability to block out that wich we find unsetling, over atachment to ideas and perceptions that may be false, over atachment to ideas of self that may be detramental, letting outside sorces decide who we are for us.
Id: Benificial functions: Survival instincts, base source of motivation, source of fealings of satisfaction when one has obtained what they instinctively desired. (sex, comfort, security, nourishment) Hurdles to overcome: Insatiable wants driven by base desire that could lead to shalowness, distraction, greed, over-indulgance (such as over-eating), recles behavior driven by unbridled instinct (unsafe sex, not thinking befor reacting to a situation).
Subconscious: Benificial functions: Intuition, perception, honest emotions and motivations, storage of all our knowlege, fealings, etc. Hurdles to overcome: Lack of organisation, a potentialy overwhelming amount of info. Think of it as being like having a whole room full of people trying to talk to you at the same time...you can't understand them, because there's too much noise...you have to focus on just one or two, the rest must wait until later or be ignored outright.
Of course, this is my interpretation. Yours may be diferent, that's fine, do whatever you want. This is just the system I'm working with.
Horus
07-03-2004, 04:20 AM
But are people really that attached to this kind of idea? That they are a certain way? I'm not sure I spend much time considering that kind of thing, maybe I'm too shallow!Considering it and being attached to it are two different things. You might not consider the ground you walk on but in the act of standing or walking you are very much attached to it. I was just giving an example anyway.
[edit] here are some generally accepted ideas on ego and it's nature, from an eastern perspective. Of course it is just their definition of the ego, and I guess some would say the views are dogmatic too... but I guess "I" could equal "a", "me" could equal "tree", and any number of absurd things depending on ones personal definitions.
http://www.purifymind.com/EG.htm
http://www.buddhistinformation.com/what_is_the_ego.htm
and if you want to take it a bit deeper, in which case ALL of us in this thread are coming up short http://www.egodeath.com/virtualego.htm
Fr. Qim
07-06-2004, 11:27 AM
Keep in mind that the concepts of ego in psychology and in magick and mysticism are slightly different. I'm not saying they can't be compatable, just that they are not necessarily synomous just because they sound the same. Id, ego and superego are terms introduced by Freud to descibe his map of conciousness. Ego in this case refers to a particular very real function of conciousness that together with the other two fuctions, makes up one's "personality". Ego in the magick sense refers to ones identification of one's self as a separate being. The idea is that this is essentially illusionary. We have mistakenly identified our true nature with this separate "self". Ego quite literially is latin for "I" Magick and mysticism hold that through various practices we can reach a realization of the true nature of the self and no longer be tied to the "I". It is not that the "I" disappears, simply that we realize that we never were that, we were something MORE, something GREATER and CONNECTED.
Regarding Right hand path vs. left hand path, some people have taken the idea of this goal of realization of the "original face" of man as a kind of anti-self mandate. In reaction to this misconception they have formulated a path based on identification with the "I", its wants and desires. Interestingly enough, some of them postulate the the true "I" is much greater than the "I" that we are initially aware of, so it may be possible that they are on the same path after all, only time will tell.