Intuition

…is not part of the ego.  

Do you find this statement true or false?

If it is true, what are the implications of it's truth?

How might the seeker (s/he trying to understand and surpass ego dynamics) use the relationship between intuition and ego to better find?

…and just what IS intuition, anyway?  And I don't mean “It's a feeling that you get when your heart tells you what you want.”  That's very nice, and very true– but fundamentally, where does that feeling come from?  Is intuition of the heart, or the gut?  What does that say about the heart or the gut?  What does it say about the brain, and the mind?  What does it say about being in general?

Re: Intuition

ooh, juicy discussion starter Alan.

Before we could call it true or false though we would have to be working from the same definition of ego, which as you've seen from the two most intense recent discussions on the God Pod (and comments like Bill's here) is far from a given.

what is intuition, though? I'd like to know but don't feel I really do.

Re: Intuition

Good point, Nicole!

So before we can get to 'true/false' we need a working definition of ego… which of course the world cannot seem to agree on.  : )

Here's a question: are there any definitions of ego that include intuition?

And if you're asking me what intuition is, the reason I personally can't answer it directly is because I believe the only way to understand intuition is to ask intuition about itself.  I don't believe you can ask logic what intuition is any more than you can ask a lion what a gazelle is.  (the lion will say “food,” but the gazelle will surely find that definition very limiting.)

However, we can discuss some dynamics of the issue, and in discussing them, hopefully to ask intuition about intuition will become easier.  

…these days I get, from intuition, bundles of images… they come instantly, pass instantly, like an electric shock… but contain lots of info.  

once, recently, the images add up to: “If you don't stop walking right now, you're about to be hit by a car.”  (I was crossing the street)

I stopped, and a very fast car passed right in front of me.  So intuition and me are tight… lol

Re: Intuition

Hey Alan and Nicole,

Good post!

No such thing as intuition.

Ego is everything you think your are, every thought every feeling every belief, including body.

“intuition” is merely the ego making compromises with itself in order to split off parts of itself so it can say this is bad and this is good or this is ok, but this is better. Ego constructs all manner of specialized concepts, particularly “spiritual-religious” concepts like spirit, soul, higher self, etc, etc, but in the end its all ego trying to remove itself from responsibility for itself. Ha!

Even if you sensed some unusual inner feeling and decided it was not ego, it's ego making that decision.

Of course, Alan, I expect that you will disagree with me on this and that's what i love about ya, dude! In fact, I sincerely hope others disagree so's we can rev up the music!

Thanks,
mikeS

Re: Intuition

: D

You KNOW I disagree with you, and this has me grinning like the cheshire!  Oh boy!  Disagreement!

It's crazy how excited this makes me.   But, this is why this pod exists, no?  A game of… glass beads!

(btw, Mike, you might find Hesse's Glass Bead Game very interesting, as I did, although I only found it interesting about 5 years after I read it) 


…
If ego is everything one is, including one's body, what happens to the ego at death?  What is death?  Doesn't your statement assume physical, emotional, and spiritual immortality?

Doesn't it also include stasis? If ego is everything you are, nothing you ever are could be 'new.'  It'd already be your ego before you learned it.  Tricky idea.  

Also– if ego is everything one is, what's the point of separating 'ego' and 'mind?'  It'd be an illusion.  

So mike, if your body is ego, and ego constructs concepts, what are the concepts? Are they ego, or ego's children?  If it is splitting off itself, turning into concepts which are contradictory, does the energy of contradiction ADD to ego, or IS it ego?  

And what about the infant, who has no concepts yet, only instincts?  Are the instincts the ego?  are the ego the instincts?  is it useful to draw a line between the instinctual brain of the baby (as science really does) and the more layered brain of the adult?  

My point is, it isn't quite WRONG to say ego is everything, but it is pretty pointless?  

From ego's perspective, however, it's very true.  But, the end result of such thoughts, to me, would have to be nihilism.

Re: Intuition

Alan,

Actually death is probably the only concept the ego cannot conceptualize and prepare for, everything else it prepares for from prediction. This allows it to live always vigilant in defense against death. Entire religions have sprouted up primarily in fear of this eventuality and all that is known is that it is an eventuality. Therefore, the go conducts it life and completes its many useless projects always aware of time limits. Is it any wonder the collective lives in a state of perpetual anxiety?

If ego is everything you are, nothing you ever are could be 'new.'
 It'd already be your ego before you learned it.  Tricky idea. 

There are many theories which attempt to make sense of ego or self-development. One thing seems likely, the sense of self or ego was automatically engaged upon realizing its prison as an embodied ego. therefore, that would assume the infant realizes bodily existence and thus, a reality separate from it 'self.'
When i brought up the concept of two parts, mind and ego, this was theoretical and based primarily on advaitist ideology. However, it is not the experience i have and others point out the same consideration.
The ego constructs concepts to interpret its experience. However, there are theories that indicate the ego constructs experiences which it then interprets as not self-constructed, but externally constructed.
But that still does not negate the ego.

Thanks,
mikeS

Re: Intuition

Ok, if you have a body, and your body is experiencing death, something that the ego cannot conceptualize– ok, so you have death outside of the ego.  

Which is funny because Buddha said that they way to escape the cycle of death and rebirth was to transcend the ego.  

Both things suggest there is, um, 'stuff' beyond the ego, no?

So shall we discuss then near-death experiences?  that cannot be the ego, who experiences the oft-discussed “tunnel of light.”  Although it would have to be the ego, later, that conceptualizes the experience and calls it a 'tunnel of light.'

So what are the experiences that the ego builds concepts to understand, if all the ego could possibly see and know and experience is ego?  

Now we begin to wonder at the circle… no?  I love wondering at the circle.  It's full of wonder.

Re: Intuition

Alan,

“death outside the ego” would, in fact, be an ego conceptualization and thus based on that prediction the ego would prepare. The problem is that the ego has no concept, inside or outside. It is completely unknown. No ego has returned to life as informant.

Which is funny because Buddha said that they way to escape the cycle of death and rebirth was to transcend the ego. 

Actually, what seems funny to me is that we have no idea what the Buddha said, only what others say the Buddha said.

So shall we discuss then near-death experiences?  that cannot be the
ego, who experiences the oft-discussed “tunnel of light.”  Although it
would have to be the ego, later, that conceptualizes the experience and
calls it a 'tunnel of light.'

It may very well be the ego has unusual experiences and thus makes interpretations like “tunnel of light' to make sense of its experience, just like it interprets and names other unusual experiences “intuition.”

So what are the experiences that the ego builds concepts to understand,
if all the ego could possibly see and know and experience is ego? 

That's a good question. So does the ego construct experiences so that it can then interpret the experience as conforming to its predicted concepts, thereby classifyng and categorizing as known.
Or do experiences happen with no intervention by the ego, which it then must interpret?
I would like to believe it constructs reality for the purpose of interpretation which would allow for a great deal of freedom. But that is not my experience. Either way, I feel rather strongly that egoic interpretation is a significant part of the sequence.

Thanks,
mikeS

Re: Intuition

Mike, no such thing as intuition eh? :)

Alan, bundles of images. Fascinating!

love ya both

Re: Intuition

(Disclaimer to any who see this terribly long explanation - don't read, if your mind is made up regarding Intution and you have no interest in it.  If you are curious or have no opinion and have the “time” or inclination to read so much, jump in.  I will be interested in whatever any reader has to say in comment, about what I will admit is simply my personal interpretation of Intution.  Obviously, I have thought alot about it - thinking about it, is not Intuition.)

Mike,

I will climb out on that limb that you suggested to me in your blog.  I'm so predictable that way.  What I am writing here is my general understanding of Intuition, without reading through the thread - beyond Alan and your initial comments to him.

I believe that the human ability, to ultilize Intuition usefully, is a potential evolutionary development that hasn't completely manifested.  Rupert Sheldrake has a concept called Morphic Resonance, which is similar to something called the 100th Monkey effect.  It is my belief that not every person alive at this time need concern themselves with Intuition.  Those that should are drawn to the subject.  Thanks to more accessible information via the internet, more people are likely to be exposed to the concept.  When enough people master that ability, it will be commonplace among all human beings living.

I believe all people have the latent ability to use Intution but that trying to learn to interpret the information received is still very, very difficult for most people, even those who are actually interested in even trying.  This idea simply comes from personal experience and others who I know have had difficulty with it.  Intuition is like searching the internet for an answer without needing hardware and software.   For some people, it can be like intercepting or tuning into a broadcasted signal (like a tv or radio).  These are just examples of how I personally explain the way Intuition works to myself.  I do not claim it is exactly like my explanations.

The “answers” come in a non-verbal or non-language form, which is what makes being able to interpret Intuition difficult.  There is no reason that a human being can't live their life normally and be very happy; while leaving Intuition out of the mix altogether.  Exploring intuition in one's life is a personal choice.  By intentionally being open in attitude to the “possibility” that it might exist, opportunities will arise to test that possibility and observe the results, within the context of living one's life - as Alan illustrates, though his example seems more like precognition to my understanding.  Perhaps there is a related way information of both sorts is accessible.  That is beyond my ability to know.

Having the ability to access Intuition is not necessarily a good experience.  If an ability to interpret Intuitive Information has not been developed, it is as easy to get it seriously “wrong”, than arrive at any useful information (which usually “understood” more in hindsight, than at the time it is received).  It could be likely that most people alive today who might even be aware that they are experiencing Intuition will still misinterpret what is being conveyed to them.  It is like a foreign language.  If one is curious about it, one can “play around” with it, test its existence without believing at all that it really does exist.  A person can take the attitude of a scientist conducting an experiment, using their own life as the subject.

I think of Intuition as being somewhat similar to imagination.  Another word for intuition is direct knowing.  It is knowing some kind of information, for which you have no foundation or knowledge base with which to know it.  Perhaps it is a primitive aspect of intelligence, similar to instinctive animal type reactions, but elevated to the quality of human thought.  I don't claim to be any kind of expert in Intuition, certainly not in using it or knowing how it works, but I do believe the potential exists and because it exists, some people are able at this time to access and use it successfully.

I have a personal concept of what Ego is - that it develops in childhood, it is not a separate part of our identity, it is not a negative part of our identity, it is just a part of how we develop from birth as we begin to form an idea that we have an identity.  I recently attended a performance of Dr Jekyl & Mr Hyde.  It was based on Robert Louis Stevenson's novella (not the “Hollywood” version but a very intriguing exploration of personality and many aspects of what is conventionally called Ego).  

In my personal concept, the Ego is not separate from what I think of as my Higher Self (which can be defined as the core essence that animates my life, unconditioned by human experiences).  Some consider the Higher Self to be a more authentic expression of who we are individually.  Some people think of the Higher Self aspect as no more than an observer or witness of our human life but I personally consider it my link to the Big Mind, the All That Is.  Gregg Braden has called this the Divine Matrix (the sum total of all human consciousness operating as a single Intelligence, beyond all but the most limited human capability to comprehend that).  Some people name that God.  I once intuited an answer from It (when I asked what I should call it), that it was ME and I was me.  A little bubble inside a big bubble.

I believe it is our Ego's role to [a] define our personality and [b] having done that, get us into all kinds of stimulating situations during our lifetime. Our Ego teaches us - how to get along, how to stay alive, how to be comfortable, how to make a difference and how to hurt others and cause suffering.   But ” if “, or what, we may be learning, is only a theoretical guess. 

Alan, I believe your premonition saved your life.  If that is the same as Intuition, I'm fine with that.  I've no desire to split hairs but a premotion is knowing before an event, an Intution is simply information without a timeframe.  That is only my definition of the difference.  I'm sure Mike would chalk it up to coincidence.  Whatever you want to call it, you didn't get hit by the car.  

Since Intuition is really hard to learn to interpret, a lot of trial and error is required for most people who even try to be open to it happening within them.  Alan, what if your “interpretation” had been to leap (into the path of the car).  There would have been a different outcome, you would not have been here to tell the tale.  If I could fault intuition for something, it would be that.  It is hard to get it “right”.  Some people trying too hard to access intuition and misperceive whatever they are able to latch onto, a forcing or making Intution happen.  I believe that approach can be quite dangerous and destructive.  I believe it is the source of some psychotic and/or schizophrenic illnesses (if I have the “mental health” designations wrong, I trust Mike that you will correct me). 

Not everyone is interested in even trying to receive Intuition.  If your life is barely surviving and the work you do is for very little money and is physically demanding, maybe all you want to do at the end of the day, when you get home at night from work, is veg out in front of the TV with an alcoholic beverage.  Such a person isn't likely to have much interest.

Where does it come from?  I believe it's intelligence that “exists” beyond individual mind generated knowledge or thought.  It requires the human mind / brain to tune in, pick up and translate or interpret the information.  The reaction upon receiving Intuition is an awareness that the training, conditioning and knowledge inputs to the brain of the individual's life experience have not supplied the information being received.  If the mind is emotionally disturbed, affected by harmful chemical substances or injury as in coping with physical illness or accident; the ability to apprehend or interpret Intuition may be impaired. 

Just because intuition is useless to the majority of people does not prove it's non-existence.  When enough people learn to apprehend intuitive thought and interpret it in ways that are useful to their life, everyone will suddenly be doing it, without the learning curve, and it will be just one more small step in the evolution of humankind.

I will close and read everyone else's thoughts and only comment if something seems worth adding my 2 cents to it.  I apologize that this has gotten so long, that was not my intent and I'm sure at the least, the sound bite folks won't bother to read it when they see how long it is.  Someday, I'll get the knack of boiling it down to alot fewer words (if not this lifetime, then the next).

Deb

Re: Intuition

Geez, Deb. That disclaimer's got me all worried about responding!

I'm sure Mike would chalk it up to coincidence.

Ooops! Be careful, Deb. Appearances can be deceiving and i think you have been decieved. Actually, I believe nothing is coincidental. And that includes “intuition.”

I really have little difficulty in your defining “intuition” and, though long, your description was very fascinating and I, and probably many others, resonate.

I suppose the only thing I could take issue with is the “beyond” part. This, I think, is similar to Frans' “external.”

The egoic mind will intuit, precognate, OBE, etc, etc, etc, and experience all manner of wonderful and even paranormal experiences (have had a few myself). Yet, I do NOT negate experience, but apply cause with the 'experiencer.' I believe the 'you' that experiences, is the cause of experience. Ego-self is cause and this, rather than depreciating from the self, empowers the self to reinvent and transform itself and thus, transform its world. Since 'world' exists only as experience of world

No need to rely on “god” or some netherworld of direct experience or pure consciousness. it's all at your fingertips (to coin a phrase). “You” are the cause of all you experience (in fact, Deb, you might note some “science of mind” here, because I cannot deny the influence that ideological perspective has had in my youth).

For me, it has always been this 'beyond' and 'external' interpreting that keeps us pressed into our interpretation of the ordinary and mundane, making it virtually impossible for many to find wonder in that interpretation. Hence, if these experiences originate in some lofty realm of, as of yet, unknown consciousness, this merely reinforces the experience of NOW as being less than what it is simply because our desire for experiences of the 'beyond' keep it that way. The ego demands 'becoming' define it, as opposed to 'being.'

The ego is the “master' and plays all manner of ego-games with its experience of reality, even generating “masters” who are above and beyond itself since, for the ego to remain in its experience of world, there must always be others claiming it must go 'beyond.' Hahaa!

Love this game!

Your move…
mikeS

Re: Intuition

Mike,

Good catch.  No assumptions.  No “guesses” about what another person might or might not think, let them explain for themselves.  Ah, being here is good for making my responses better.

And now, I have a new insight from you, “nothing is coincidental”.  Can we really know that it is true?  Absolutely?  Perhaps, it is no more than a belief.

Oh, I really need to work on writing too much.  I will keep trying.  The topics here are deep; and in trying to cover the aspects outlined in the beginning post, oh, too many words poured out - sadly… it is a huge flaw for me.  I used to have this wonderful reminder.  It is a sentence, and then half is crossed out, and the meaning remains unchanged.  Now, where did that go?  I need it near my computer here.

Yes, that is a concept that I can agree with completely (at least at this point).  We are the “cause” of anything we experience, one way or another, whether we know how we do it or not.  

I think the problematic part is in using that darn word Ego.  Why not just say “Self”?  There is no consensus as to the definition of Ego and it gets “used” too much, in too many places, in too many ways and so, I get hung up with making ALL things the Ego, though I agree that I can personally accept that something called an Ego exists, and remains throughout the entire “conscious” lifetime of a human being.  

Yet, I believe “world” exists beyond our experience of it.  If we were not here, it would still exist, even though it lacked our human consciousness to define it.  It would be a “different” world.  It seems to have existed before us and no reason to believe it would cease without us.  If a tree fell in the forest … would it make a sound?

Self-responsibility as taught in SOM saying “change your thinking, change your life”.  It is not “pray to GOD and God will change your life”.  Personally, I lack not for wonder in the ordinary or mundane.  I have been hiking the same woodland paths for over 20 yrs, almost daily, and I've yet to grow bored, and that is just one example of the point I believe you make.  It's takes so very little to content me.

I don't think there is a “lofty” realm, I think there is a larger realm, accessible by our individual link into it.  It is like looking at the Earth from outer space or looking at the Earth sitting beside a stream.  The view is different, what the view encompasses is not the same, but the Earth is the same Earth.

The Ego grows bored and demands stimulation - the out there, the beyond, the bigger than life - Being is always content.  The Ego is the master for some, without a doubt, and the effort of some spiritual paths is to alter that role to be one of service to the individual.  It is the master for all people, for at least some portion of their normal “aging” process - from infant, to child, to young adult, to mature adult, to dying elder.  In the dying process, I have clearly seen the Ego lose its hold almost entirely (yet not completely, in those I've observed, not to say it doesn't happen for some), leaving only what's left of awareness to watch it all unfold. 

Yes, there is an idea, that the joke is, the deception is, that there is somewhere to “arrive”, to be able to say one has “made it” to the finish line.  I don't see, with my understanding, that there is such a thing as ever arriving at any fixed point (not even the grave, for decay will occur), of having “arrived at the conclusion, while yet living”, and for me - it is more like traveling, the journey is as important as the destination, and the destination may never be reached.

I am having fun being in these discussions.

Is there more from you in response?
Deb

Re: Intuition

Hi Deb and Mike!

Nice discussion!  I almost didn't see it!

Deb, I think intuition has many wonderful forms and attributes.  I think I've been really focused for a while on listening and being more in tune with it, so when my life was in danger, it hit me with the straight juice… precognition.  but I think all such words– intuition and precognition– are words defining a particular channel– feeling– with which we can talk to something beyond ourselves.  If that was precognition– and it did happen, I promise, so it was something– who was the procognitor?  

I do love what you said about it, but I guess what I'm saying is, perhaps precog is a type of intuition.   It was a non-verbal message that came in to me from somewhere, that i interpreted, and said: perhaps I shouldn't be walking right now, perhaps I should stop.

Ultimately– and yes, this is funny, but seriously– I like to think of intuition and ego's relationship as being parallel to the relationship between Huggy Bear and Starsky and Hutch.  : ) While I never really watched the original, admittedly, in the remake, when Starsky and Hutch begin to doubt Huggy Bear's intel, Huggy bear simply says:
“I lay it out for yall to play it out.”

lol…

I'll shut up now don't mind me

Re: Intuition

Mike, I must say there's a degree to which you're engaging in sophism, from my perspective, which is ok, but not very much fun as far as I'm concerned.  Everything you say is true, in those first paragraphs, but you're doing the small equations and ignoring the larger.  There's a name for someone who can't see beyond their own ego in your field of study, that kind of person is called a narcissist.   We both, I think, know what such a person acts like… and what they do… and so even in a population of people blind to ego dynamics, if narcissism is the extreme, than most must by definition be acting, at least in part, by something outside of ego.  or reacting to something outside of ego.  Please see “ego and the self reflecting world.”

If you are really suggesting that there's nothing beyond ego and nothing possible beyond ego, perhaps you'd be better off if you stopped caring and joined their ranks?  : )  But you won't, because you know, in your heart, that there's more to existence than ego.  

You said:
“That's a good question. So does the ego construct experiences so that it can then interpret the experience as conforming to its predicted concepts, thereby classifyng and categorizing as known. 
Or do experiences happen with no intervention by the ego, which it then must interpret?
I would like to believe it constructs reality for the purpose of interpretation which would allow for a great deal of freedom. But that is not my experience. Either way, I feel rather strongly that egoic interpretation is a significant part of the sequence.”

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?  

Which will come last, the chicken or the egg?  Can the egg change the chicken?  Can the chicken change the egg?  

You speak of your experience as if it could possibly tell you if that freedom exists, and yet I know because you've told me in discussions you've never really tried to access and use that freedom, in faith that it could actually work, which is necessary.  So are you basing your opinion that it's impossible on experience, or doubt?  I'd say doubt…

Re: Intuition

Actually, Alan, narcissism is the norm, not the extreme. We are all basically narcissistic by nature. Notice, one thing you will find in all discussion threads are individuals siting their own opinions, their own beliefs.

Of course, psychology normalizes that form of narcissism and highlights the grandiose narcissist as “extreme.”

However, nothing wrong with normal egoic narcissism. Sometimes egos do wonderful things for other people simply because it makes the ego feel good.
Mother Teresa was a narcissist. Of course she did great things for those who suffered. But, make no mistake, her ego was uplifted by it.

I don't consider the ego bad and in need of transcending as you seem to. Ego's do many magnanimous and wonderful things for other people. Of course, egos do horrendously heinous things as well.

But why throw out the baby with the bathwater?

Thanks,
mikeS

Re: Intuition

saying mother theresa is a narcissist is ridiculous.  

…we probably don't have much to talk about if we can't agree on that.  

I never said the ego was bad.  I said seeing nothing but ego dynamics is a pretty terrible way to live, lamentable and, worse, disharmonious.  Which historically has made it a great danger to those who live that way and everyone else.  

And if, BTW, there are narcissists and Grandiose narcissists, an extreme kind of narcissim– you have still made my point.  If there is an extreme kind of narcissism, than there is a continuum, and if there is a continuum, there is something on the other side of the continuum.  Meaning: ego is not the only possible thing acting on your life, and indeed not the only thing you experience.  Not always, at least.  It's up to the individual.

and your argument goes… well, that's up to you.  Will you hold the belief, or is there an argument that can somehow account for a continuum with only one element?

The problem isn't ego, the problem is the stubborn refusal of people to look anywhere else but ego, to use anything else but logic and other ego-tools… it's imbalance, and imbalance is the problem, not ego… balance is the solution.  Which, incidentally, is why we're supposed to be talking about intuition here.  : )

Re: Intuition

Ridiculous? But if we are all narcissistic, why would Mother Teresa be innocent. In fact, She may epitomize the perspective of narcissism from doing maximal good to further uphold an reinforce an ego that does good only good for others, as opposed to the ego that does only bad. We should all be narcissists like Mother Teresa.
She would not have done what she did if her ego-self found no value in the actions.  She is attributed as saying, “In the final analysis it is between you and God. It was never between you and them anyway.” Dang, what a narcissistic statement!!

In fact, I'd take it even further in stating that Christ was the highest narcissism one could attain. Possibly it was radical narcissistic extension of self to others that dissolved all differences and closed all gaps.

…we probably don't have much to talk about if we can't agree on that. 

It's interesting how we often tend to set boundaries on engagement by demanding others believe as we do.

That's okay, Alan, if you don't want to talk to me.

But I'll miss ya bro!
mikeS

Re: Intuition

Mike, I had that conversation in high school.  Sorry, but I did.  Someone was trying to be deep and provocative, so they supposed that all the people who suffered in order to help others were really suffering in order to feel pleasure of saying they helped others.  

Well, I find it illogical in the extreme to say this, I've said why, but I don't feel like arguing about it.  So you are right, I have no response.  Except to say: well, what is it about being broke and helping others, mike, that's more ego-pleasurable than driving a big car and having a huge house and being an ego-exec?  If mother theresa was engaged in ego-pleasures, dictators would have become saints.  The argument is… well, to each his own.


I really don't demand you agree with me, but it's like talking math with someone who says “1+1=1” and only relates to integers.  Not much to talk about.

Re: Intuition

Mike, I had that conversation in high school.  Sorry, but I did.
 Someone was trying to be deep and provocative, so they supposed that
all the people who suffered in order to help others were really
suffering in order to feel pleasure of saying they helped others.

Ha! Alan, you should know by now that your frequent attempts to belittle my intelligence, “I had that conversation if high school,” rarely work as I have little concern with whether you agree with me or not.

I did not say Mother Teresa suffered and helped others because she was suffering (so yes, maybe you did learn this in high school) I merely explained that Mother Teresa attained great joy through helping others. Who attained great joy? Mother Teresa. But what part of Mother Teresa? Specifically her ego-self or that part of her that she believes SHE is? Mother Teresa's self-concept, not you or I or anyone else, but her 'self' attained great joy from her “selfless” acts of kindness. Of course, others benefited greatly, but their 'self' experienced benefit separate from Mother Teresa and this is because all selves consider their 'self' separate with separate experiences.

Therefore, we cannot take the 'self' of Mother Teresa out of the loop and she did receive much from her actions. To say that Mother Teresa's ego-self obtained no benefit and was completely selfless would be a fallacy. Yet, if only more could be selfless in this way, the world would not be such a difficult place. In fact, we could say that Mother Teresa's self-abnegation was actually an extreme form of narcissism, only in the reverse of how narcissism is usually defined.

I'm surprised you didn't learn this in high school? LOL.
mikeS

Re: Intuition

I'm sorry it seemed I belittled your intellegence.  I really am, I didn't mean to.  

 Mother Teresa, by the end of her life, was living in the misery that accompanies total lack of faith.  The poverty she fought broke her spirit.  Look into it, it's true.  She wasn't happy the way you suggest.

Re: Intuition

Yes, I had read about that.
Yet, this end of life crisis does not negate the joy she felt in her ministration to the poor and suffering and it seems to me this joy fueled her continuing to do so.

I feel that it was, an usually is, the ideology that we tend to interpret life through that finally may fail us. Possibly her ideological concept of God failed her and if that was not a part of her actions, she may have not died with a broken spirit. However, if that was not part of her actions would she have acted as she did?
But it isn't it ironic that we tend to hold her up as the epitome of unconditional love, yet she died feeling like she had somehow failed….

Hmmm…

Thanks, Alan. No need to apologize. I thought we were just gettin jiggy with it!
mikeS

Re: Intuition

But how does it not negate your argument that says she was doing it for ego pleasure?  When she received no ego pleasure– and this is documented– she kept doing it.  Therefore, she had motivations beyond her ego (which was made miserable), and therefore, what are you basing your theory on?

I'm glad we're cool, sometimes I play a lot rougher than I mean.  : )  It's not that I mean to be mean, think of me like a kid swinging a stick.  sometimes, someone's got to say: “hey!  Stop swinging that stick!”

The ideology through which we interpret life is ego, and must fail us.  If it fails us, there is something beyond ego, which there is.  Now, if we could consciously MAKE it fail us, we'd throw ourselves into dissonance and, if you think about it, could force a look beyond ego.  

… shamans take psychadelics

Re: Intuition

I'm not so sure what you mean by “documented.” It seems quite impossible to document an internal experience. You mean she verbally reported that she was miserable? In addition, I never said she did it for “pleasure.” I said she helped the suffering because it gave her joy to do so. The ego-self experiences joy and thus bases its actions on that measure.
It seems we may differ on a definition of “ego.” For me 'ego' is everything “you” or “I” believe we are. All beliefs, thoughts and feelings are thought, believed, and felt by an ego-self. It is the whole 'self' and that which Buddhism seeks to have us transcend. Ego is everything you experience, since ego is the 'experiencer.'

Thanks,
mikes

Re: Intuition

People document their experiences, internal states, etc all the time.  This is art, and the fundaments of all communication.  Mother Theresa did so in heart-wrenching letters to friends in the church, which were recently released to the public.  

Ok, lets call it “ego-joy.”  I'm going to explain why what your saying, from my perspective, is not logical.  Saying “ego” is all we are– if one says that– causes a situation where 'Ego' as a concept has no meaning.  I'm not saying you can't define it as such, I'm saying, as a 'logic model' it breaks down.

My logic proof: Your saying doing her work gave her ego joy, yes?

Ok, so Mother Theresa was a nun.  This means she was poor, married to god, etc etc etc.  In other words, her only source of ego-pleasure, or ego-joy (which is all there is, you are saying) was helping others.  

However, at the end of her life– when she had helped the most people over time, and in the present was, through grants, doubtlessly helping as many as she ever did at any given moment, she was receiving NO JOY FROM IT.  

IF her only source of ego joy was her work, and her work was going as well as ever, it is illogical that she would be writing letters speaking of total lack of faith, depression and angst, as she was.  It does not add up.  

If you can suggest how it adds up, I'm definately willing to listen!

But my counter-theory:

Mother Theresa was not working to make herself feel good because she was making a difference.  Mother Theresa was working to Fight Poverty.  By the end, sadly, she felt that she'd not really made a dent: the poverty was as bad as ever, if not worse.  Therefor, she wondered if there was a point to her life's work… she wondered if there was a god… she wondered if anyone really cared at all… yet and still, because their suffering broke her heart, even though she didn't see a point, she kept right at it, because helping one is better than helping none.  

in short: compassion. love.  

things beyond the ego.  yes?  

…can we talk about intuition yet?  : D

Re: Intuition

Hey Alan,

Certainly correct in that “people document their experience, internal states, etc all the time.” And we seem to get a taste, but never the whole meal since words must always fail.
The ego-self that claimed itself as “Mother Teresa” found value in ministration to the poor. We need not call it pleasure or joy or any other concept, simply that an ego-self valued what it experience through its actions. To value something is to esteem it and desire it and experience it as valuable and we live our lives through such a value scale, picking and choosing what works for us, based on experience.
She desired an end to poverty. She desired an end to “man's inhumanity to man” and received inner benefit and valued her 'self' for what “she” did and modeled her 'self' to others, in effect saying, 'do what I do and experience joy.' I really can't speak to her feeling of being forsaken by her God at the completion of her life.
What's wrong with an ego experiencing joy from giving to others? I imagine you experience a sense of joy when you give to others (or whatever you wish to call it). If we did not experience value from giving, my guess is we would not give.
Why can't ego be all we are? is ego so bad?
So let me put it more bluntly, any experience you have which you attribute to a supernatural source is nothing more than an attribution of en ego-self attached to the idea that it is powerless to produce a supernatural experience. But, it produces supernatural experience nonetheless, and if it could only realize what it does, instead of projecting it outward from itself, it could finally realize freedom and it could finally realize unconditional love.
Intuition is just such an experience that the ego interprets as beyond egoic production. I merely claim that it is egoically produced and interpreted as beyond ego.

Keep her goin my bro, lovin it!
mikeS

Re: Intuition

Hello all,

Great discussion!  Glad to be a part.  Question: who wants to know if not the ego?  That which seeks to define intuition, in my eyes, is ego; however, does that make intuition part of the ego?  I don't believe it does.

For me, everything we do that seeks “identification with” is ego at play, but that doesn't mean that everything is part of the ego - not until we try to grasp it, identify it and call it our own - at that point we limit “it” to ourselves (ego).  But of course, there is no real limitation, only the ego perceiving the limitation and identifying with it :-)

Could that which we identify as intuition be us briefly tapping into an energy, a reality that is beyond the ego?

Frans

Re: Intuition

Yo Franz!

Yes, but why couldn't it be all ego, all the time? True the ego-self limits, but there is also much that we do in the world that is quite expansive and seen as 'loving.'

Maybe “intuition” is ego trying to expand beyond its own limitations in realizing its power.

Of course, that would negate “awakening,” “enlightenment” and “salvation” as not somehow knowing God, but knowing ego as God.

Yet, this sacrilegious perspective would dump a great deal of responsibility on the ego-self. It would seem egos have become quite accustomed to negating such responsibility and demanding there be some external source or power to save them.

But, just saying… what say you?
mikeS

Re: Intuition

Hey MikeS,

You mean ego-self is all that's real?  That's a rather bleak look on reality :-)

Speaking from personal experience I would say there is more - which is experienced initially through the ego but not of the ego.  To me ego is only problematic when it is the immature form of ego, that which seeks identification.  The mature ego is able to engage in this reality while remaining detached from identification.  Some would call this the witness, I guess.  When I am in this state - either through meditation or whatever gets me there (no, I don't use drugs) - reality expands but at the same time I become “experiencing” itself, for lack of a better word.  Now i know this would seem to confirm your statement that it's all part of the ego, but that would miss the point.  It is much more a non-conceptual, direct realization that Life is this vast potential, and “ego” is what we use to interact…

Enough for now,
Frans

Re: Intuition

Fran!

Yep, ego-self is it!

I guess what I'm playing around with is that an evolved ego-self, that you aptly refer to as “mature ego,'” actually constructs its experiences. Thus, it would construct an experience such as the “witness.” However, in order to maintain its weak and powerless status it then makes an interpretation that these experiences are, essentially, outside its domain of experience and therefore originating from some other entity like god, or higher 'realm' of experience like heaven/nirvana.
So the ego does not merely interact with 'creation,' but actually creates it. Yet, it must deny that it has this capacity, for fear of the death of itself as it believes it exists AS, which of course, is the poor and defenseless mortal that must suffer and die.

Of course, I'm just playing with concepts here…
mikeS

Re: Intuition

MikeS,

From an integral perspective you sound like someone who lives in a flatland situated on the right hand side of the AQAL model :-)…and I don't think you've limited yourself to that flatland - calling your bluff here, buddy.

For the sake of this argument - as long as we live in a reality that is conceptual and not experiential or direct we could easily make our language accommodate this ego-is-everything concept - but then again, who created the language, hehe.

Language and thoughts are useful tools in that conceptual reality but they fall short in describing something that can only be experienced directly.  For those of us who haven't recognized this direct experience (I'm pretty sure we've all had the actual experiences) it becomes vital to keep defending this ego-concept - after all, without it, what are they? Not knowing is threatening, but also the first (and last) step…and something tells me that you are quite comfortable not knowing.

Frans

Re: Intuition

Frans,

Actually, I'm more on the left side since I'm theorizing that even external reality is nothing more than internal experience. You say that we live in a reality that is conceptual. I disagree and say that reality IS directly experienced and then that experience is interpreted through concepts because we wish to share that experience with others. It is the concepts and not the ego that is to blame.

Note that when you express love to your family, is the experience from which that expression comes not direct? Does this mean that there is no 'love' or that when you express it, it is not “you” who are expressing? Of course it's “you” expressing love and you are doing so because “you” experience love, and quite directly i would add.

All reality is direct experience and this is why we have no idea if the right side even exists since all we have to go on is mutual agreement from experience.
However, it seems to me that, in the ancients desire to terminate the “evil” that ego creates, it was determined that ego must therefore, be annihilated completely thereby by denying the ego creates much good as well. This is simply throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Why not simply focus on transformation as opposed to complete transcendence/

With these ancient teachings how could we ever learn to significantly alter our experiences when in fact, as we are traditionally taught, we are powerless to change as long as we are egoic.

Too many centuries of seeking to transcend ego makes the world essentially powerless to change and we merely compulsively repeat the past.

Thanks Frans!
mikeS

Re: Intuition

Mike: what little I've heard of mother theresa's letters, and what analysis I've heard of them, suggests that the read/analysis you are doing of her would probably be well-suited to a bit of information gathering.  

There's quite a lot wrong with ego-joy at helping others, actually.  WHEN one assumes there's such things as 

Love

and 

Compassion

which I am giving their own lines because they are the meat of the issue, and in my last post, perhaps I didn't emphasize this enough.  

Have you ever heard of an average sort of woman lifting a car because she wanted to, and amazing feat of strength?  because it gave her ego pleasure?

have you ever heard of one lifting a car because her baby was going to die?

when mandela went to jail in south africa to break rocks for thirty years, do you think he said: “yeah, well, the back-breaking and mind-numbing and pain-educing hard labor for the rest of my foreseeable life won't be very fun, but damn, isn't it cool I get to be a freedom fighter??”

Mike, why aren't there more signing up to fight injustice to receive that wonderful ego-joy it brings?  … is it because if you're after ego-joy your better off with an Xbox, some cocaine, and a few prostitutes?  

…seriously, isn't it?

Re: Intuition

The car is lifted and the child is saved because the ego could not bear the pain of loss, since the ego loved the child.

Geez, Alan, why are you so determined that egos NOT be happy or experience love? And especially against egos finding happiness through engaging with others?

Many people engage in aiding the poor because it makes them happy to do so. I'm really confused by the point your trying to make.

The ego-self is possible of great sacrifice in the name of love and the joy that love brings. It also sacrifices for stupid things to, no denying that!

But, of course, egos are selfish and negative as well and look to petty pleasures and conspicuous consumption instead. However, ego transformation is very possible and has been “documented.”

The ego has the capacity to change and the joy of deeply engaging with others can replace pleasure of individual pursuits.

If it wasn't for the egoic decision to pursue happiness through spiritual paths and religions, you would not experience that happiness, pleasure and joy you seem to experience from your path and “you” are an ego-self. This seems quite fundamental to direct experience.

So why is everyone so intent on 'offing' the ego?
mikeS

Re: Intuition

MikeS,

Who creates the concepts, away from direct experience?

Your example of love for family is great!  I believe all the emotions exist as energy forms, archetypes maybe.  When we tap into those energies, we become conduits for love or fear in any of it's many disguises.  When we limit that experience - making it conceptual again, telling ourselves it is our families that we love or the economic downturn that we fear - we block ourselves off from direct experience, and ego takes over.  Yes - I feel immense, powerful love when I look at my daughter, but as soon as I limit it to my interaction with her, as soon as I try to name it, I lose the direct experience of Love.

I agree 100% with you that seeking to transcend is useless, because it is the ego which seeks (and obviously it doesn't want to lose itself).  Reality - all of it - has aspects on both the left and right hand side of the AQAL model - more important is that all of reality is holonic - anything is a whole, comprised of parts (that are wholes) and at the same time a part of a greater whole (which is also a part).  If you apply this to consciousness you soon get to a level where changing our experiences becomes moot - understanding our reality becomes more important, leading to transcendance (which is not different from transformation).

Frans

Re: Intuition

Yo Frans.

I relate to what your saying about emotions existing as energy forms, archetypes, etc. Yet, even that seems to make it external to us and therefore, not within egos capacity to experience and, in fact, create experience.

When we limit that experience - making it conceptual again, telling
ourselves it is our families that we love or the economic downturn that
we fear - we block ourselves off from direct experience, and ego takes
over.

Frans, wait a minute, “telling ourselves it is our families that we love…we block ourselves off from direct experience and ego takes over.” How else do we know we love our families if we are not engaged in the internal egoic dialogue that informs us that we love our families? Are you saying that ego is not involved whatsoever in the choice to love?
Frans, you obviously experience great and wonderful things in your life. Is it not “you” experiencing these wonderful things?
My concern with transcendent ideologies is the circular nature of ego seeking to transcend ego. This is because deep within these ideologies is the perpetuation of an unconscious form of self-loathing because, why seek to transcend myself if there is not something deeply inherently wrong with being “me.”
Let the ideology transform ego, but make no mistake, ego is what you are, so take it as high as “you” possibly can.

But I'm just saying…what say you…

Re: Intuition

One cannot transcend what one does not love, has not learned to love.  And this includes one's self. 

…sorry to but in, don't mind me

Re: Intuition

Fran,

Who creates the concepts, away from direct experience?

The “you” experiencing directly. no?

Reality - all of it - has aspects on both the left and right hand side
of the AQAL model - more important is that all of reality is holonic - anything is a whole, comprised of parts (that are wholes) and at the same time a part of a greater whole (which is also a part).

Yes, and there is much of the AQAL that is agreeable to me. However, I think the concept of “reality” should always be prefaced with the 'experience of reality' since, as I understand it, there is really no such thing as a “reality” in and of itself. There is only 'experience' of reality and in that experience the ego or self applies external reference points or coordinates which aid to separate itself from its experience. In that sense the ego-self creates reality, since it has nothing more to work with but experience. Therefore, every experience defined as supernatural is actually fully egoic and there is nothing external to self. Yet, that does not negate the magnitude and wonder of those experiences, it only asserts source or causative agent. Which is “you.”

What say you?
mikeS

Re: Intuition

Hi Frans – I like your perspective to the question at hand.  I like how you reflect that transcendence is not different from transformation. 

I wish I had more time at present, but will come back to read more of the discussion, which is a very, very compelling one from each avenue of perspective offered here. 

:)

Re: Intuition

Nahnni,

Nice to meet you; I'm looking forward to reading your input.

Frans

Re: Intuition

Hi Frans and everybody else,

I apologize for jumping in this late but I just came to this new group (thanks Mike). I haven't even read all in this thread but thought I just throw in my 2 cents.
Intuition, as I view it, is of and from the spirit, from our deeper real self. So I don't include our physical bodily “gut” feeling that very much “tells” us of body/mental conditions. Intuition, when isolated, comes from a place of truth. It speaks to our true conscience and is recognized as impersonal and general truths that surpasses individual opinion.

Intuition then, is not of the ego, but surpasses it. It springs in our minds and in our hearts, enlightening and fulfilling our selves. A clear conscience is the requirement for proper discernment of intuition. And a clear conscience depends to a great extent to our depth of selflessness, or wisdom and humility.

Re: Intuition

Bjorn, it's so good to see you again. What you say here rings true to how I understand intuition, at least in part. But I can't quite articulate at the moment what is missing for me here, so I'll have to come back to this.

Peace,

Nicole

Re: Intuition

Mike, again, and more simply, my point is:

To say that people are suffering for ego pleasure is ridiculous, because suffering is the opposite of ego-pleasure.  you are saying: “oh, their suffering because it's pleasurable for them to suffer for others.”  if that's the case, it wouldn't be suffering.  on whether it's suffering or not, again, I'm choosing to take THEIR words over mine or yours.  

Suffering is not pleasure, and therefore, when one is suffering, one is not feeling pleasure.  can we agree on this?

Then to go to jail for 30 years for ego-pleasure's sake is not only ridiculous, it's a disrespectful idea to even entertain seriously.  Which is why I swung my stick earlier.  

The ego would seek the pleasure of NOT suffering, mike, not the pleasure of suffering.  

Do you really have no concept of Love, as your posts suggest?  And if you feel belittled, I'm sorry, but your posting is beginning to make me sad.

Re: Intuition

Yo Alan!

Dude, you can't take words, place them in quotations and then make them my words when in fact, they are not, such a:s
 you are saying: “oh, their suffering because it's pleasurable for them to suffer for others.”
This is called libel and I will have to call my lawyer and sue you. Hahaa!

Individuals that give to others do so because they (self) find 'value' in the giving, otherwise they would not give. Seems pretty simple to me although you seem to want to make it into some god-like profoundness that may in fact, impede it from us. There have been others who promote this “selfishness of giving” concept.
Often there is a very fine line between suffering and joy and many have found joy in their suffering.

Sorry I make you sad, dude!

I suppose it's best then, not to read what I write. However, I recognize it would be hard to pull away and would cause great suffering. Like a car accident, it seems the things I often say attract and repulse at the same time. Ha!

But thanks for starting this thread, since it definitely is a worthy subject and has attracted a great deal of interest.

MikeS

Re: Intuition

Hi Alan,

Good to see you here too.

Calling anything good or bad, pleasure or suffering, is an ego judgment.  The ego will just as easily identify with suffering as with pleasure - look at all the “victims” around us…

I'm glad you used Nelson Mandela as an example earlier; of course he didn't choose to become a lifelong prisoner, but that doesn't mean he didn't start to identify with the ego-role of martyr when he was in prison.  He is one of the most prominent examples of how to overcome this ego identity and live life from a place of non-judgment and love, which is why he became so influential later in life…

Maybe the problem in understanding is that we are working from different interpretations of the word “ego”?

Frans

Re: Intuition

Ego…Smego! 

How is that for deep?

I love my intuition and don’t seem much to care where and the world it comes from, just pretty darn grateful for it, if it is all ego…than go ego! The only time ego comes into this scenario is when my intuition is off, than it is all ego's fault!

Well this is a fun Sunday read, beats the paper news on my end of the world. Back to the fun people and excuse me while I inject a little self-ego post of thoughts in this one…

This is nothing more than another healthy functional impairment of my own…oh that darn ego…!

Re: Intuition

Intuition has no interest in logic, does it?  no more than logic has in intuition… they do their own things!  Our check.

and balance

Re: Intuition

Denim,

Or how 'bout 'Leggo my Ego!'

Actually, I would say that with intuition, ego merely becomes more highly attuned to what “you” are experiencing. I think we can take the ego much higher than we would like to believe. And, of course, all these phantasmagorical theories on ego transcendence were ego created.

Thanks!
mikeS

Re: Intuition

Hi Denim~

Quote: I love my intuition and don’t seem much to care where and the world it
comes from, just pretty darn grateful for it, if it is all ego…than go
ego!

I like that.  I really do.  Pure and simple.

Blessings :)

Re: Intuition

Frans, I agree completely: “pleasure” and “suffering” are ego-judgements.  

Then, one who willingly “suffers” for others, say, is acting on something other than ego.  It must be, for their ego is saying: “man, this is NOT good.”

This is of course different from pseudo-masochism.   That's like the couple that says: “Ok, we can spank eachother, but if it no longer feels more good than bad, use the safe word.”  

The case of the victim is one that plays into it, but ask a victim if it is “suffering” or “pleasure.”  if they say it's “pleasure,” they, by definition, are not a victim.  So perhaps that's a slightly different issue, eh?  Because the victim always wants not to be a victim anymore.  They only do not know how not to be a victim.  This is different from a Mandela or Theresa, who walked willingly into their self-made fires.  And for whom?  Themselves?  No… this is illogical.

I'd like to throw in an over-used quote, but a nice quote non-the-less.  It is a poetic description of the lamentable condition of not being able to see anything but one's own ego-dynamics.

1If I speak in the languages of humans and angels but have no love, I have become a reverberating gong or a clashing cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can understand all secrets and every form of knowledge, and if I have absolute faith so as to move mountains but have no love, I am nothing. 3Even if I give away everything that I have and sacrifice myself,[a] but have no love, I gain nothing.4      Love is always patient;13love is always kind;      love is never enviousor arrogant with pride.      Nor is she conceited,5            and she is never rude;      she never thinks just of herselfor ever get annoyed.      She never is resentful;6            is never glad with sin,      but always glad to side with truth,whene'er the truth should win.[b]7      She bears up under everything,believes the best in all,      there is no limit to her hope,and she will never fall.8Love never fails. Now if there are prophecies, they will be done away with. If there are languages, they will cease. If there is knowledge, it will be done away with. 9For what we know is incomplete and what we prophesy is incomplete. 10But when what is complete[c] comes, then what is incomplete will be done away with.11When I was a child, I spoke like a child, thought like a child, and reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up my childish ways. 12Now we see only an indistinct image in a mirror, but then we will be face to face. Now what I know is incomplete, but then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known.13Right now three things remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love. 

Re: Intuition

Hi Alan,

Ego doesn't seek pleasure; it seeks identity.  The part of the victim that doesn't want to be a victim isn't the ego (best case scenario, Mike…:-))

Frans

Re: Intuition

Nice!  can I try?

Ego is static identity, seeking pleasure.  

Ego fears the loss of identity, the loss of itself.  the loss of it's stasis– ideology or reality that threatens worldview threatens identity, threatens ego.  Ego denies the existence of such or must change.  Ego sees this change as lose of identity- death.

Ego dislikes the lack of pleasure.

Re: Intuition

MikeS,

I think it is external to ego.

Language gets tricky here, but let's see if I can convey my thoughts: “love for” always involves ego - it's like a diluted form of Love (capital L).  In that diluted form, love always has some condition attached, whether we're consciously aware of it or not.

Why does there need to be anything wrong with something (ego in this case) that i seek to transcend?  After all, if I transcend ego, I still incorporate ego in my higher-level-self, don't I?  The only thing that has changed is that I no longer identify exclusively with the ego, and maybe now I can use it when it comes in handy, and leave it behind when it comes between me and experience…If I develop on the line of consciousness, I go from archaic to magic to mythic to rational to pluralistic to integral to unitive.  Unitive includes all of the earlier mentioned stages, it is simply no longer identified with them.  At some point - the higest levels of integral IMO - ego gets transcended…The only thing wrong with ego is the identification with it - exclusively in the immature ego and less exclusively in the mature ego.  Maybe the witness is the last stand of the ego (that's from Zen, I believe).

does that resonate at all - I especially refer to the fact the we don't need to loathe anything that we seek to transcend?

Frans

Re: Intuition

Hey Alan,

I would say one cannot transcend what one doesn't deeply understand - which may very well mean love :-)

Frans

P.S. I'd like to quote 1 sentence of one of my favourite poems “The Invitation”:

…”I want to know if you can be faithless and therefore trustworthy…”

If anyone would like I can post the poem here - it's quite exquisite..

Re: Intuition

Ah yes.  Is love a requisite step to understanding, or is understanding a requisite step to love?  or is it either/or?

Re: Intuition

Hello Frans, that's a wonderful poem by Oriah Mountain Dreamer

On her website, I found interesting background to the Invitation, how she wrote it as a response to a superficial party while having in mind a workshop by David Whyte, (are you familiar with his poetry?).

The Invitation

Re: Intuition

Beautiful.

Thank you for sharing this, Nicole. I'm speechless

(or not, apparently - lol)…

Re: Intuition

:) :) you're welcome

Re: Intuition

i have a thought about intution… don't know if this fits in anywhere with the discussion - but here is my two cents.

i think what is called intuition is a combination of things.
sometimes i think it is simply an egoic construct wrapped in spiritual language and therefore seen as valuable … like the view of “higher self” is sometimes.

but sometimes - i think it is a matter of perception - that is not separate from other more gross forms of percpetion (eg the five senses) - but, i believe is latent in all of us… and can be developed.  and in this way - is not any more separate from ego than other perceptions… just mostly hidden and therefore ego calls it something “special”… when really, it isn't as much special as it is subtle.

for example - my mother, who never considered herself spiritual - rather considered herself an atheist - she practiced medicine for fifty years - and during that time delivered a lot of babies (over a thousand)  .  while i was growing up - she had the uncanny ability to sense when her patients were about to go into labor… and at night she would wake bolt alert and get ready to go to the hospital (a half hour drive away at the time) before the phone would ring … it happened so many times that i know she was tuned in.  she also had the occasional experience of seeing events before they happened… she dreamt the details of a non-fatal airplane crash that our friends were in the night before it actually happened…
then my father - he was a very very gifted dowser.  he was agnostic - and not “spiritual” either… but i have no doubt at all at his ability.  i witnessed it (you could actually see the willow branches torque down and bend toward the ground as he passed over underground water)…

i found that after a year or so of fairly regular meditation that i could do it too (although not to the extent of my father)… 
(actually - dowsing is very common - likely several to many people reading this post can do it)

so - that's my take.
arpita

Re: Intuition

Greetings~

I am of the mind to not view intuition as associated with ego, but do see ego as attempting to process an intuitive occurrence.  So, I am inclined to agree with those going in that direction.  The intuitive sense, and I would place it in the realm of the senses as well, is often in direct conflict with the ego's cache of data.  So, then, is intuition a true and separate sense of “knowing”?  That which transcends the reasoning, based on model and belief, mechanism of the ego?  I find that intuition, when it is paid attention to, seems to sharpen the insight.

I liked reading the story about your mother and father, Arpita.

I have truly appreciated this discussion and each and every response to the inquiry and so I thank you, Alan, for posing the question.

Blessings :)

Re: Intuition

i think what is called intuition is a combination of things.
sometimes
i think it is simply an egoic construct wrapped in spiritual language
and therefore seen as valuable … like the view of “higher self” is
sometimes.

YEEESSSSS!!!!

Oooops, sorry. I mean, yes I agree.

just mostly hidden and therefore ego calls it something “special”… when really, it isn't as much special as it is subtle.

Ahhh….and these are the specialized concepts that are the foundation of all religions and austere spiritual paths and practices: salvation, revelation, atonement, awakening, realization, enlightenment, etc, etc, etc, the list is endless. Without these concepts all ideologies would crumble of their own oppressive weight.

she dreamt the details of a non-fatal airplane crash that our friends were in the night before it actually happened…

Oooh, love this stuff. My wife will think of someone she hasn't heard from in years and presto, in no time at all, the phone rings and it's that person.
As opposed to how some wish to define me, as flatlandish and such, I believe all this is perfectly within the ego's purview of natural capacity. Once many of my therapy clients realize that I'm quite comfortable with this stuff, they tell me things that would make the neck hair stand high. I merely hold that ego is cause and effect.

However, i never hold too 'seriously,' though and remain open to other rules.
mikeS

Re: Intuition

Hi MikeS,

I noticed you didn't answer my question…bad Mike :-)!

Frans

Re: Intuition

Frans!!

Sorry brother! Please redirect me to your question.
I had little internet availability over Easter because I was out of my aquarium and also partaking of the required family Easter festivities (yo, at least maybe I'll go to heaven, what'd you have to say for yourself, mister!).

Now i'm trying to play catchup with all the new threads posts and comments (like a good “cultivator” should!). So please repost your question so we can keep playing.

Thanks,
mikeS

Re: Intuition

Okay - found it!  Amazing how this thread has grown…

I don't believe I'm going to heaven, by the way :-)  I had a bad cold all weekend, which excused me from visiting the in-laws and play with you guys instead.

“I think it is external to ego.

Language gets
tricky here, but let's see if I can convey my thoughts: “love for”
always involves ego - it's like a diluted form of Love (capital L).  In
that diluted form, love always has some condition attached, whether
we're consciously aware of it or not.

Why does there need to be
anything wrong with something (ego in this case) that i seek to
transcend?  After all, if I transcend ego, I still incorporate ego in
my higher-level-self, don't I?  The only thing that has changed is that
I no longer identify exclusively with the ego, and maybe now I can use
it when it comes in handy, and leave it behind when it comes between me
and experience…If I develop on the line of consciousness, I go from
archaic to magic to mythic to rational to pluralistic to integral to
unitive.  Unitive includes all of the earlier mentioned stages, it is
simply no longer identified with them.  At some point - the higest
levels of integral IMO - ego gets transcended…The only thing wrong with
ego is the identification with it - exclusively in the immature ego and
less exclusively in the mature ego.  Maybe the witness is the last
stand of the ego (that's from Zen, I believe).

does that resonate at all - I especially refer to the fact the we don't need to loathe anything that we seek to transcend?

Frans”

F

Re: Intuition

Thanks Frans,

“love for” always involves ego - it's like a diluted form of Love (capital L).  In
that diluted form, love always has some condition attached, whether
we're consciously aware of it or not.

Yes, ego-self only seems to 'know' conditioned love. But can it seek to impose less conditions to eventually being unconditional?

Why does there need to be anything wrong with something (ego in this case) that i seek to transcend?  After all, if I transcend ego, I still incorporate ego in my higher-level-self, don't I?

My use of the term “loathe” was a bit pejorative. However, why evolve if not to seek advancement? The ego has the will to be more than it is, thereby applying a negative value to what it is now willing to be. Seems this can't be helped particularly if we are seeking to tanscend.

I understand somewhat the integral position “transcend and include” However, in Wilber's books there is much of the self that is dropped off and not included. Which, to my mind, is Wilber making compromises with what is a flawed system.

The only thing that has changed is that I no longer identify exclusively with the ego, and maybe now I can use it when it comes in handy, and leave it behind when it comes between me and experience…

Hmmm…use it when it comes in handy? Who or what makes that determination, “you”? What is that?

If I develop on the line of consciousness, I go from archaic to magic to mythic to rational to pluralistic to integral to unitive.  Unitive includes all of the earlier mentioned stages, it is simply no longer identified with them.

Sorry, but the system is to clean and linear for my tastes and fails to identify those who existed in previous stages who jumped the lines to provide the map. How'd they do that?

The only thing wrong with ego is the identification with it - exclusively in the immature ego and less exclusively in the mature ego.  Maybe the witness is the last stand of the ego (that's from Zen, I believe).

Yes and that's the Buddhist take on it, which integral theory is very much beholden to (and locked into, IMHO). As I currently see it, identification is problematic, but it is also occasion for much joy and love through identifying with other egos. Why transcend that!

I don't feel we can ever not identify with a self, but it shouldn't be either/or as some non-dualists fail to recognize. Simply transfrom the content that is identified WITH. I think this was the original Buddhist and Christ message, in 'do only this.' At present we do this and that. But why not dissociate with that and do only this. If we can correspond with love, then correspond with only love, etc, etc. Teach the ego to be fear-free and it will correspond with what can enhance it and it's experience of the world as one with others and the world.

I think I answered your questions, but hopefully not to your liking. Hahaa!

But that's how we keep the game in play!
mikeS

Re: Intuition

Hi Nicole,

I'm going to check him out!  The Invitation is one of my favs, for sure…

Love,
Frans

Re: Intuition

Hi Frans,

Oh, good, he's well worth your time, I assure you,

Love,

Nicole

Re: Intuition

Sweet!  We're talking about intuition!

First, I'd like to reinforce an idea– everything people think is intuition, or call intuition, may not be intuition.  

An example, I once had an X who liked to make declaritive statemements about events and relationships in my life that she was not around for and had no information about beyond what I had told her.  Her declairitive statements, however, would sound very little like what I had said had happened, and were, from my perspective, were demonstrably incorrect, complex, fanciful analyses.  Dangerous too, because as far as I was concerned, the person who I was supposed to be in these analyses bore no resemblance to anyone I ever was.

Only, when I would say: “I'm sorry, you're wrong, you weren't there and you are telling me things happened that did not happen,” she would get angry and tell me I was doubting her woman's intuition.  

Then again, there are other forms of intuition that are demonstrably 'real,' in one case to a statistically significant level (at least according to the history channel. : )

I'd have to look up who it was again but there's a Japanese Akido Master who can train his students to “feel violent intent” and react to it, beyond the five senses.  A scientist came in, and proved that he was actually able to increase people's sensitivity to such.  

So then perhaps we can think of the ego as a… energetic array.  If one arranges it in a certain way, one can receive signals from outside of the ego.  however, if one has not, one may receive signals from inside of the ego, and assume they came from without.  

The question I guess becomes, if we can agree on this, is how do we each arrange our egos?  But maybe that's the kind of question, asked to a thousand people, which will net a thousand answers.

Re: Intuition

When I think of transcendence or intuition, I don't necessarily think of it in the “spiritual” sense.  That doesn't mean it doesn't have that component, at least in theory, but it is not always my immediate reaction.  If I have the sensation of what appears as a pre-cognitive moment, for example,  I don't say, well, that must have come from some higher place, although I may marvel at that moment and say, where did that come from?  I experience it as a separate sensation from what I have come to identify as the usual working of the mind, so I come to view it, when it occurs, as disassociated from the ego, as a sense, if you well.  I think this is where the language of speaking in terms “inner voice” and “intuitition” become synonymous. 

If we agree that we have 5 senses, through which the ego interprets experience, memory, etc. could there not be, at least in theory, further senses that exist separate in themselves, that the ego also uses to interpret?  I don't mean this in the hyped sense of the word, but as a serious consideration, such as with instinct, which I might view as a survival mechanism, but to which the mind, of course, responds.

I think of ego as a necessary component to our existence, but I think that one is able to transcend/transform the absolute slavery to its direction of reaction. I think this is what is meant by being conscious.  For instance, being miserable by thinking irrationally, and transforming that into a more rational mindset…ie: the rational/emotive strategy of Albert Ellis (which I praise, because it saved my life, literally).  Or am I confusing emotion with ego?  Or is it one in the same? 

Peace~

Re: Intuition

Lovely.  here's a question that once really tripped me out:

what's the difference between an 'instinct' and an intuitive impulse which is so strong and plain it is not doubted, but immediately acted upon?

Re: Intuition

I don't know.  I think the difference is subtle.  Instinct seems to be more of a biological impulse mechanism, and intuition more a psychological one?

Re: Intuition

Hey MikeS,

Not bad, my friend, not bad at all.  I think, if we could sit down and have face to face discussion we would find that we have lots more in common than you would think based on our discussion (nothing new to you, I know).

A few points: 1.

Sorry, but the system is to clean and linear for my tastes and fails to
identify those who existed in previous stages who jumped the lines to
provide the map. How'd they do that?

Nothing clean about the system, but it's impossible to show it other than as this linear approach.  Every level has pitfalls and potential pathologies, and no one develops straightforward - too many variables for that.  Who jumped the lines?  That's a good question, and it really goes back to the nature of life: ever-evolving intelligent potential (should also answer your previous point)…at this point unitive is the highest stage that we've defined but I'm quite sure there will be more and more and more (holarchy keeps on going).  Here's one for Alan: maybe they jumped to a new stage by listening to their intuition?

2.

Teach the ego to be fear-free…

That would be the end of ego in the sense that ego is that which fears, right..?

Keep up the dialogue - I'm liking it…

Frans

Re: Intuition

Frans,

That would be the end of ego in the sense that ego is that which fears, right..?

Yes, that seems logical. However if truth is infinite then fear may always in some way be included in that whole. And if the whole is infinite can it ever really be whole?
I suppose a complete absence of fear would be akin to perfection or God. can't be sure about an endpoint or final destination. I suppose to experience evolving consciousness is simply an experience of ever diminishing aspects of fear. But the diminishing process is infinite

Just saying though…
mikeS

Re: Intuition

Oops, posted too soon.

A few more points:

…ego-self only seems to 'know' conditioned love. But can it seek to impose less conditions to eventually being unconditional?

Honestly, I don 't think it can. 

The ego has the will to be more than it is, thereby applying a negative
value to what it is now willing to be. Seems this can't be helped
particularly if we are seeking to tanscend.

I think you're wrong here.  I seek to develop further, but I'm also completely at peace with who I am today - for this is all I can be today.  My “seeking” doesn't come from a dissatisfaction with my present state; it comes from a recognition of a direction that Life takes, and a curiosity to see more…

That's it!

Frans

Re: Intuition

Frans, whatups!  My take on your continuum is that all those elements are necessary for the development into unitive– meaning, you need archaic, magic, mythic, rational, integral and pluralistic ways of understanding (assuming I can guess the basic definitions of).  I do not think its necessary that each and every person progress the same way, nor do I think, Frans, you are suggesting this.   As you say, you have to relate the idea somehow, and for ideas such as this, the words flatten it a bit.

I was definately a rationalist before I checked out 'myth' or 'magic.'  But then again I think there are some things I might add to the list about my own journey.  But perhaps that's also an issue of definition.  

I think it's a good idea, though, a good way to conceptualize stuff.  Conceptualization and experimentation lead to growth… and we'll always keep growing as long as we never attach to what we've conceptualized.  

A

Re: Intuition

Frans,

I have the same feeling about where I “am” today, completely at peace with who I am today, understanding it simply is that.  

Curiosity and interest in life generally, and paths of living experience, are what motivate me to ever consider “new” thoughts I haven't explored yet.  Any “interest” of that sort, is not an indication of dissatisfaction nor due to a condition I feel I must change.  I am ever so aware that change is constant and therefore, have patience with it all.

In appreciation for your thoughts -
Deb

Re: Intuition

Frans,

I tend not to argue with what someone states they experience. That would be foolish.
However, in theory, an ego becoming, is an ego that never is being. It seems, in theory, almost impossible to be “completely” at peace. Since incompleteness tends to assert that the infinite game is over. But how could it be and be infinite.

I too, feel ever greater levels of peace in moments, but accept the conflict of other moments. Maybe that's what you mean philosophically by completely at peace?

I understand it's tough to describe experiences that may be outside the purview of accurate description, so don't take that as a challenge to your experience.

But we have to recognize that once we verbalize experience and put it in words we are then philosophizing and philosophy is chock full of disagreement.

What say you…
mikeS

Re: Intuition

Alan, Nahnni,

I think instinct is much more basic, linked to direct survival, a leftover of our reptilian brainstem, while intuition is not linked to anything that we have physically manifested (yet, anyway)…

Frans

Re: Intuition

Frans~I think that is a good reflection on distinguishing between the two.

:)

Re: Intuition

See, Frans, I wonder about that…

For ever, we've been saying animals are less evolved then us, and prove it by our front brain.  if ego's anywhere, it's our front brain.  and yet, psychology has shown more and more that we're really still guided by the back of our brain, its only that our front-brain's job is to rationalize what we do so we think we're in 'control.'

I think I am making the argument now that ego is rooted in the frontal lobe.  I am also making the argument that animals with much smaller cerebral cortexes then ourselves have much less ego, less cognitive ability and ability to map out scenarios and recognize patterns and become patterns.   

So what are the animals operating from?  we call it instinct.  

But if we're talking about intuition as being beyond ego, and if ego, indeed, is rooted in the frontal lobe, then what's the difference between the constant natural state of the animal and intuition?  

and what's the difference between intuition and instinct?  or feeling?  

The difference, I'd say, has to be a function of dynamics between intuition and ego.

Re: Intuition

Hi Alan,

Good point - and a common cause for much confusion…

It's what's commonly known as the pre/trans fallacy, meaning that in a worldview that is “hostile” to ego, we are apt to make anything non-ego a good thing.  We forget that that which came before ego is 100% different than that which will come after ego…

In my opinion, ego is a necessary stage of development that we need to go through, before we can get to a post-ego worldview.  It's beautifully summed up in T.S. Elliot's quote:

‘We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring
will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time.’

The big difference is that we will arrive where we started by choice and volition, not by pure happenstance…

Does that make sense?

Frans

Re: Intuition

It makes a great deal of sense to me, Frans, it's a pattern I keep seeing, constantly repeated, everywhere.  

I suppose it's all part of the understanding/loving/transcending phenomenon.  

It seems clear to me that the human race as a whole is fundamentally clueless about how to use our consciousness.  As evidence, I'll sight, as a gestalt, the world human consciousness is making.

I think arriving back where we started is understanding that all we really need is already within us… back at the beginning, in the integration of the 'human' and 'animal' mind, one could say.  In the union of “intuition” and “logic,” one could say.  

I tend to believe in the ideology of the synthesis of being.  

Re: Intuition

MikeS :-)

To be at peace with conflict comes from understanding conflict and our individual roles in it; any time we get involved in conflict, there is regression - we're dragged down by more base-impulses.  It's been a while since I've been involved, but I don't believe for a second that I'm beyond that - there just hasn't been a strong-enough reason to pull me back…Let's just say I'm completely at peace unless I'm not?

When we get to describing peak experiences and such it is extremely hard to do so in a medium like the internet; it's hard enough to do so in person.  Philosophy is funny - and sooo much fun!  I've just started a second reading of Aurobindo's “The Life Divine” and have already (after 6 pages) fallen in love with this book again.  Have you (or anyone else) read this book? 

You say:

…if truth is infinite then fear may always in some way be included in
that whole. And if the whole is infinite can it ever really be whole?

I go back to something I said before:  Of course it's whole, but it's also a part of a greater whole - ad infinitum in both directions.  That to me is one of the most important understandings…

Frans

Re: Intuition

Intuition is not one thing, it may transcend ego but is most always associated with egotistical/individual beliefs or ideas.

Another question then one may ask, what does your ego stand for?

~!~***Harmony^^^~!~

Re: Intuition

Hey Piro,

Is intuition always associated with ego - or is the interpretation of intuition always associated with ego?

Methinks the latter is closer to the truth, and albeit subtle, completely a different animal than the first statement…

MikeS - did you see my previous post?  I'd love to hear your take on the “infinite whole”

Frans

Re: Intuition

Intuition is our inner knowledge and has nothing to do with ego.

I would like to say it is my intuition telling me this thread
is too long -
but it is simply that is taking too long to load and
needs a new one started!

Re: Intuition

YOU ARE LOCKED OUT!

This thread is locked due to length.

If you wish to continue commenting on this topic please due so at Intuition 2

However, if you are a “Master of the Universe” then of course, you may then unlock this thread at your own discretion.

But then that would mean that there are two Master's of the Universe” and this town is not big enough for two “Master's of the Universe.” Therefore, you should go find your own universe to master and leave this one to me because I was here first.

THIS THREAD IS LOCKED!

Thanks,
MOTU