Your initial question sounds like anyone around here was constantly talking about god - but who is? Most people here (including myself) are seriously against dogmatic religious beliefs because we are psychonauts.
Well, noone [here] refers to 'god' in the traditional sense - it's pretty clear anyway that 'god' in the loose term it is discussed here is transformed into a wide series of concepts, so in a strict sense it's not really a discussion about 'god' in the traditional form but also spirituality, the meaning of life and all and has jumped to a couple of other themes as well, as ego / self conflict etc.
Whatever the case, your answer was interesting and relevant
on to.. the EGO / self thing
These posts are getting long, hope we don't scare of all the others.
Yeah, I hope so too!
but it does make one unhappy if one identifies with it too much.
well, you do indeed give an arguement for that in the next quote, but I would argue that even this very statement depends on the self / individual.
The lack exists because you identify with the part instead of the whole. The part cannot sustain itself without harming other parts which will make the part unhappy with itself because somewhere it knows that it is dependent on the whole. Once you identify with the whole, you will not lack love or consciousness or happiness or whatever.
Moreover, I can't help than notice that what you refer to identification with the whole seems some kind of denial of the self as is. The lack exists because it exists - because you don't have something you need [or supposed that you need] or would want to have. in some cases you can archieve it, in some others not. And, while stepping on thin lines here, what you say sounds like an attempt to finding the things we lack in other 'realities', the 'whole' picture etc. Attributing qualities of the 'whole' , which we don't actually have to us doesn't really replace the lack - it is just another method to cope with life and stay well-balanced and tuned with what you're supposed to be.
"you can close your eyes to the horrors of reality but they won't go away"
...Active minds, UK DIY punk/crust band...
If it works for some, it's a beautiful concept indeed. But is it really archievable? Or is it just another utopia [I have nothing against utopias, on the contrary] that whereas it makes someone struggling further, evolving, exploring and loving instead of fighting it ain't nothing more than a man-made structure, maybe constructed out of wisdom, crafted by the benefits and aspects of psychedelia ? Another religion/philosophy about the ancient question about the meaning of life and all ?
In my eyes, and with certain changes, it ain't so far from the psychanalytical approach of "know yourself , accept yourself", at least in terms of aim, purpose. It's kind of like dissociatives/psychedelics: totally different angles, methods of function, point of views, but it just
might serve the same purpose, which is: PERSONAL happiness, balance, sense of completeness [etc]
You also say that identifying with the whole, 'you will not lack love or consciousness or happiness or whatever'. Along with some other claims you made, it seems to me you don't have enough data / arguements to back this up, only axioms, good will, good faith. Which is understandable if you think we 're talking about 'stuff' that somewhat reside at the limits of spirituality and religion [or what religion was really about in the first place]. And it's funny tryptonaut mentioned it now, but this discussion is very religion-related in some sense, whatever the words [god, religion, spirituality] we use.
What is the whole anyway? It seems you present the 'whole' as an ideal 'whole'. As if there's no pain, lack, unhappiness and lack of consciousness in the 'whole'. I cannot disagree enough with axioms like these : there's no single one recipee for happiness, that's one for sure. Neither identification with the whole, and that is IF such a thing is possible or real anyway, would work for all.
It is true that we are dependent on other 'stuff' to be hapy, well-balanced, complete. I imply that the other stuff which are contained in the 'whole' is love, sociality, other people, our planet and the awe of just looking at the way it functions, the cycle of life, every single small or big creature on earth etc. I am really with you on these - but "the whole" ??
... the mechanism works the other way around: the self drives the ego, because it is the ego which is searching in many ways for the self, only finding it when it stops searching.
Hehe, it's only a matter of point of view what you say, but it still premises the ego / self are strictly divided, that they're somewhat opposite forces and that they're totally different 'things', which I don't think you argued a lot about.
So they do something altruistic to satisfy their ego? Why would they not do something egoistic to do that? That would be a whole lot easier and since egoism coexists with laziness in most people, truly egoistic people would not help others to satisfy their own ego.
Hmmmm, you don't seem to be too willing to see the concepts of ego/egoism from other angles, as I presented them in my previous posts.
Not all people who do something altruistic do it for the same reasons! Not every 'egoism' is the same, because, like I said everyone is an egoist and everyone is different in many aspects!
Some people just can't be selfish! It's the way they are! Call them 'good folks', call them suckers, or weak but if they try and be anything else, they will be hurting themsleves. So they satisfy themsleves by helping others needs first, and by doing so, they feel good with themselves too. In a way, it's a mutation of what they are obliged to be and what they can become.
Others act in an altruistic way because despite their selfishness, they want to be 'bigger' than that, because they
believe in the human, because the want to be something else - which, biologically is somewhat opposed to our nature, to be altruists. This type IS 'bigger' than animal - the proof we can be more than animals. But it IS EGO-related! They act like this because their will,
their ego is big enough they just want to do something nice, something useful - it really makes them feel good with themselves to be open minded, altruistic. To be preachy or passionate with philosophy or spirituality is in a way the same type of egoism.
And of course you have the traditional 'bad' selfish guy - the 'bad carma' egoist : the one who cares only for himself and will do anything to satisfy his greed - only this type cannot really love or be loved, and this is his curse, and just maybe this is the type of egoism you are denying.
...and you are everything
when I see this little phrase in the words of 'psychedelic theists' , I tend to wonder if we are just talking about the exact same thing, but choose [or it happens] to see it and describe it in other words. I mean... "You are everything" ?? Doesn't this sound a bit egoistic ??
Of course each of us is everything! We are all and everything and the world is spinning around each one of us! Because each reality, each 'universe' is personal!
The only decision is whether you follow love or whether you see love as something different than what you are.
Hmmm again, I don't like the point of view. Follow love? What is it, some dogma of some kind?
Note: I don't deny true self-forgetful 'love'[how could I?], I just deny ethical guidelines.
Love is notably anti-ego [or so it seems
], people who dismiss love are those incapable of archieving, handling, giving and accepting it. Love is somewhat of a wonder. All these emotions related with family, comradeship, love, sex are all wonderfully powerful and liberating. Well, sometimes the passion for a woman/man can even destroy you, such is the power , LOL, but this is a different story.
The self is prematerial, "things" necessarily require an object and a subject, which is a false dichotomy in my opinion, since the self is undivided.
I still can't follow, but I suspect it's another word thing, about the word 'thing' , LOL
