General question regarding Ego Death

[maxfreakout]

IO distrust all this 'egolessness' talk. some of the biggest manipulators--like Indian gurus and zen masters--have claimed to have no ego. I

it is a blatant self-contradiction to say "I have no ego". Ego remains after enlightenment because the Ordinary State of Consciousness is resumed as soon as the drugs wear off, and the OSC is *shaped* like an ego in a world. But the enlightened mind of the zen initiate has ceased to fully identify with ego, enlightened ego acknowledges a higher level of reality, beyond itself.

 

[goldwine119]

I've been reading up on Ego Death recently, how it causes people to become "aware" of the universe being one and one being the universe, but anything beyond that I've little understanding regarding how people feel towards it. Some people claim it to be enlightening, some people claim it to be terrifying and immediately regret it all.

I'm curious towards whether those on here who've felt it feel that the new perspective is still with them, or whether they've slipped back into their "normal" mindset after the experience.

As for myself, I'm WAY too inexperienced to be expecting to take enough of anything to cause it, and also believe that it's not something that should ever be aimed for; rather something that'll happen on its own when I'm ready. ...Or maybe not ready.

 

[ophiuchus]

no i wouldnt say this is a reference to a 'fallacy of language' (ie spoken language), it is a reference to the experience of mentally 'dying' in the psychedelic altered state (ego death). Ego death is a shift from one level of understanding (the egoic worldmodel) to a higher level of understanding (the transcendent worldmodel). The fallacy lies in the way in which the mind interprets the ordinary state of consciousness, prior to ego death, the fallacy is then corrected by the ego death experience, so that the reborn transcendent mind no longer commits the fallacy.

so then, what do you see as the fallacy? a fallacy of ________?



:| well um, i'm sorry to inform you that, in fact, "ego death" is a word...? two words actually. and as such, it, along with it's definitions, "should always be carefully distinguished from the territory which it represents".

 

[maxfreakout]

no i wouldnt say this is a reference to a 'fallacy of language' (ie spoken language), it is a reference to the experience of mentally 'dying' in the psychedelic altered state (ego death). Ego death is a shift from one level of understanding (the egoic worldmodel) to a higher level of understanding (the transcendent worldmodel). The fallacy lies in the way in which the mind interprets the ordinary state of consciousness, prior to ego death, the fallacy is then corrected by the ego death experience, so that the reborn transcendent mind no longer commits the fallacy.

so then, what do you see as the fallacy? a fallacy of ________?

instead of 'fallacy', it is better to think of it as a 'naive mistake'

Ordinary consciousness (from when you wake up until you fall asleep) takes the form of a person in a world, the unenlightened mind interprets that experience literally, believing in the existence of the person and believing in its identity with that person. That core belief is the naive mistake. It is partly connected with language but there is more to it than just language, it is the mistake of taking suface appearances to be identical with ultimate reality, the psychedelic experience corrects the mistake by revealing the ultimate reality (the impermanence of surface reality)

:| well um, i'm sorry to inform you that, in fact, "ego death" is a word...? two words actually. and as such, it, along with it's definitions, "should always be carefully distinguished from the territory which it represents".

"ego death" is a word/expression when you put it in ""quotation marks"", when you dont put it in quotation marks, ego death is an experience of mentally dying in the psychedelic altered state. In other words, when i use the expression "ego death" in a post, I am referring to the experience of dying and being reborn, I am not referring to the words "ego death".

 

[zezt]

So then Maxfreakout....Are you telling us that you live in ultimate reality? Or that you are trying to get to that state? or...?

 

[ophiuchus]

Ordinary consciousness (from when you wake up until you fall asleep) takes the form of a person in a world, the unenlightened mind interprets that experience literally, believing in the existence of the person and believing in its identity with that person. That core belief is the naive mistake

thank you, that's the concise answer i was hoping that you would make. i think that this will clear a lot of things up for people who dont necessarily care for one man's particular explanation of this experience... not that i personally have anything against michael hoffman, i just sense that some of the other readers are not very receptive to his information at this time, and therefore, in turn, don't want to listen to you, because you are, in essence, channeling/funneling michael hoffmans theories.

Allusion wrote: :| well um, i'm sorry to inform you that, in fact, "ego death" is a word...? two words actually. and as such, it, along with it's definitions, "should always be carefully distinguished from the territory which it represents".




"ego death" is a word/expression when you put it in ""quotation marks"", when you dont put it in quotation marks, ego death is an experience of mentally dying in the psychedelic altered state. In other words, when i use the expression "ego death" in a post, I am referring to the experience of dying and being reborn, I am not referring to the words "ego death".

i understand what you are saying. but can you understand what i am saying? i am saying that it doesn't matter what you say, be it (quoting you, not remarking on the words themselves) "word/expression", or "experience", it doesn't matter, because at the end of the day, not one word in the english language has intrinsic value. the definition of a word simply references other words, that refer to other words, for more references to other words references that continue to reference themselves into infinity.

you even say it yourself, perhaps unknowingly: "I am referring to the experience of dying and being reborn, I am not referring to the words "ego death"."

it's all referring. it's all "mapping the territory"...

 

[ophiuchus]

So then Maxfreakout....Are you telling us that you live in ultimate reality? Or that you are trying to get to that state? or...?

we all live in "ultimate reality" as you put it. we are here by default. it is just a matter of recognizing/realizing it-becoming aware of it.

 

[maxfreakout]

i understand what you are saying. but can you understand what i am saying? i am saying that it doesn't matter what you say, be it (quoting you, not remarking on the words themselves) "word/expression", or "experience", that all that doesn't matter, because at the end of the day, not one word in the english(any) language has intrinsic value. the definition of a word simply references other words, that refer to other words, for more references to other words references that continue to reference themselves into infinity.

you even say it yourself, perhaps unknowingly: "I am referring to the experience of dying and being reborn, I am not referring to the words "ego death"."

it's all referring. it's all "mapping the territory"...

you are asserting that the map is the same thing as the territory, that is a category error/fallacy, there are in fact TWO things, - 1.the map (refererence), and 2.the territory (the referent), these are not the same thing, the map is not the same thing as the territory. The map is a squiggly pattern on a big piece of paper, the territory is the actual physical landscape to which all the squiggly lines refer (or 'map out')

a psychedelic trip is not simply the word 'psychedelic trip' written on a piece of paper, it is an experience which happens in the mind after the ingestion of psychedelic drugs, where you see colourful patterns etc. We employ words and concepts in order to talk about our experiences, but the words and concepts we employ, are ontologically distinct entities from the experiences we are using them to talk about.

So it isnt 'all referring', there are references, and there are the things beyond the references which the references point to, there is the word 'allusion' written on a page, and there is ALSO the person, you, to whom that word 'allusion' points to. It is basic conceptual hygiene to acknowledge the distinction between a word, and a thing referred to by a word.

We have experiences, and we build verbal maps of the experiences so that we can understand them and talk about them, that is surely the meaning of 'psycho-naut', explorer of mind, explorers go on adventures and make maps of unchartered territory, and the most exciting, dangerous and profound adventure to embark on is psychedelic ego death/transcendence, the discovery of the nonexistence of the separate self.

 

[ophiuchus]

... i have stated the precise opposite of what you think i've said...

 

[maxfreakout]

... i have stated the precise opposite of what you think i've said...

there are experiences, and there are words/concepts which refer to experiences, these are 2 different things (words and experiences are ontologically distinct), do you agree?

 

[avemaria]

Ordinary consciousness (from when you wake up until you fall asleep) takes the form of a person in a world, the unenlightened mind interprets that experience literally, believing in the existence of the person and believing in its identity with that person. That core belief is the naive mistake. It is partly connected with language but there is more to it than just language, it is the mistake of taking suface appearances to be identical with ultimate reality, the psychedelic experience corrects the mistake by revealing the ultimate reality (the impermanence of surface reality)

Ok then Maxfreakout, i think i understand what you are saying, but why is it that you are the only person who seems to be trying to explain things in these kind of terms? i mean if it is really true that ego death can be 'mapped' in the terms you are using, then why isnt this common knowledge and why dont more people agree with you? Im not saying you're wrong, i wouldnt even know as im not entirely sure whether i have experienced this 'ego death' or not, im just saying you seem to be the only person who knows what this 'ego death' actually consists of, and i am naturally very wary of so-called 'experts', if you really are an expert, then you need to offer something concrete and useful to the conversation

 

[ophiuchus]

when i made this quote:

it's all referring. it's all "mapping the territory"...

i was saying it in regards to language. i should have been more precise, and said: "words are all referring", as using words are an expression of the concept of the territory (reality) and the map (any words used in describing reality).

so yes, i agree that the map and territory are not the same; i never stated anything but that.