Guest guest Posted June 29, 2008 Report Share Posted June 29, 2008 Alice, all, > One way of catching the ego at work is to count the number of times one > uses > " I " , " me', " my " or " mine " in a conversation or a letter/post! Is it the counting that does the catching? Here it would seem there is implicit counsel to have it both ways. The question begged is obvious: what would one do to catch the ego not at work, or, to catch something other than the ego at work? This presents a non-trivial problem. If you need to mitigate the ego to relevatize the same, and do so on the way to relating to an enacting the irrational facts of the Self, then to simply name this via a dualistic term such as Divine Guest is no better than counting the I-me-my-mine. Going farther, I would wonder what actually correlates with 'ego' and what actually correlates with the alternatives. (Incidentally, Jung never really took this problem up. You might say his pus, his thousands upon thousands of pages are a testament to Jung's " ego trip. " What could one point to, to prove it otherwise?) *** So we circle back to the Christian mythologem. *** Alternatives? One is: ego is illusory. No mind, no problem. *** I hang up on advisories rushing to alter the ego and adapt it to deeper spectral reality when Jung himself thought the preliminary shadow work might be, as he put it, 'problem enough.' Caveat emptor however, consider the source; I rent my I. And, Alice you missed my previous question. What did the holy teachers want to put in its place before there was this term for 'it', ego? regards, click on cartoon: http://transformativetools.squareone-learning.com/index.php/2008/06/29/oh-my-i-m\ e-o/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.