Origin of angels

[lemur]

My mistake, I reread your previous question and found that I had not answered it completely. In summary, anyone can choose to be humble and not consumed by an overbearing ego at any given time.

Here's the irony: why would someone choose to be humble except out of shame for their ego? If you really got over your ego and didn't care how others regarded you, what benefit would humility be? Humility is an ego trip that strengthens the ego's position by hiding it. Humility is a source of pride and worship, and thus ego.

 

What I was trying to explain is that someone with an overbearing, overdominating ego has the ability to become humble at any time, due to whatever reasons that are fitting. Just semantic differences.

Again, condemning people for being "overbearing" is also part of social-control through ego-regulation. Why would angels, saints, and prophets worry about being overbearing? If you were busy performing miracles all day and were being worshipped as a result, you would ignore the worship and just go on performing miracles. If someone would call you "overbearing" for performing so many miracles, wouldn't that just be out of jealousy and thus their own ego? If you are being overbearing in the sense of pushing others to do the right thing or change their lives for the better, why would they condemn you as being overbearing except that they want to be left alone to pursue whatever you are criticizing about them. If they weren't being ego-territorial, wouldn't they just show you why you were wrong and they were right for your benefit of learning from their wisdom?

 

theres no difference between character traits and the ego other than when the ego's dead so is the character beneath it...….

Here I think you're confusing personality/character with ego. Ego, imo, specifically refers to the identification and aestheticization of a self-image for the purpose of objectifying it. You could be an honest person and that is just part of your character/personality, but when someone decides to identify that quality about you, e.g. praising you for being such an honest person, that has the potential to egoize you. Then you may suddenly be distracted from thinking that honesty is just good to thinking about how good you are as a person because you're honest. See how the focus shifts from the value of the thing you're doing to the value of yourself as the person doing it?

 

in other words killing your ego doesnt make you any better of a person it simply destroys what you are, if it were actually possible to kill an ego im sure the ones who do it wont be angels but vegetables in a loony asylum.

Attacking egos only tends to make them swell and grow larger. The exception is when people learn to control their response to ego-assaults because they recognize it is a trap luring them into greater egoism. How can ego be "killed?" It is just the potential for self-recognition and identification of one's traits as being a form of personal property.

 

the ones with real big ego's are the politicians, actors, scientists, the people in control of the world who (although you may not agree) are trying to make big changes in the world for the better. (angels?)

Such people have a stronger potential (temptation?) to become egoized about their deeds, but they may also have greater capacity to resist the temptation to be diverted from their missions in favor of ego-worship/hate. The less visible case, I think, would be the powerful people who have a secret inferiority complex, which drives them to try to prove themselves. It's easy to feel ashamed of oneself and thus attempt to redeem oneself as a result. There's no real escape from this form of egoism, as far as I know, except to try to accept oneself and focus on what you want to achieve while trying to ignore one's sense of shame and/or inferiority.

 

theres also the other ones with the big ego's like bankers that dont draw a line between right and wrong because if rights left then wrong must be right, they will see their ego as a single entity and act greedily for themselves (demons?)

Maybe some bankers are like that but it is actually possible for bankers to be focussed on good. Realize, for example, that money-lust is fueled by desire to embellish and spoil oneself and others, as well as to reduce ones work efforts by living off money instead of labor. Money is also a means of controlling/dominating other people. So bankers actually lock up the power of money in vaults and investments that keep it out of the hands of those who seek to abuse it. Obviously not all seek to prevent the abuse of money, though, and some actually promote it as a means of making greater gains on investments. Anyway, the point is that there are numerous critics of banks for preventing money from circulating because these people long for economic privileges without thinking about the ethical consequences of economic behavior. They may be so egoized and "bound by wild desire" that they have no capacity for reflecting on relative poverty as freedom from temptation and the domination of others, which a moneyed lifestyle often promotes without people even being aware of it.

 

 

[Athena]

Here's the irony: why would someone choose to be humble except out of shame for their ego?

 

 

Being humble is not about shame. Being humble is about wisdom, and it can go with deep feelings of gratitude and love. Yesterday was such a beautiful day, I could not help but feel grateful for all the beauty around me. It is there without me putting any effort into it. The path along the river. The trees and birds, and light glittering off the river. I am okay with being very small compared to universe I live in, because I have a good relationship with it.

 

I really want to get into the discussion of ego, but maybe we should take that to the Psychology forum, where we might attract people who study how heads work? I know Freud talked about ego and id, and I know AA groups talk about our higher selves, and I know all the drama we experience when we are young seems so real, but really is it? I know I have embarrassed myself repeatedly by misinterpreting what someone says, seeing an insult that isn't really there, but that day I was in a bad mood and expecting the worst. How we perceive life depends a lot on what we expect to see or what we expect to happen. We create our own personal realities and can learn to create a better reality for ourselves. It is really great when people who really matter agree to create a good reality in their lives and share the improvement.

 

People who are caught up in the born again mythology, can really experience themselves as new people. This is for sure proof that we are not necessarily who we think we are.

 

May be I have good angels in my head? I spent many years trying to be attractive to angels, but since the belief in angels goes with a belief in demons, I want to reject the belief in these supernatural beings. A person may have a mental disorder, and we treat this with medication and counseling, not with rituals to drive the demons out. I think we better stick with science, because it has proven far more effective.

Edited May 5, 2011 by Athena

[lemur]

Being humble is not about shame. Being humble is about wisdom, and it can go with deep feelings of gratitude and love. Yesterday was such a beautiful day, I could not help but feel grateful for all the beauty around me. It is there without me putting any effort into it. The path along the river. The trees and birds, and light glittering off the river. I am okay with being very small compared to universe I live in, because I have a good relationship with it.

 

I really want to get into the discussion of ego, but maybe we should take that to the Psychology forum, where we might attract people who study how heads work?

I think it would be good to start an ego thread in psychology, but I'll just say here that I think for you to go from enjoying the weather and nature to translating that enjoyment into feelings of "gratitude," or "being very small" involves a shift of focus from your objects of perception to yourself. I think if you felt "one with nature" as the expression goes, you wouldn't think about your relationship with nature or yourself at all because you would just be absorbed in your experience of what you were experiencing, like when kids are immersed in a video-game or a worker in their labor. Often people can go for prolonged periods in such activities without any thoughts about themselves or what their relationship with their work or other people is. They are not feeling pride, shame, humility, grace, etc. just focus on the task at hand; ego momentarily forgotten.

 

May be I have good angels in my head? I spent many years trying to be attractive to angels, but since the belief in angels goes with a belief in demons, I want to reject the belief in these supernatural beings. A person may have a mental disorder, and we treat this with medication and counseling, not with rituals to drive the demons out. I think we better stick with science, because it has proven far more effective.

I think Hollywood has produced such horribly terrifying imagery of "demons" that people have trouble imagining them as simple messengers of temptation or provocation. Logically, if angels are messengers of goodness, enlightenment, strength, etc. then demons would be the messengers of evil, obfuscation, weakness, etc. They wouldn't have to scare the pants off you by flying through the air in nightmarish ways with strands of torn clothing trailing behind their sunken-in faces. A demon could be just a stylish and attractive human figure that seduces you into wordly desires, tempts you with riches, fame, short-lived pleasure, etc. Whereas angels are purely interested in helping you and feel only love, demons would be more interested in seducing you into self-destructive or other-destructive activities and feel either malice/contempt or indifference for you. They might also get some twisted pleasure when you fall for their tricks but they would never empathize or care for you. All my interpretation, of course, though I believe there is logic in it.

Edited May 5, 2011 by lemur

[Athena]

I think it would be good to start an ego thread in psychology, but I'll just say here that I think for you to go from enjoying the weather and nature to translating that enjoyment into feelings of "gratitude," or "being very small" involves a shift of focus from your objects of perception to yourself. I think if you felt "one with nature" as the expression goes, you wouldn't think about your relationship with nature or yourself at all because you would just be absorbed in your experience of what you were experiencing, like when kids are immersed in a video-game or a worker in their labor. Often people can go for prolonged periods in such activities without any thoughts about themselves or what their relationship with their work or other people is. They are not feeling pride, shame, humility, grace, etc. just focus on the task at hand; ego momentarily forgotten.

 

 

I think Hollywood has produced such horribly terrifying imagery of "demons" that people have trouble imagining them as simple messengers of temptation or provocation. Logically, if angels are messengers of goodness, enlightenment, strength, etc. then demons would be the messengers of evil, obfuscation, weakness, etc. They wouldn't have to scare the pants off you by flying through the air in nightmarish ways with strands of torn clothing trailing behind their sunken-in faces. A demon could be just a stylish and attractive human figure that seduces you into wordly desires, tempts you with riches, fame, short-lived pleasure, etc. Whereas angels are purely interested in helping you and feel only love, demons would be more interested in seducing you into self-destructive or other-destructive activities and feel either malice/contempt or indifference for you. They might also get some twisted pleasure when you fall for their tricks but they would never empathize or care for you. All my interpretation, of course, though I believe there is logic in it.

 

 

Yeah, I am thinking that is a curious stretch of the imagination. I believe the idea of demons comes form what was the Persian area, and is the result of mirages and possibly drugs. Zoroastrianism divided the spiritual realm between the light and the darkness, and this division and demons influenced Christianity.

Zoroastrianism was influenced by the developing religion of India, and there two we have a story of the battle between good and evil, and many beings.

[lemur]

Zoroastrianism was influenced by the developing religion of India, and there two we have a story of the battle between good and evil, and many beings.

You make it sound like good and evil as forces that struggle against each other is not a cultural universal.

[Marat]

Manicheanism may be a fairly general idea, but different religions give it different prominence. Thus in Zoroastrianism it is a major theme; in Christianity and Islam it is important but less central than in Zoroastrianism; and in Buddhism it is relatively unimportant. Things are always classifiable as generally good or evil, so it must seem natural to most religious thinkers to incorporate this into some mythological superstructure.

[Athena]

You make it sound like good and evil as forces that struggle against each other is not a cultural universal.

 

Hot and cold water are as universal as good and evil, but I am not sure of a struggle? Is it the intention of cold water to force hot water to be cold? I am not sure of a universal concept of struggle between opposing forces?

 

There is life and death, and surely living things do what they can to survive, but is death deliberately trying to steal their life? I think not. We can not prevent death, but we can maximize our health and live longer, and then how evil is death? Might death be an angel of misery? Is it unavoidable that we resist what is, instead of accept what is and go with the flow? I think not. I think there are cultural differences and that it might serve us well to be mindful of them. That is explore truth and be aware of possibilities, and our role in creating what is possible.

 

Manicheanism may be a fairly general idea, but different religions give it different prominence. Thus in Zoroastrianism it is a major theme; in Christianity and Islam it is important but less central than in Zoroastrianism; and in Buddhism it is relatively unimportant. Things are always classifiable as generally good or evil, so it must seem natural to most religious thinkers to incorporate this into some mythological superstructure.

 

Marat, a huge thank you! I was not aware of Manicheanism, and now learning of it I am so moved, and too excited to be comprehensive. I think I shall be a bit manic for awhile, dealing with the thoughts running through my head, as the Wikipedia explanation gives me insight into many other concepts. I will return when I process all this thinking.

 

Ah yes, I think I will go sit in a hot tub and contemplate this awesome new revelation of knowledge. Things can not get much better than this. I might just explode with happiness.

[lemur]

Hot and cold water are as universal as good and evil, but I am not sure of a struggle? Is it the intention of cold water to force hot water to be cold? I am not sure of a universal concept of struggle between opposing forces?

Heat and cold are a pretty good analogy, I must admit, where heat represents more energy/life and cold represents less/loss thereof. Yes, I think you could say that cold is trying to draw energy away from warmer systems and that heat struggles to warm cooler media while being drained by them. You could be onto a fruitful metaphor for metaphysical philosophizing.

 

There is life and death, and surely living things do what they can to survive, but is death deliberately trying to steal their life? I think not. We can not prevent death, but we can maximize our health and live longer, and then how evil is death? Might death be an angel of misery? Is it unavoidable that we resist what is, instead of accept what is and go with the flow? I think not. I think there are cultural differences and that it might serve us well to be mindful of them. That is explore truth and be aware of possibilities, and our role in creating what is possible.

Misery requires living. Death is cessation of life. Living is resisting dying, though dying is an unavoidable process of living flesh. Cultural differences aside, Ayn Rand comes to mind as the writer who notes that will-to-life is innate in all living beings. Actually, I think it is another author who discusses this but the book is The Virtue of Selfishness. Before you go branding and possibly stigmatizing me as an Ayn Rand follower, this is the only book I've read by her and although I like her stance on individualism and power (she's like Nietzche meets Ben Franklin), I don't necessarily believe that she's a natural ally of libertarianism, though I don't understand entirely what that political philosophy entails.