How many… differences of opinion do you have, in big and small ways, that turned out to be dumb because we used different words to describe the same thing? Or the same word to describe different things?
Words like fit as opposed to healthy?
Happy as opposed to content?
Competent as opposed to capable?
Intelligent as opposed to savvy?
Strong as opposed to tough?
Wise as opposed to knowledgeable?
Rich as opposed to wealthy?
Persuasive as opposed to manipulative?
Now, I’m aware that some of those words aren’t necessarily good comparisons. But they can mean the same thing to different people. The counterpoint being, they mean different enough things to me.
But if I don’t define the meaning and intention behind my use of those words, I am assuming that other people know what I’m saying on the other side of a conversation. And it is disappointingly frequently that this leads to prolonged conversations that are… contentious. Like we are arguing, but not necessarily because we have opposing points of view and want to share ours.
Can you see why I clarified what I mean by “contentious” there, Malik? If I used that word, and Malik thought I meant I was contending with the person I was talking with, it might sound like I get into a lot of conversations that may end up a touch more heated than intended.
So, I do my best t be clear about what words I use, and what I actually mean. And in turn, do my best to hear what my conversational partner intends, rather than what the exact word they used meant.
Are we talking about a subject? Or are talking about definitions?
Anyway, the reason I bring this rather annoyingly hair-splitting subject up is because I was looking at some concepts that made me think about what the various names and titles of things we’re trying to describe and the similarities that various descriptions have in terms of concept, but not language. And if I’m even remotely correct in my interpretations, has created 2 very different philosophies or worshipful practices, and a theory of psychology that is huge in defining modern psychiatric treatment.
I mean, they sound pretty unrelated. And separate. But hear me out for the time being, please Tammy. You can call for the straight jacket a little later if you feel like its warranted…
So, here goes.
As I’m led to understand it, Buddhism is essentially a practice of negating attachment (or detaching if we want to be otherly specific…) to ideas of self. Creating a sense of “no self.” That suffering and pain are only because we invest in our idea of self and have expectations and beliefs about how that should play out in life, regarding experience and material possessions. With me so far?
Well, there some recent evidence that suggests that this sense of self that Buddhism describes as being the source of this unfun stuff we deal with on the daily, is neurologically speaking simply a construct of the left hemisphere of our brain. A developed belief we hold about self and ourselves.
“Okay, cool, that’s nice mate. And?...” I hear you ask as you ready the phone to call the chaps with the straight-jacket.
Well, have you read anything I’ve banged on about previously on the topic of the Jungian idea of self and how central our ego is to our consciousness and its interpretation of the world and our place in it? Please say yes, it’ll save you a coupe of minutes…
If you said no… ugh. Okay. Fine.
The short version is, ego is the part of our psychological makeup that attempts to define who we are on a conscious level, to create our sense of self and then protect and defend that idea we have of ourselves at all costs to common sense and rational thought. That may be a bit melodramatic, but that’s roughly it. Its also the thing that I suggest we do our actual thinking with (that term “thinking” might need some defining too, but let’s not get too bogged down just now, hey Steve?). Or at least through. All our filters of perception, and pain, and experience, and wants and desires, and societal pressure and all that stuff.
So that’s ego as Carl Jung suggests in his theory. And that progressively dissolving elements of ego that define us in ways that don’t serve us is how we move towards happiness in our truer sense of self. “No ego”, basically.
Can you see the comparison I’m making there yet? Jung’s idea of ego says we define self via attachment to ideas and things. Buddha suggests that the idea of self is why we suffer in our lives.
So that’s a philosophy and a theory. One philosophy to go.
Hands up who knows what Taoism is?
Thank you, Xian. Correct me if I’m wrong from here please.
Nutshell explanation. Taoism is described as the philosophy of “no mind.” Being present in the moment and allowing the universe to guide and take you were it will along the path of least resistance as the place where you need to be, doing what you need to do.
Overthinking it, or thinking about it at all, impedes you in your path the be happily content on your path in your life. Letting go and detaching from thought, which is sounding a little similar to something else, isn’t it?
If the secret to happiness and contentment is considered to be “no self” by Buddhism, “no ego” in Jungian theory and “no mind” and Taoism, what does that leave us with?
They all point at consciousness, and my idea of our ego being what we think through and define ourselves through, and the informing of the subconscious by that and in turn reinforced by that, being where pain and anguish and stress comes from.
How true could that really be? Are they the same thing? It feels right to me... They are all the same thing, but with different words to attempt to describe them. Which is a limitation within itself.
Is self and ego and mind just delineated versions on the same idea of a consciousness too invested in nearly everything but the here and now? Similar to how time and space are the same thing, but are defined by using the different word to explain different aspects of that singular thing?
Something to think about. Some big deal considering went into these ideas, from big deal people with big deal ideas. All talking about the same thing. Well, I think so anyway. But from this example, can we see how using different words for what may be the same idea can create such seemingly unrelated things a little bit more universal and understandable? And maybe mean we are a little more often on the same side if we just put a touch more effort into being on the same side?
Anyway, enough of that Doctor Phil-ing for the time being.
And before I forget… Yes people, I am aware of the alternative to consciousness being unconsciousness, which doesn’t sound like much fun either does it. But rather than look at the word conscious as a polarising word, maybe we could find a balance between conscious and unconscious. Pretty sure that’s what the Taoist’s were trying to teach anyway. And those people who use the word mindfulness. Or even, maybe, at least, a little less “self” conscious, like those nice Buddhists and clever Jungians try to suggest.
Be kind, be smart, be your best you. No bar fights.
“No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.” Albert Einstein
Comentarios