|
Post by hollandr on Mar 11, 2008 5:58:28 GMT
Is the human self-image the core of the personality?
Or is there something deeper within the persona (mask) that maintains the self-image for its own purposes?
How would we detect such a situation?
|
|
|
Post by moose on Mar 11, 2008 7:04:43 GMT
Hi there Russell,
I don't think that the self image is the core of the personality. I do think there is something trying to maitain some sort of perception/guise but I don't think it's just one thing either. We can't see what happens inside, Our personality isn't set in stone.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 11, 2008 9:13:55 GMT
Our consciousness is the core of our being. Our personality is the mechanism that we develop in order to interact with others.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 11, 2008 10:00:56 GMT
>Our consciousness is the core of our being.
Possibly so
There was discussion on another thread about whether our thoughts are our own.
If we cannot be sure of that then how do we know that the consciousness at the centre of our being is really ours?
Perhaps it is a matter of faith
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 11, 2008 12:56:54 GMT
>Our consciousness is the core of our being. Possibly so There was discussion on another thread about whether our thoughts are our own. If we cannot be sure of that then how do we know that the consciousness at the centre of our being is really ours? Perhaps it is a matter of faith To negate our consciousness is to negate our own reality. A is A. A is never non-A. Check your premises. One can study what exists and how consciousness functions; but one cannot analyze (or "prove") existence as such, or consciousness as such. These are irreducible primaries. (An attempt to "prove" them is self-contradictory: it is an attempt to "prove" existence by means of nonexistence, and consciousness by means of unconsciousness.)
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 11, 2008 12:59:29 GMT
Perhaps it is a matter of faith "Faith" designates blind acceptance of a certain ideational content, acceptance induced by feeling in the absence of evidence or proof.
|
|
|
Post by penfold on Mar 11, 2008 16:50:03 GMT
Russell, your original question pre-supposes there is only one expression of self, as opposed to the multiple expressions of self displayed and exhibited thru sub-personalities
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 11, 2008 22:36:59 GMT
>pre-supposes there is only one expression of self,
Actually I was not intending to address the 'self' at all
The core of my question is whether there are not-self entities behind the persona that may maintain self-image for the human in order to manipulate his or her behaviour
|
|
|
Post by maat on Mar 11, 2008 22:49:15 GMT
Is the human self-image the core of the personality? Or is there something deeper within the persona (mask) that maintains the self-image for its own purposes? How would we detect such a situation? We all know people whose self images are nowhere near true. The extrovert who thinks he is the life of the party. The true beauty who thinks she is fat and/or ugly. The politician who thinks he is the answer to the worlds problems instead of the cause of a lot of them. Those who lack confidence in themselves because they fail to recognise their skills and positive affect on others and............. you and I, who usually do nothing about the great problems of the world because we are .... just you and I. Our person-ality, our worldy attributes, as Freemasonry points out to us in the very first degree, much be kept outside of the lodge room. In the lodgeroom we are to address each other from the heart, Fr cor, coeur ?? From our core. Cor is also to root for the word Cour-age which takes wisdom, strength and a beautiful spirit. Notice how often courage happens spontaneously, without thought to oneself? It is interesting to note that often it takes the bad times to bring out the good in people. Where is that good stored when we are not using it? Certain ceremonial actions in R.Arch will give some clues here. Maat We are told continually in the holy scriptures from all round the world, that we are three in one. Freemasonry tells us we are three in one. ?? I know of at least two... the other one I argue with ;D (my evil twin).
|
|
|
Post by maat on Mar 11, 2008 22:51:38 GMT
How would we detect such a situation? By noticing the thoughts that 'pop' into our minds, which we would never voluntarily think or act upon. Maat
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 12, 2008 0:29:34 GMT
>By noticing the thoughts that 'pop' into our minds,
That certainly works for occasional intrusions
But if the manipulation has been in place for decades then it is harder to distinguish the foreign thoughts, impulses or emotions
It is commonplace in English to say something like: He's in one of his moods again.
How do we know whether such moods are internally generated or a symptom of being dominated by another intelligence?
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 12, 2008 2:43:42 GMT
>By noticing the thoughts that 'pop' into our minds, That certainly works for occasional intrusions But if the manipulation has been in place for decades then it is harder to distinguish the foreign thoughts, impulses or emotions It is commonplace in English to say something like: He's in one of his moods again. How do we know whether such moods are internally generated or a symptom of being dominated by another intelligence? That's what is known as insanity.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 12, 2008 3:24:10 GMT
>That's what is known as insanity.
I am not so sure
It is a commonplace that writers will suffer from "writers' block" for long periods and then suddenly be inspired.
Poets used to talk about seeking the Muse for their writing
Could that be a symptom of another intelligence taking over?
But we are getting away a bit from my original question about whether the self-image is sustained for some purpose unknown to the wearer
|
|
|
Post by maat on Mar 12, 2008 22:16:40 GMT
Unsure where to place this post, the other thread 'Are out thoughts our own' is also a suitable place. Maybe I will post it twice.
At the beginning of a day of creation, Brahm, begins to create, his thoughts call worlds into existence. Things are materialized thoughts, or states of mind having been rendered objective.
Few persons have the power to think spontaneously and independently, although all may believe to have that power ; if they were able to manipulate thought they would be able to create.
The majority of men only occupy themselves with the thoughts that come into their mind without their bidding ; they are instruments or " mediums " through which the universal principle of mind thinks, but they are unable to originate a thought, much less to project it into objectivity through the power of the will.
Magic, white and black; or The science of finate [!] and infinate life, containing practical hints for students of occultism ([c1890])
Author: Hartmann, Franz, d. 1912
(And thank you to forum member Synchronicity for posting a link to that free book in the Articles/Papers section. Sync also posted a great link for anyone interested in C C Zain's work. I love Zain's take on Masonry and intend to follow up on the rest of his work.)
Maat
|
|
|
Post by Antonius on Mar 20, 2008 0:16:17 GMT
the way i see it conciousness is the core of our being and can be devided between that wich we are aware of and that wich we are not. the selfimage i believe is something that exist purely for the sake of interacting with the physical, like our bodies. thus identity is utterly meaningless anythere other then on the physical level.
also everything we derrive our selfimage from exists in the physical world.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 24, 2008 2:27:52 GMT
>Few persons have the power to think spontaneously and independently, although all may believe to have that power
If that is true then does the human have the self-image imposed.
If so, for what purposes?
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 24, 2008 3:50:49 GMT
>Few persons have the power to think spontaneously and independently, although all may believe to have that power That's a mighty bold statemnt By whom? That would be unanswerable. Why assume some supernatural agency is controlling our thoughts? Is it not possible that we are independant, sentient beings, endowed with reason, in control of our own lives and thoughts? Is it not possible that the Random thoughts that we have are simply the result of...randomness? Our brains record and remember everything that is impressed upon it by our senses. Is it not possible that these supposedly random thoughts are subconscious memories of random bits of information we've picked up from conversations, TV, Radio? Seems more logical than Aliens or spirits.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 24, 2008 5:49:10 GMT
>That's a mighty bold statement As you see that was a quotation from Franz Hartmann who was a well known practical occultist en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Hartmannwww.mysticmissal.org/franz_hartmann.htm>Why assume some supernatural agency is controlling our thoughts? Quite so. Assumption is not of much use here But the skills taught by Hartmann may allow the initiate to observe the inner process and detect the proximate source of the thoughts >Is it not possible that we are independent, sentient beings, endowed with reason, in control of our own lives and thoughts? That is the immediate goal of the would-be initiate. But it may take lifetimes to achieve >Is it not possible that these supposedly random thoughts are subconscious memories of random bits of information we've picked up from conversations, TV, Radio? So how would we test that hypothesis? What if the inability to control thoughts has left humans vulnerable to those beings that can control thoughts? Who will take the risk that their life has been hijacked?
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 24, 2008 6:36:55 GMT
As you see that was a quotation from Franz Hartmann who was a well known practical occultist So? " Dirty Franz" was also a well-known Arisophist. According to the Simon Weisenthal Center: The leading figures of Ariosophy were two Austrian occultists, Guido von List and Lanz von Liebenfels. Guido von List (1848-1919) was a free-lance author who turned increasingly to mystical and occult themes in his writings. His supporters formed the Guido von List Society in Vienna in 1903. It soon became one of the leading Viennese occult groups. Its members included the well-known Theosophist Franz Hartmann, the chief of staff of the Austro- Hungarian army, wealthy merchants in Vienna and Germany, and the affluent Munich industrialist Friedrich Wannieck, who largely financed the society. The primary purpose of the society was to circulate and perpetuate the books and ideas of List. What if the inability to control thoughts has left humans vulnerable to those beings that can control thoughts?
Who will take the risk that their life has been hijacked? In my professional opinion, if anyone is concerned that their thoughts are being inserted or stolen by others, they seriously need expert help.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 24, 2008 22:37:10 GMT
>Franz Hartmann, the chief of staff of the Austro- Hungarian army,
So not only was he successful in teaching practical occultism, he also was successful in realms observable by the profane
>In my professional opinion, if anyone is concerned that their thoughts are being inserted or stolen by others, they seriously need expert help.
Quite so. But expert in what? The talking cure?
>thoughts are being ..... stolen by others
You raise an interesting point I had not considered.
Of course the essence of theft is to deprive the owner of its use. To remove the traces of the thought from the previous owner might be most easily achieved by inserting a stronger and contradictory thought.
For example for years I often had the thought that I had a "cast iron" stomach. It turned out that I was actually suppressing the pain of indigestion - for decades. But presence of the contradictory thought prevented me from diagnosing my problem.
From where came the contradictory thought? And why?
|
|