-
Posts
-
Bradly wrote: I like the concept of device or apparatus – the ego is not me. It is a functional vehicle for the discovery of me….or the potential me.Sorry, I don’t like it. I think the ego is you. The functional vehicle for the discovery of the potential you is the soul, your real ego. I don’t think it’s possible to evolve on any level without an ego, a sense of self. That’s the way I see it.Reader wrote: the ego may represent in the view of the authors nothing more than a label for every kind of tendency that obstructs the growth of the Supreme.Then what is the praying ego? If the praying ego is obstructing growth of the Supreme then I’ve wasted my life.91:2.2 Prayer has always indicated positive action by the praying ego; it has been always psychic and sometimes spiritual.91:3.3 As it is conceived by successive generations of praying mortals, the alter ego evolves up through ghosts, fetishes, and spirits to polytheistic gods, and eventually to the One God, a divine being embodying the highest ideals and the loftiest aspirations of the praying ego. And thus does prayer function as the most potent agency of religion in the conservation of the highest values and ideals of those who pray. From the moment of the conceiving of an alter ego to the appearance of the concept of a divine and heavenly Father, prayer is always a socializing, moralizing, and spiritualizing practice.
the ego may represent in the view of the authors nothing more than a label for every kind of tendency that obstructs the growth of the Supreme.
Me: I don’t think so. Ego is essential. Why do mortals have ego but not animals? Animals have sex drive and stomach hunger for perpetuation. Human ego delivers socialization – mutual dependence and ethics and creative problem solving. Ego yearns and is love responsive. Ego allows for and provides some means for love activation and eventual morality beyond ethics. Ego can realize the self serving results of ego control and cooperative potential. Mind can now be opened to spirit ministry. The I Am becomes We Are and I am within the We. Ego remains functional during and even after the transfer of identity begins and the Spirit is realized in mind I think. And at that point, the ego can allow for its lack of relative importance compared to the love of others and the service of mercy ministry. I don’t understand it however. And I think that is an important element too….even without facts or knowledge, the ego can tame itself in aspiration of meaning and value and truth, beauty, and goodness. Puzzling.
Reader if you research the word Ego, you will find that it quite literally means self in the dictionary. Only you can pray. You are your (self). You have this negative view of the ego for some reason. I think what you are thinking of in your head is an egotism. Or egocentric. These are bad attitudes that the ego can have that can be very harmful. This is usually what people actually mean they say someone has a ego, they are talking about an egotism. But that’s not the same thing as ego.
91:2.2 Prayer has always indicated positive action by the praying ego; it has been always psychic and sometimes spiritual.An ego, an identity and a self are all the same thing. I don’t think that a personal self is quite the same thing as a animal origin self though.Just want to express my gratitude here for all of you and this place which allows me to “triangulate” context into far greater perspective on complexities that I could not breach without so many other perspectives. What a marvelous example of student teaching other student teachers. I may not have as firm a grasp on understanding as some, but I do now understand more and better than ever before. Thanks to all.
On the subject of ego or self assertion beyond the material and mortal mind:
(602.5) 53:2.2 There were no peculiar or special conditions in the system of Satania which suggested or favored rebellion. It is our belief that the idea took origin and form in Lucifer’s mind, and that he might have instigated such a rebellion no matter where he might have been stationed. Lucifer first announced his plans to Satan, but it required several months to corrupt the mind of his able and brilliant associate. However, when once converted to the rebel theories, he became a bold and earnest advocate of “self-assertion and liberty.”
(602.6) 53:2.3 No one ever suggested rebellion to Lucifer. The idea of self-assertion in opposition to the will of Michael and to the plans of the Universal Father, as they are represented in Michael, had its origin in his own mind. His relations with the Creator Son had been intimate and always cordial. At no time prior to the exaltation of his own mind did Lucifer openly express dissatisfaction about the universe administration. Notwithstanding his silence, for more than one hundred years of standard time the Union of Days on Salvington had been reflectivating to Uversa that all was not at peace in Lucifer’s mind. This information was also communicated to the Creator Son and the Constellation Fathers of Norlatiadek.
(602.7) 53:2.4 Throughout this period Lucifer became increasingly critical of the entire plan of universe administration but always professed wholehearted loyalty to the Supreme Rulers. His first outspoken disloyalty was manifested on the occasion of a visit of Gabriel to Jerusem just a few days before the open proclamation of the Lucifer Declaration of Liberty. Gabriel was so profoundly impressed with the certainty of the impending outbreak that he went direct to Edentia to confer with the Constellation Fathers regarding the measures to be employed in case of open rebellion.
(603.1) 53:2.5 It is very difficult to point out the exact cause or causes which finally culminated in the Lucifer rebellion. We are certain of only one thing, and that is: Whatever these first beginnings were, they had their origin in Lucifer’s mind. There must have been a pride of self that nourished itself to the point of self-deception, so that Lucifer for a time really persuaded himself that his contemplation of rebellion was actually for the good of the system, if not of the universe. By the time his plans had developed to the point of disillusionment, no doubt he had gone too far for his original and mischief-making pride to permit him to stop. At some point in this experience he became insincere, and evil evolved into deliberate and willful sin.
There must have been a pride of self that nourished itself to the point of self-deception, so that Lucifer for a time really persuaded himself that his contemplation of rebellion was actually for the good of the system, if not of the universe
In other words he developed an egotism or egocentric viewpoint.
Bradly wrote: Why do mortals have ego but not animals?Because animals do not have personality. A sense of self comes with the self-consciousness of personality. The free-will choice that also accompanies personality determines what becomes of the self (ego). Animals don’t have that either. When the personality begins to sense, or become conscious of reality, it tends to mold its sense of self (ego) in alignment with that reality, if not prevented by resistance. So often people equate this resistance to the ego alone, a mischievous imp trying to cloud reality all by himself, the devil in us who makes us do things. But resistance is really due to identification with erroneous thinking which results in erroneous behavior, a maladjustment to reality.Potential ego is divine, actual ego can either way because we are dual natured beings. Animals are not dual natured and do not face this dilemma. We mortals will always have a dual nature, human and Adjuster, but eventually, with one will. Even after fusion the Adjuster continues to impart new meanings and values to us depending on our level of universe of existence. The Adjuster will continue to be the repository for potential within us for all eternity and we will continue to have to choose based upon this sense of our divine self.p381:03 In every mortal there exists a dual nature: the inheritance of animal tendencies and the high urge of spirit endowment. During the short life you live on Urantia, these two diverse and opposing urges can seldom be fully reconciled; they can hardly be harmonized and unified; but throughout your lifetime the combined Spirit ever ministers to assist you in subjecting the flesh more and more to the leading of the Spirit.
If an ego was something bad, surely the authors wouldn’t mention praying to an alter ego, or elevating ones ego, or praying with the ego. They obviously mean ego in the positive sense, and in the dictionary there is a positive connotation there.
http://www.vocabulary.com definition of ego…..
ego
Your ego is your conscious mind, the part of your identity that you consider your “self.” If you say someone has “a big ego,” then you are saying he is too full of himself.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ego
Ego
the self especially as contrasted with another self or the world
I think the reason the authors use the word ego in the case of prayer is because they are trying to contrast 2 selves. It wouldn’t really make sense to say alter-self, but to say alter-ego it becomes easier to get their point across.
Scott, my list of citations represents over 90% of the 25 places in the book that mention ego, and all of them are pretty clearly negative.
Scott, my list of citations represents over 90% of the 25 places in the book that mention ego, and all of them are pretty clearly negative
I disagree.
Fine, Scott, I’m content to let it rest, and I’m glad I spent my 2 hours on the search and analysis rather than on a drawn-out back-and-forth with you. That seems to be Bonita’s thing.
Scott, I think I was a bit too curt there. Please know that I am reconciled to the fact that our revelation affords me no textual authority to use this word ‘ego’ in the one sense which to me is most rich with meaning.
I grew up in the 1960s, when the earlier, clinical meaning of the word (current during the time of our revelation) was already morphing into a more negative reference. And that negative meaning still connects with me. And I have no real reason to give up the word ‘self’ and substitute the word ‘ego’ if I feel sincere in my need to get two meanings from two words instead of one meaning alone.
Be aware that references to “national ego,” “racial ego,” and “male ego” in the UB stand as challenges to any one-sided interpretation. Give the revelators freedom to use English as best they see fit in any context.
There is no reference to the word ‘ego’ in Part I of our text, and only one author of Part II (an archangel) has availed himself of the term in an attempt to portray the ego-release mechanism of humor and reversion. In Part IV the reference is to a ‘religious ego’ which is said not to have functioned in the mind of Jesus of Nazareth.
So I’m fine with using the word as I choose without the sanction of our text.
-Reader
I grew up in the 1960s, when the earlier, clinical meaning of the word (current during the time of our revelation) was already morphing into a more negative reference.
This is a good point. The book was written in a time when this morphing of the word ego had not happened yet I am guessing. There are quite a few other words in the book that now carry a very negative connotation that didn’t back in the early 1930s when the book was written. Eugenics is one example of this.
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.