BEYOND PSYCHOLOGY:HOW TO TRANSCEND THE MIND

[gone]

hahahahaha OMG do you have ACUTE THERAPY OBSESSIVE DISORDER
"Schema therapy was founded by Dr Jeffrey Young, and represents a development of cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) specifically for treating personality disorders"

What a surprise, schemata has a therapy!!! well that's a turn up for the books, SWM directing me to knowledge of THERAPIES and CTB... (not)...  :-) funny though..

Yes I know about scheme, and why I am HERE in a PSYCHOLOGY forum talking about psychology, because if I talked about psychology at theatre, like the ghost, they don't listen but draw upon their own schema for simplicity. This is something I'VE OBSERVED.. people are only interested in w hat interest THEM..

OMG though, that's so funny. schemata therapy!! :-)

[gone]

I know I go off on a tangent & I know I'm a pain and all of that. But this thread has lead me to wonder and ask these final 2 questions. I will accept the answers, if any.
1. sakoz, are you on the autistic spectrum scale?
2. can/will SWM answer my 3 questions?

[SWM]

i will answer your 3 questions if and when you can demonstrate that you understand the concepts that we are talking about.

Yes I know about scheme, and why I am HERE in a PSYCHOLOGY forum talking about psychology, because if I talked about psychology at theatre, like the ghost, they don't listen but draw upon their own schema for simplicity. This is something I'VE OBSERVED.. people are only interested in what interest THEM..

it may not be that they do not listen or that they are not interested. the information is being filtered out. often unconsciously. filtered through deletion, distortion or generalisation.

you asked why a delusion is not included as a filter. a delusion may be a combination of those three filters. some information deleted, some generalised, some information distorted the result is a belief or even an entire schema that could be classed as a delusion.

[gone]

youtube and facebook make money on the schema of people, that is why they target advertisements to that of a person history, interest, viewing experience. I don't get adverts for shoes on my facebook, I get adverts for the arts because they know adverts for shoes would be wasted on me. Yes it's filtering out what doesn't interest me, without me even filtering it. But I get the idea. And I can see it in action, (Louis Theroux and the most hated family in America, last night an excellent example). I don't think I 'distort' the psychology of people, as I arrive at my suggestion not from 'filtering' as you suggest, but comparative ie: ticking boxes due to my knowledge, experience and observations.
Which is why I'm interested to know why I would be percieved as engaging in the filtration system you suggest.

[sakoz]

I was going to address this to psycho mother, but she says she won't read any more of my posts, I will refer to her in third person, because of her absence.
My intent was not to "push her buttons", that is, provoke/arouse her emotional centre. Only she can do that. I would have asked her to 'think of a image that disturbs you'. It would have been HER image that provoked her emotion; I don't even know what that image would be. We can only convey/transmit 'words'. How can you (psycho mother) give or receive a image? Television can receive images, can you? How telepathy? You already vehemently discounted  parapsychology. Do you 'get it' yet? All my repetitions did not penatrate your 'density'. So I will tell you in your language. You write I'm manipulateive, autistic, and more, see your own posts. Is that your intent, to "push my buttons"? Those words, of yours supposed to be 'derogatory'?. Here's what you do not yet understand. You typed those words on a keyboard, I see them on a computer screen (so do other readers). You "transmitted" only some words, not images (no fax). Those words ELICIT/EVOKE IMAGES in all who read them. (That's the purpose of language.) IF I take your words personally, then my OWN IMAGES PROVOKE my involuntary to react emotionally, but ONLY if I
subliminally BELIEVE MY IMAGES ARE REAL.  Do you think I would give you the satisfaction of causing me emotional  distress, to allow you to disrupt my homestasis? The only way I can prevent your 'words' from 'pushing my buttons' is NOT to believe some of my images are real. You , on the other hand can "stew in your own emotional juices." Your next move is to use even more 'derogatory' words , you even know "vile'ones aimed at me, but they will  "boomerang"; don't do that to yourself.
I started out (in other threads) to attempt to give you the most beneficial information any one could receive/acquire, and you belittle and try to corrupt it. What did it mean in the Bible where it said; "Don't cast your pearls before swine?"

[gone]

sakoz your post is still the same old.
I also said you were 'rational' able to listen and had rare qualities.
I don't like manipulative people, but when I have come to understand the reason they manipulate is because they can't create, at least I understand and accept that and distinguish it from those who manipulate for other reasons.

I asked if you were autistic, why is that derogatory? my x boyfreind was autistic and we had a great time, I asked that question to see if you could give me an answer. You have NEVER answered a question. If you were able to answer my question and say 'No I have no autistic traits' I would believe you. If you said 'Yes' I would understand your behavour more and accept it, that's all, I'm trying to work out why a person would behave the way you demonstate here, that's all, it is a psychology forum.

I am not trying to push buttons, you didn't push mine, I noticed what you were doing with swm and thought it worth exploring (as this is a psychology forum). No offence intended, just exploration.

[sakoz]

psycho mother;
                         The best method of exporation/investigation, so far know to man, is the "Scientific Method". (Note I'm not saying it's absolute, only the best SO FAR).

             http://thisisnotthat.com/learn/sd-ovr.html

          You don't acknowledge even seeing the "Structual Differential"; isn't that a case of "the pot calling the kettle black?"
I'm willing to start over, using the scientific method and the structural differential; wanna give it it try, or call it quites?

[SWM]

youtube and facebook make money on the schema of people, that is why they target advertisements to that of a person history, interest, viewing experience.

the schema is much more complex than the type of data that behvioural advertising is collecting and it is important to recognise the difference. such advertisements track and target behaviour, thats all. however, behaviour is motivated by values and beliefs, values and beliefs are constructed and organised through schema.

Yes it's filtering out what doesn't interest me, without me even filtering it.

not sure what you mean by "it's" in this sentence. the application controling the advertisement or your brain controling the information you recieve to your conscious mind.

I don't think I 'distort' the psychology of people,

you dont think that because your schema does not work in that way. your brain is not going to tell you you are filtering reality until you begin to examine your filtering system. your mind will tell you that what you are experiencing is real. when you take the red pill however... you might find a different story.  

you are filtering for information that supports your schema. your self schema says that you are very observant. good at making judgements about people and can spot an autistic person a mile away. while this may or may not be true it could lead to the beliefs being applied in situations where it is not true or not helpful to hold those beliefs.

as I arrive at my suggestion not from 'filtering' as you suggest, but comparative ie: ticking boxes due to my knowledge, experience and observations.

your knowledge, experience and observations have already been filtered before you become conscious of them. when you are interacting with your reality you are filtering everything that you experience. all the information you have in your head, your memeories, your knowldege has already been filtered, bits of this book bits of that book, a youtube video, observing people, experimenting, filtered to gain further support for your already functional schema.

when you recall information from memory it is filtered again

Which is why I'm interested to know why I would be percieved as engaging in the filtration system you suggest.

we all do this to some degree. we all have some form of belief system around which we construct our reality. the point of our discussion here is that sakoz became aware of the operation of your schema (although sakoz was not aware of the concept or terminaology of schemata) and i was already aware of your schema from previous interactions with you. i took the opportunity to confer with someone who was able to observe what i observed. this is my means of testing reality. to check what i am filtering against what someone else is filtering, so to speak.

[Zepher08]

"Unless western psychology incorporates meditation, it is going to remain attached with the ego. It cannot leave the ego, because without ego then there is no center to man."

One thing that comes to mind is the absence of ego during dreaming which is to say humans do operate with out ego identification at sleep.

Humans can leave ego state and ego state is simply a function and not a self. The issue is being stuck in ego functioning and figuring it is a whole self.

Transcending ego well, personally I would not want to transcend to a side of existence that is absolutely with out ego. That is what Buddhist practices establish as goal from my understanding.

I would not consider ego functioning as he center of human existence. It is only one aspect. An important aspect but not the whole experience nor the core. I say a balance of both ego operation and the ability to transcend is key.

My own point of view is to be aware of the operating ego as a function and not identify it as a self. I do have an attachment to my ego. It serves as a function for survival.

As far as i am concerned people have given ego a bad rap. Mostly because when ego is overly identified with and becomes imbalanced.

while a person can reach a state of transcendence I do not believe that state is the only state to live in yet it can be a state which is part of the whole human experience.

In reflection of the  deepest meditation where all is ONE and so on ... it would be unwise (ego message) to expect to resume ordinary functioning. It is not precisely the state to DO but rather BE and that is all.

Crossing back over into ego functioning if one is to continue living with in the realms of ego functioning as in with others.

[sakoz]

Zepher08:  I 'like' what you wrote.  Ego is a function, not a 'entity' in and of itself.
If I understand you, meditation is one way of transcending 'ego state'.
I have a different 'tact' (worth exploring? let me know what you think about that). We BELIEVE ego is real, concrete entity.
What would happen if we STOPPED BELIEVING ego was real?  Could we say 'ego' is adult version of 'boogyman'?
We DID stop believing the concept 'boogyman" as not real, can we stop believing other concepts are not real also?
Which way would be 'shorter' to transcend 'ego concept', meditation or to stop believing?
I recall when I stopped believing 'boogyman' was not real, the results were immediate. Medititating can require very many sessions ,etc.
Wanna investigate the 'process/function of BELIEVING?

If we stop believing 'ego' is real, and 'it' continues to AUTONOMOUSLY OPERATE, then we must conclude 'it' is an entity in its own right like a living virus, we are HOST to.
When we say; "I stopped believing ego as real, WHO is that 'I' that stopped the believing function? That SAME I Animates ego, making 'ego' a ARTIFACT.
ergo, 'ego' is a "Pinocchio Identity" a necessary TOOL. to use and not be used by 'it'.

[pert -5]

Neat post Zepher08.  I don't want to directly quote your post as I feel I can get my two cents across more succinctly if I just make a separate post.  Hopefully what I add pertains to what you said in some fruitful way.

When the Buddhist transcends the Ego it is typically called Ego death.  Which is unfortunate because death is a strong word which harbors many negative connotations.  I would call it "Ego coma" or "Ego nap" or something along those lines, I dunno.  Basically when one supersedes the Ego-centric consciousness there is still an awareness present (except for exalted states such as Nirvakalpa Samadhi, but I digress), and this awareness would fit the bill as some form of Ego-conscious experience.  The change that is affected thusly is not one of degree, but one of perspective.   Ego death essentially means comprehending the Ego as what it is; i.e., an aspect or a tool, not the totality of one's person.  There will always be an Ego, it is importance that is altered.

[Zepher08]

Thank YOU pert-5. I agree with what you say and how you have written it. Yes, "ego nap" sounds fitting. I like the fact that you used the word "Ego conscious experience". Because I have a difficult time formulating words to define that term would you mind doing so? I call " Ego conscious experience"
"aware ego" . I want to know if what I am referring to is the same as what you are referring to. Just for the record. THX

1 more thing... possibly instead of saying ego death it could referred to as death of attachment or identification. Brain storming here.

[Zepher08]

Sakoz, Ego function such as a part of the body like an organ... skin for example. Ego is a part of the human body as in the mental body which can not be measured with a yard stick. Although measuring through behaviors might serve the same purpose.

Ego is development happens at an early age. It something that the human being grows just like hair and it has a purpose. It is not made up by humans like a new invention. I don't plan on growing hair nor do I plan to grow an ego ... it is part of the human mental anatomy. It has a purpose.

What is interesting to me is that transcendence has its survival aspects or use. So it becomes most apparent to me that the ability to transcend and understand how to operate between ego and ego-less state is important in terms of evolution of human existence.
 

[pert -5]

Thank YOU pert-5. I agree with what you say and how you have written it. Yes, "ego nap" sounds fitting. I like the fact that you used the word "Ego conscious experience". Because I have a difficult time formulating words to define that term would you mind doing so? I call " Ego conscious experience"
"aware ego" . I want to know if what I am referring to is the same as what you are referring to. Just for the record. THX

1 more thing... possibly instead of saying ego death it could referred to as death of attachment or identification. Brain storming here.

"Aware ego" sounds good to me.  There is an awareness existent which is relative to a fixed perspective; i.e., you.  Any good?

[SWM]

there is a lot of confusion about the word ego as it has a number of definitions. 

what are we talking about we say "ego" in this thread?

[sakoz]

Zepher08; I was going to post something, butI,I will instead reply to you. The first sentence I was about to post, but will use it here;
"Ego" seems/feels to be biologically real. Believing it is, makes it difficult to recognize it's "conceptual structure". You appear to subscribe to that belief.
You wrote "ego is part of the human body,...etc." Is your name part of your body? Your memories? My understanding is that Freud formulated the theoretical,conceptual construct to explain some 'functions' he observed. Newton did  the same thing, he saw a apple fall, so he 'theorized' some unseen, invisible 'force' pulling objects to earth. His 'hypothesis' was verifed as true, by replication, experiment. I can prove gravity is real, if we were together and I held a apple, I would say, "when I drop the apple, it will fall to the ground rather than float up to the sky." Very simple demonsrtation/experiment.
Ego is the name of functions as you stated. If ego is "part of the body... skin for example"etc. How can 'it' be transcened without transcending the rest of the body? If ego is part of the body, how do you isolate it from the rest of the body  (other than conceptually) and transcend only that one "part'?
Can we reconcile our different beliefs,  amiably?  There's several  paricipants here; let's come to and agree on a acceptable definition of "EGO"?
aw, I just see SWM address that about definitions, thanks SWM.

[pert -5]

What I mean by Ego is simply compartmentalized, self-referential awareness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_%28spirituality%29  (Sorry for being lazy and posting a wiki link, but... Never mind, I'm not sorry.)

[sakoz]

practicus; you wrote; "There is a awareness existent which is relative to a fixed perspective, i.e, you. Any good?" I agree it's "good".
Who, here, has a image of 'awareness'? There is none, because 'awareness' is NOT a 'THING/OBJECT'.  Who here has an image of EGO?
If you doubt there can be a  "perspective" without a physical observer, look at a image in your 'minds eye', by what means do you 'see' that image. You don't turn your physical eyes INWARD.

pert-5; great Wikipedia article, can we all agree to using that as reference when we write about 'ego"?

[pert -5]

practicus; you wrote; "There is a awareness existent which is relative to a fixed perspective, i.e, you. Any good?" I agree it's "good".
Who, here, has a image of 'awareness'? There is none, because 'awareness' is NOT a 'THING/OBJECT'.  Who here has an image of EGO?
If you doubt there can be a  "perspective" without a physical observer, look at a image in your 'minds eye', by what means do you 'see' that image. You don't turn your physical eyes INWARD.

The Ego can be viewed, as comprehension is a form of viewing.  You certainly can not see the Ego with your eyes though.  In states where the Ego is transcended you can view the Ego AS IF it were objective (of course it isn't, but you get my drift?).  I agree 100% that awareness is not a thing.  Awareness is infinitely minute, it can never be seen as it is that which sees.  I like the analogy that awareness is the verb and what it is aware of is the noun.

[Zepher08]

Sakoz, actually in yoga one uses the body to transcend the body. I am not sure as to what you are asking for in your reply. We obviously have different points of view. If you would like to change my belief system you will have to have more to offer then logic. Logic will not be able to really describe the cross over to  the state of transcenene.

This reply has been produced by ego state. It is not the state of transcendence.

[docjp]

""Only an enlightened being can elaborate about psychology."

Your post is a bit wandering, but I get it.

The problem with much Eastern consideration of the MIND, is that they have no where to go beyond the MIND, because in many religions, the MIND is confused with the Spiritual dimension.  To begin to unravel Psychology, one must find the "keystone" of Psychology that is permanent, unchanging, and Absolute... and this will not be found within the MIND.   I suggest it is http://about-psychology.com/NSgy.html

[pert -5]

The problem with much Eastern consideration of the MIND, is that they have no where to go beyond the MIND, because in many religions, the MIND is confused with the Spiritual dimension.

Do you have any examples of this, or are we to take your word for it?

To begin to unravel Psychology, one must find the "keystone" of Psychology that is permanent, unchanging, and Absolute... and this will not be found within the MIND.

Is this "keystone" congruent to the Atman of the Vedas, the Daemon of the Gnostics, Augoeides of Iamblichus, the Holy Guardian Angel of Thelema, etc.?

I suggest it is http://about-psychology.com/NSgy.html

I read the entire contents of that link and found not one single original idea that hasn't been said before.  And sadly, using my MIND I already figured out what your response will be to me on this point.

[docjp]

Psychedelic drugs work pretty well for transcending the mind. 

Just a reminder... in case you have forgotten, the MIND is not physical, all drugs are physical.  The only thing drugs do is sever the connection between the brain and the MIND.  And using drugs, one opens oneself to the most base desires and hallucinations of the MIND.  In proper meditation, the whole purpose is to retain absolute consciousness while traveling beyond the reaches of the brain, and ultimately beyond the MIND as well.... but to do this, the veil beyond the lower MIND and higher realms must be opened.... and that requires the  "key" of a Perfect Living Master, otherwise one remains within the lower MIND.  Of course nothing of what I post must be accepted as true.

[Enigma]

What are you, a Cartesian dualist?  The mind arises from the physical actions of the brain.  The mind cannot exist without the brain, ergo the mind is physical. 

[pert -5]

and that requires the  "key" of a Perfect Living Master, otherwise one remains within the lower MIND.

This is exactly the point where docjp descends into treachery.  People, I implore to you to listen, never, ever lay your spiritual/psychological integrity at the foot of another unless you are damn well out of control of it.  There are no "Perfect Living Masters," as docjp (I'm sure) claims to be, there are only people like yourself.  The mind is a fallible instrument; it is your medium toward reality.  Treat it as such, hmm?

[docjp]

" A made man can't do research on madness- a perfectly mentally healthy human being is required who has transcended the mind.."

This brings a couple thoughts forward: One is what exists beyond the MIND.  And two, how likely is it a person would remain on this physical plane.... if he/she has transcended the MIND?

[pert -5]

" A made man can't do research on madness- a perfectly mentally healthy human being is required who has transcended the mind.."

This brings a couple thoughts forward: One is what exists beyond the MIND.  And two, how likely is it a person would remain on this physical plane.... if he/she has transcended the MIND?

So docjp, is what you call the MIND what I call the Ego?

Self  Self-referential.  Self.  Self.  Self-RefeRentIal....  Self-referential awareness....

[docjp]

how does one explore the moon while confined to the earth?

Precisely the point.... It is not possible to study the Esoteric dimensions of Man in any way other than from "within" ones own Esoteric dimensions.  One must be "in" ones Esoteric dimension to "experience" the Esoteric phenomena of Life.

[pert -5]

These are awkward ways of dodging my queries docjp.   So what you are ultimately aiming at is the disarming of the sound kitten upon the keys which most call the mind?  To separate the constitution into the physical, mental, astral, spiritual is a dish that has been served before.  Fire, Water, Air, Earth, culminating in spirit. 

Notice how my craft at expressing words says things that are not dependent on logical response?

[docjp]

"Craft of expressing words ..... etc."

No, 'm sorry I do not.

You seem to place the Spiritual dimension as the end result of something that began with the physical brain, and that is not unusual.  Incorrect, but not unusual.

The primordial Energy of all existence is the Energy of Spirituality.  What exists as the Creation is a projection of Spiritual Energy, and the result of this is called the "Word", or in Hindi, it is called "Shabd".
about-psychology.com/NSgy.html