RC>Is violence central to ego ("the sense of self")? What do you mean by
>violence here, given it's seeming central role?
B>>Ego which is active is oppositional to other egos,
>>egos which are passive seem to spawn violence, too--an attempt to get
>>someone to stand for something?
RC>What is the difference between something that "actually" creates and
>is created by X and something which "seems" to be that way?
(quoted from origianl post)
Reed,
RC: Is violence central to ego?:
B: That is how it seems.
RC: Is this ego compatable with "ego" defined "the sense of self"?
(paraphrase):
B: It would seem that this ego which is "creator of violence and also what
is created by violence" is the same ego that I spoke of earlier as "a
passive construct of Self which is formed in response to violence,"; the
clue here is the term "violence" which is used to refer to the ego mentioned
in this part of the post and also to the ego mentioned earlier--suggesting
that this is still "a passive construct of Self which is formed in response
to violence," and yes, "a passive construct of Self which is formed in
response to violence" could also refer to "the sense of oneself" (except as
I go on to explain).
I have included "ego as the creator of violence" here which is an supposedly
"active" ego and go on to define this active ego thus: "Ego which is active
is oppositional to other egos" which also relates to the term "violence"
further defining violence as that which is created in response to either a
passive ego or an active ego (though "ego" is defined as passive in that it
is a response to violence in both cases); or "Ego which is active is
oppositional to other egos, egos which are passive seem to spawn violence,
too...." This defines "violence" as "opposition" and concludes that an ego
which is in opposition to itself is "a passive construct of Self which is
formed in response to violence." Or, "the sense of self" (your definition)
is interrelated to opposition; thus defining "sense" to be that which has
the appearence of self but which is in opposition to self (creates the
illusion of self through opposing self and thereby a "sense" (your term) or
"construct" (my term).
Seems to be compatable.
RC: "What do you mean by violence here, given its seeming central role?:
B: That which is created by a sense of ego and that which an ego creates
through it's inherent opposition to self, it's constructed nature. Though
opposition, or "violence" seems to be the operative word here as "ego" is
used in a passive sense. Which does seem to leave open the question as to
the original nature of violence and thus the word "seem(s)" in the original
post (Ego which is active is oppositional to other egos, egos which are
passive seem to spawn violence, too--an attempt to get someone to stand for
something?)
RC>What is the difference between something that "actually" creates and is
created by X and something which "seems" to be that way?
B: In this case the question is "Is ego created by violence or is violence
created by ego?" The term "seems" shows that this point is open for further
comment, that it is a question. The proposition is that violence creates
ego: The question is, "Is this true or is this not true (How does it seem)?
Brett
Returning,
rBERTS%n
Rabble Sonnet Retort
"This must be Thursday. I never could get the hang of
Thursdays."
Arthur Dent