Go to Naut's Thoughts
- Add a comment
- Go to Response to 1AMHAN1's Comment...Part IV (Final)
Wrapped up
very nicely indeed.
posted by
KaBooM62
on November 6, 2008 at 1:28 AM
| link to this | reply
i agree with you wholeheartedly. ego , to me IS 'self'. if 'i' don't exist, in what parameter do i acknowledge another? love is too massive a premise to entertain, when at the outset itself, there is a much larger to conlict to address. lucid. definitive. a case at rest.
posted by
bythewindowsill
on November 5, 2008 at 7:22 PM
| link to this | reply
Only the strong Ego is rich enough to give of itself freely, only the strong Ego is not afraid of losing itself in the other, only the strong Ego does not fear ecstasis… Only the strong Ego is the Ego I can love…
And fortunately, I, too found a lifemate who, egotistcally speaking, is just like me!! Compelling, thoughtful post, Naut. Mal
posted by
gapcohen
on November 5, 2008 at 10:47 AM
| link to this | reply
Love others as you love yourself?!
posted by
auslander
on November 5, 2008 at 5:57 AM
| link to this | reply
Finally, someone puts Ego in its place:
as simply self-image, or sense of personal identity. A good thing when it's helathy and whole, and an essential of humanity.
In fact, several voices here have acknowledged this, and I bow to you all with a great flourish of my feathery hat!
posted by
Ciel
on November 4, 2008 at 11:14 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: Very well stated, Naut.
I forgot to mention that any giving and recieving requires subject and object, without which there can be no giving and recieving of love.
posted by
metalrat
on November 4, 2008 at 5:33 PM
| link to this | reply
Very well stated, Naut.
In one sense, ego is identity, or at least a sense of it. The truly egoless person who has attained the "nothingness" you mentioned, has abandoned his/her individual identity.
And to me, a person without a sense of identity can neither give nor recieve love.
posted by
metalrat
on November 4, 2008 at 5:28 PM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos: I agree all love is conditional. As a matter of fact, I have argued there is no such thing as love as we have come to define it. If it were not so, I could, with a blinfold, choose my spouse or girlfriend. None of us would. I
f I recall very well, Freud spoke of the attachments that resulted from certain admirations. I do not recall that he defined those attachments as love.
posted by
EX_TURPI
on November 4, 2008 at 11:40 AM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
I totally agree with your conclusion.....I don't think anyone can completely turn loose enough to really experience another person unless they are solid in their own "self"; having no fear of losing some part of myself allows me to really be with and be there for someone I love...instead of holding back or being too needy. I came to this conclusion, personally, with experience and observation. It can test relationships because some want that neediness and cannot take a partner who doesn't hold back.
posted by
Krisles
on November 4, 2008 at 7:08 AM
| link to this | reply
Naut
In the Hindu religion or on a more metaphysical level egoless is not defined as lacking a sense of self but rather a state of mind. It is transcending identity; it is being in that “centredness from where you have equal love and compassion for all. It is the unshakable light and richness that one has found in one’s Being which is universal”. Transcending identity is different from denying identity. The term “no ego” is therefore an explanation, if you will, of not lacking boldness or self assurance but rather the capacity to drawn into oneself and experience the force of the universe or the spirit that runs through us. Maybe this is what 1AMHAN1 was referring to. Whether or not one can only love when one finds or achieves that state of “egoless” is debatable (at least in my mind). I think one can love even if in a state of ego and (unfortunately) on a human to human level your closing remark that all love is conditional in one form or another is true. Those conditions may not be overt but if we scratch the surface (which typically we prefer not to do) we most certainly will find them.
The end
posted by
Troosha
on November 4, 2008 at 7:07 AM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
One must have enough ego to love oneself before they can love another no?
posted by
WileyJohn
on November 3, 2008 at 5:50 PM
| link to this | reply
A very good answer, Nautikos. I've always felt that a person cannot truely love another unless he/she first loves himself.
posted by
TAPS.
on November 3, 2008 at 1:38 PM
| link to this | reply