Is it wrong to be self-centered?

mbinv,
How can we thank you for this wonderfully playful display of principles from transcendtal/mystical "thinking":

Out of my (abstracting] mind and into my [concrete] senses...
[transcending] distinctions...
[ultimately] grammar and meaning don't matter...
Reality is going nowhere; Shiva [the Cosmos] dances [moves] for its own sake...
God [the inmost and ultimate Self of us all] is purposeless [non-teleological] and having a ball...
Ultimately distinctions are useful but false: ying=yang (up is down; down is up, in is out, out is in, all bipolar dualities are really one).

So, that's that!

Thanks again Very Happy

0 Replies

mbinv, WELCOME TO A2K. An absolutely significant first post from a newbie. Love it!

0 Replies

And thanks to Coluber for the Campbell quote: "I stopped chasing the ultimate truth and accepted that it can be experienced but not understood intellectually."
I think that we cannot help but experience it, but this experience--this default enllightenment--is continually eclilpsed by our inappropriately intellectual efforts. Meditation removes this eclipse.

0 Replies

JLN, Isn't "intellectual efforts" an oxymoron?

0 Replies

I don't think so: the task of philosophical metaphysics to grasp ultimately reality is some kind of abstract formula is an "intellectual effort". I don't think that can be attempted unconsciously or effortlessly.

0 Replies

Took the time to read through all of this over the last couple of days, so worth while. Great discussion anyway guys, always learning.

Still pondering enlightenment really and just what it entails. I like the way in which, if reincarnation is the perpetual, dualistic identification with the finite in each moment, that the simplest of phenomenal experience like enjoying a nice cup of tea are also, instead, open to "pure perception". Like the true nature between Nirvana and Samsara, it's all quite subtle and inter-connected rather than lofty and alienating.

Thanks for bumping the topic mbinv, welcome indeed! Smile

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

I don't think so: the task of philosophical metaphysics to grasp ultimately reality is some kind of abstract formula is an "intellectual effort". I don't think that can be attempted unconsciously or effortlessly.

Isn't it as much emotional as intellectual?

0 Replies

Yes, C.I., I think it is.
Pardon all the typos in my earlier post. There were so many that I'm surprised anyone understood me. Let me repeat/paraphrase it with clarifications/corrections.

"I don't think so: the task of philosophical metaphysics to CAPTURE ULTIMATE reality IN AN abstract formula is an "intellectual effort". I don't think that can be attempted unconsciously or effortlessly."

0 Replies

Ashers, I find provocative the EQUATION, Nirvana=Samsara (or Zen Mind=Ordinary Mind)

0 Replies

Yes JL me too, the ultimate dualistic barrier for buddhists is the separation of those one I guess. I think the clearest perception of that I have is when I just listen to the sounds around me. Ordinary mind seems to add identification tags and thoughtful reactions to the sounds, like of the pitter-patter of rain or a distant car driving past. Something slightly more akin to Zen mind I think, hears the sounds much like a graphical visualisation reacts and bounces to the sound of a piece of music. The sounds are not divisible in nature or of relative value to something else but instead, the very fluctuations of reality.

0 Replies

Returning to the theme of this thread, "Is it wrong to be self-centered?" I think we have to agree on what eogcentrism is before we can have a conversation, although I admit that it is a bit late.

I have read a number of posts claiming a positive side of egocentrism, as I have lately heard politicians and pundits claiming that there is good and bad nationalism, as in, "It's good if we're bombing their cities and bad if they're bombing our cities."

The best difinition of egocentrism was defined by John Bradshaw, a Houston psychologist, while on a PBS program. He said that in a four year old egocentrism is natural, that if you asked a four year old girl if she had a brother she would reply, "yes." But if you asked her if her brother had a sister she would be totally confused, unable to put herself in another's place.

We have to assume that most animals and plants are egocentric, but adult humans with normal development must grow past egocentrism or be considered psychologically stunted. And I think that nationalism is an outgrowth of egocentrism.

0 Replies

It is silly to just only consider being only self-centered or being selfless as exclusive and only activities. In life we are forced to deal with events and so we must find a strategy to solve dissimilar problems. It is setting priorities. In a different situation you have different priorities. In a war situation you go out and fight risking your life. If you hide and not fight you are a coward. In a war you are risking your life for a cause you believe in such as freedom and democracy but ultimately it is selfish act but you act in a selfless manner in this particular situation. Life is not a one-note musical scene. If you act self-centered on all occasions then you do not fit in society. If you act selflessly on all occasions you become a doormat and cannot enjoy life.

1 Reply

@talk72000,

Hey Talk! In our current wars most people are fighting because they are being paid to fight. I don't think many people are over there fighting for a selfless cause. It's for this reason that this war has not been won. And it can never be won.

1 Reply

@NickFun,

In many cases, it's because their buddies are over there fighting. The biggest problem is the suicide rate of our military; it now exceeds the war related casualties. And that doesn't even count the high divorce rate, the highest homeless rate (higher than during the Vietnam war), and the violence against spouses upon their return.

0 Replies

This is one of my favourite subjects.

It's not wrong at all to be self centred. It's absolutely necessary to ones own welfare and happiness. You show me a person who isn't and I'll show you an unhappy person (or I'll show you how they actually are self centred).

Now for the transcendential people out there that would dispute this - how does a person become transcendant without spending a hell of a lot of time focusing inward on who they are?

There's also another very strong argument for having a very strong self centredness. The greatest leaders have the greatest vision...and get everyone to share their vision. The greatest athletes have the greatest vision of where they want to be (the winners podium) and how they get there. The dominant person is the person with the dominant vision. The most persuasive people are those with a very clear vision (think zealots, orators who 'had a dream', certain politians etc). The belief in the strength and rightness of your vision requires a great deal of self centred ness.

0 Replies

@Individual,

Individual wrote:

It may sound more like I decided to preach than discuss and dissect,
but I really do want to know if my ideas are in any way logical and true.

I support selfishness, Individualism, libertarianism, and hedonism.
U have my (general) support.

David

0 Replies

I SUPPORT THIS STATEMENT BY FOXFYRE

Quote:

Karl Marx had the well intended but misguided view that if you could just force society to structure itself so that everybody enjoyed the same benefits and assets, then we would have as close to utopia as can be achieved in this life.

But Marx did not allow for human behavior, human ambition, human greed, human willingness to leach off others, human distaste for being taken advantage of by others. And it was these characteristics of humanity that doomed Marxian ideals to failure. No government was possible that held that ideals are more important than self-serving power, influence, and profit and no society was subjected to a government that held that did not become mostly impoverished, oppressed, and without hope or opportunity to help themselves.

A reasonably regulated Capitalism, however, seeks for all to be all that each and every one of us are capable of being, and when it is manifested in a free and compassionate society, all persons are encouraged and have incentive to be all that we all can be. The government then serves best by performing its constitutionally mandated responsibilities, enacting sufficient laws to prohibit the people from doing injustice and violence to each other, and then it gets out of our way.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

You now accept the concept of regulation. What is regulation? It is the compromise we make to live in a society. We give up certain freedoms for the benefit of all. We may feel the urge to shoot someone but we don't. We have given up the freedom to do what we like. We must behave in society. We still must set priorities. For example, for some people having beer for breakfast, lunch and dinner is the ideal but it ruins your health, not to mention endangering your life by contracting liver disease, drunkenness and death by misadventure. You have a mix of foods for breakfast lunch and dinner. A one-note song doesn't cut it and one-key message is hard to read i.e. Morse Code. It is stupidity to be self-centered in all things and at all times. Look at Ayn Rand's life and you see it collapse just like the financial crisis all run by people putting self interest above all else. The main culprits have all stashed millions in safe havens but let the corporations they ran hit the ground. A criminal puts self interest above all else and totally disregard the rules and ethics of society. The Gulf War II just shows that George W. Bush places his elitist sensitivities above all else. The Gulf War I was lack of concern as the response to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was that the Bush Administration did not care what Arabs did to Arabs.

0 Replies

There is much to respond to in this interesting thread--but I'm too busy to do so now. But I DO want to respond to a value judgement made by Ican in a recent post. He said: "A reasonably regulated Capitalism, however, seeks for all to be all that each and every one of us are capable of being."
This may be one of the values sought by ideological capitalism--to be the all that we can be (as the marine recruiter tells his prey). But if you ask ME capitalism, with its hyperemphasis on ECONOMIC values, steers people away from ways of being that conflict, or are irrelevant to, materialistic and class-based values. Capitalism does not encourage us to be poets or spiritually mature.

1 Reply

Is it wrong to be self-centered?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know