The Ego vs. World of Ambiguity

[PierreGringoire]

Many people admire the confident individual. The confident person is the one who has a clear belief system. He sets as many aspects of the world in stone, or at least he consistently attempts to "define" the things around him and makes a stand on what he believes in. He simplifies the ambiguity of the world.

Defining the world is what everybody must do to some degree in order to survive, we must define something. Otherwise, we'd get overwhelmed by insanity. One day being a jock, the next being a saint, the next being a vandal, etc.

I believe really sad people (depressed may be too strong) realize that their definitions of the world are wrong, and have a hard time coping with that. Wheras the confindent individual plunges on ahead. The confident man will most likely be the one who sees and feels the most success economically and socially.

As young people we are all so confident, and the world is so beautiful. Generally, our minds do not tax us with scruples of what is right and what is wrong. We easily are able to actively define our world. I know there is a physiological explanation as to why young people are so apt to learning. But putting that aside, I believe they learn so well because all of their energy is focused externally. They don't second guess themselves as much. They have no internal daggers (devils) prohibiting their progress.

We can never be totally right, and because of that we are always totally wrong because our simplified definition of let's say a tree, can be summed up in a couple pages of prose (depending on your ecological expertise). That couple pages that you defined about the tree is pitted up against the infinite. Because of the extreme magnitude of the tree. There are infinitly a number of things that we don't know about the tree than what we do know about it. And as that function goes to infinite our 'definition' becomes irrelevant and utterly false.

In order to survive in the world we need to make stands on what we believe (even though a given belief is a grossly unfinised product).

But how concrete should we make our beliefs? Should you model your life after a Zen Buddhist (who (at large) clears his mind from making concrete beliefs) or should you be an activist that goes and fights for all of their feelings? Should you only be an activist when an issue directly affects yourself?
Feel free to name a book that would best define your beliefs.
Mine would be Candide because I am somewhat of a pessmist. Even though I'm not very proud of that. It is a book about an individual who starts out as believing that he lives in the best of all possible worlds. He successivly fights trials and tribulations that desecrate this romantic idea and in conclusion he decides to live a life of "tilling and working his land" just to till and work the land and seems to be content with not being in painful ordeals like he was previously. His passion seems to be to actively make himself "content"-- nothing more, and nothing less. Now of coure I'm more of a rounded individual, with no clear belief system.

[billyjack]

interesting. an error in reasoning is neccessary for confidence. i'm confident that this is true, so its probably not--but nonetheless- error has a very important place in society, more important than truth perhaps

[Bitterfly]

But how concrete should we make our beliefs? Should you model your life after a Zen Buddhist (who (at large) clears his mind from making concrete beliefs) or should you be an activist that goes and fights for all of their feelings? Should you only be an activist when an issue directly affects yourself?


I generally fight for the causes I find deserving, but always find myself doubting whether my beliefs are really as founded as I think they are, so I'm not a great activist. I can easily understand people who hold opposite views, for instance, and therefore it's difficult to me to take a firm stance on some matters. Not all: I believe firmly in the right to decide how one's private life will be led, for example.

I like your definition of confidence, and it probably explains why I find overly-confident people almost silly - because it's difficult to shake their beliefs and world-view, and they give the impression that they're not considering all the possible ways of looking at a subject.

As for the book, I recognized myself in the way Stefan Zweig describes Erasmus - for instance, his lack of a firm position when it came to defending Luther or recusing him. He was seen as a coward, whereas he sympathized with both Luther and the Catholic Church.

[NikolaiI]

The designations of jock, saint, and vandal are bodily designations. They are taken and worn like a coat, or a costume for an actor in a play. We are just actors pretending to fill out egos; in truth none of the bodily relationship actually exist. Thus there is no pain, no feeler of pain, no ignorance and no end of ignorance; etc.

The problem with confidence is that it can become close-mindedness. The problem with close-mindedness is that it never learns. The world is always changing, and so fixed definitions of it do not uphold. Confidence or faith are actually very good things, the problem is misconfidence and misattachment.

I stress the importance of ego since you mention it. We have false ego based on the idea that we're our body. We've twisted ourselves into all kinds of knots, and if we could only untwist, we would know peace, and trust in ourselves. Every twist and turn we took, it's not really. We never went anywhere, or changed; became less or more. We are not our body; or at least, we were not before, and we will not always be. This world is real, but in another equally valid sense it is not real at all. Everything based on an individual subjective perception does not have independent existence. All is interdependent. What we feel based on our senses and observations feels like truth, but it is not incorporating what came before this life or after this life, (unmanifest nature) or the fact that this life merely exists due to perception. I exist because other people know me, perceive me, and remember me, and others exist for the same reason. You can see how if there are no observers, then there is nothing to be observed.

[PierreGringoire]

I stress the importance of ego since you mention it. We have false ego based on the idea that we're our body. We've twisted ourselves into all kinds of knots, and if we could only untwist, we would know peace, and trust in ourselves. Every twist and turn we took, it's not really. We never went anywhere, or changed; became less or more. We are not our body; or at least, we were not before, and we will not always be. This world is real, but in another equally valid sense it is not real at all. Everything based on an individual subjective perception does not have independent existence. All is interdependent. What we feel based on our senses and observations feels like truth, but it is not incorporating what came before this life or after this life, (unmanifest nature) or the fact that this life merely exists due to perception. I exist because other people know me, perceive me, and remember me, and others exist for the same reason. You can see how if there are no observers, then there is nothing to be observed.

How could one not help but put a false mask on? When we take a stand on something, that immediatlely requires a leap of faith which requires ignoring the other possible ways to look on that 'something.' Before we even make a decision, our platform is painted a unique color. And its chances of matching a kalidascope of colors is impossible. Every single thing in our universe is so complex (that any given 'something') is like a rapidly changing kalidascope. And our mind's are so primitive that we can only adjust the color a number of times before we completely fall short and make a mockery of the intricatly changing system.

If everything is changing, aren't we changing along with it? And aren't our views adjusting every second we slice forward through time? Like, for example, my outlook is going to shift in someway I cannot predict tomorrow morning, which may be drasitc or trivial-- how can I even know? (My own memory has its' innate failings!) If we cannot even figure out ourselves, how could we figure out the universe? I think we can 'untwist.' We can figure ourselves out enough to give us a fighting chance. But I argue that its only through routine and an attempt to put a limit on our most uncontrollable passions.

If one could live according to some kind of routine while limiting their unhealthy addictions, I believe one could be predictable enough to their ownselves to give them a content heart.