Apologies - I didn’t see your post when I made my most recent post.
Yes - a bit like Dostoevsky’s Idiot. Increased empathy but also increased naivety. But I’m not sure I would trust Chat GPT with adequately assessing the consequences of transforming egoic consciousness just yet - its source material is too broad and general.
I would challenge (please do so for me rick) the Naivety thing - why would lack of selfishness cause a problem with naivety ? Does freedom from worrying about myself necessarily impact skepticism?
I also don’t understand why there would be resistance to change?
Is not the Apathy problem balanced by the ability to care for others/compassion/love?
(I agree that we humans need to regard the output of our AI friends with plenty of skepticism!)
Every gain results in a loss. You can’t not change the whole. Maybe it’s analogous to karma?
GPT:
Potential for Naivety: Overemphasizing ego transcendence could lead to a lack of necessary self-assertion and discernment, making individuals vulnerable to manipulation and exploitation.
Resistance to Change: Some individuals and institutions might resist the shift away from egoic attachment, leading to conflicts between those who have achieved it and those who haven’t.
Potential for Apathy: While reduced ego attachment can lead to greater empathy, an extreme detachment from ego could also result in apathy and disengagement from personal and societal responsibilities.
I’m not sure of the validity of speculating about the possible consequences of how the world would operate if more people were to be free from egotism?
This seems to be rather tangential Rick?
What does this have to do with exploring what it means for a single brain to have its egoic consciousness transformed?
What I am trying to say (obliquely!) is transformation brings gain and loss. The whole stays intact, the books remain balanced. That’s true on all levels, individual to global. ? (wondering)
But how do you know Rick? This is speculation.
This reasoning from inferred possible consequences serves what purpose? Are you suggesting that before we examine what it means for a brain caught in egoic consciousness to be transformed we must weigh up the costs and benefits to see if it is a worthwhile thing to do?
It’s something I thought might resonate with you and others. But, if not, no worries: Let’s move on!
I found GPT’s answer interesting, but maybe it would be more helpful - and pertinent? - to ask it about the nature of the ego, the self, the nature of the psyche?
I asked what I asked to try to nudge the discussion back to the OP topic of the thread: the state of the world and how strongly the human sense of self contributes to that state. But sure GPT would have interesting things to say about the nature of self, it serves up good food for thought.
Yes - GPT gives very general info, but it is useful like an encyclopaedia.
On ego, self and the nature of the psyche it tends to give generic Western answers (beginning with Freud), so one has to tailor it a little to get more specific answers. E.g. what is the ego according to Sankhya, or according to Ramana Maharishi and Advaita Vedanta, or according to Patanjali’s Yogasutra, or according to Buddhism.
The answer to the first three (more or less) is ahamkara (or ahankara). In both the Yogasutra and Ramana Maharishi’s approach the ego results from the mind’s (false or unnecessary) identification with thoughts, feelings, and the physical body.
That would not be transformation - what is being transformed is our relation to gain and loss.
If there is freedom from gain and loss, what is lost?
That’s sneaky! I am thinking of an analog to physics’ “Energy is neither created nor destroyed, rather transformed.” But I see your point, that Krishnamurtian-type transformation transcends loss/gain.
Yes - very sneaky indeed - the thing to remember is that we are not dealing with the potential stuff we suspect is “out there” - its all about my relationship to what I am projecting.
I don’t have the time and the energy to read and understand every single person who expresses his or her opinions in this forum . To me the future of humanity is very short. In fact life itself is very short .
What is one to do or not to do in this uncertain world which is becoming more uncertain exponentially ?
Three short extracts from a book of collected talks by Krishnamurti (titled Where Can Peace Be Found?) might be helpful:
Division must exist as long as there is the psyche, the self, the ‘me’, the ego, one person separating himself from another. This has been a long history; this is what the human condition is.
(Chapter 4, War is a Symptom)
The brain lives on memories and not on facts… Memory is the reaction of experience, knowledge, and the things that one has remembered. This is what the self is, what we are… The self, the ‘me’, the ego, is nothing but words and memories… When one is concerned with oneself, all one’s actions must be psychologically limited… I am a Jew, you are an Arab; that is a limitation, a tribalism that is limited. And I cling to my limitation, and you cling to your limitation, and therefore there is perpetual conflict… [So] the brain, seeking security in the self, has made itself limited psychologically.
(Chapter 5, The Narrow Circle of Self)
We are asking… can the self, the ‘me’, the ego, all this self-centred activity that is the movement of memory, can that self end?
(Chapter 8, Suffering and Death)
Yes, what K says is totally rational. But we are in a totally new situation that we have never had it before. And we have no clue of what to do, let’s be realistic and honest…
Are you referring to the existence of AI (artificial intelligence), social media, technology and the interconnectivity of modern society? Or about climate change?
As far as wars and conflicts are concerned, they have been around for thousands of years.
Conflicts and wars have been around but never at our door steps with such a magnitude. A third world war is much more destructive than the previous wars. With all the atomic bombs that Russians and North Koreans have they can wipe out all civilizations.
We can’t afford normalizing wars and conflicts as a way of living anymore.
I agree with you. By stating that wars have been going on for centuries, which is a historical fact, I am certainly not wishing to normalise the activity of war. It’s worth remembering that the wars fought in the 20th century were some of the most brutal wars, with the greatest death tolls in history. Clearly, with even further advances in modern technology there is the danger that any world war would be catastrophic for all human societies, so one hopes that the simple self-interest of the great powers (China, the US, Europe, etc) will continue to seek to avoid a global war at all costs.
What can we, as individuals, do about it though? We can’t stop the wars that are happening now. What we can do is try and deal with the root of war in our own consciousness.