← Back to Kinfonet

The self :: A dialogue

I’m still not sure I understand what you mean by character, how it differs from what we’ve been calling ego. So I’ll respond as if you asked “How important is the ego in our emotional reactions?” And I’ll essentially repeat what I said before, because it still feels right to me: The ego colors emotions and emotional reactions, it’s like a filter emotions pass through, but the emotions themselves quite possibly come from a different source, something deeper than ego.

This is pretty much a best guess on my part, based on my personal emotional life and some things I’ve read about the origin of emotions.

Good! :slight_smile:

let me clarify about personality, then we can go further. It mainly points to the pattern of thinking, feeling, and behavior of a person. This will come into picture if the group of persons are involved in social situations as we do in this forum.

Now read my question once more. :slight_smile:

How IMPORTANT the character is in our emotional reactions?

Ego is part of self but self means not just ego. Do you agree?

This surrender/suspension is spontaneous and effortless; like dropping something because you lose your grip in the light of what’s new.

The will to hold on to what I haven’t examined is enforced by the fear of finding out what I’m doing

Can I realize how much energy I’m wasting by carrying on in the only way I know?

Can I know my “old ways of thinking and feeling” if I can’t see them in the light of what’s new?

Are you speaking from experience?

Of course. Why do you ask?

It was not clear to me whether you were speaking from theory or experience.

Since I asked, I think I should give an answer.

Character (Personality) matters in dealing with situations at workplaces and other family moments. We are living in the world of competition, conflicts may occur quite often inside us. The way, a person handles and overcomes the situation is very important. In social situations, the person cannot be his/her emotion (related to ego) every time as we are dependent on others in many different ways.

Hope you understand @nobody

You can ask if you have any doubt, I will try to answer if I know.

When I speak from theory I hope I make that clear because many here speak from their knowledge of K’s teaching as if it is their own understanding.

Hi inquiry
Can you explain it in different way as I am no getting the point. :slight_smile:

This question seems interesting. This requires the person should have an understanding of the his/her self. I think I can recognize the difference if I face the same kind of situation with completely different responses.

Please share your view.

Monkey see, monkey do, right? We apes learn by imitation.

Yes we learn and react in the situation accordingly.

Hey did you understand my answer in the previous reply?

share your point on that.

Late here, getting very sleepy, signing off for now, adios!

Okay understood. :smile:

Take care then.

Hey, I got the point you are saying about. :neutral_face:

After having a conversation with you many times. I think I can say, that you can reply to me at the moment you feel if something is not making sense.

I see the discussion has proceeded taking different (and necessary) directions….

I’m apt to think in your line regarding emotions, so I think your question here has more importance than what Sivaram has asked.

(https://forum.kinfonet.org/u/sivaram: I’m replying here to you too, I hope you don’t mind)

Character or personality may vary but fundamentally the human psychological structure is the same, so I think we should focus on the common features instead than on the small differences.
And we ought to try to be simple in our discussion. When the discourse gets too complicate one loses the smell.

I was going to talk about emotions because it’s an important aspect of ourselves. If we are really exploring the self, the ego, in ourselves, during this discussion, that means we are observing our reactions to what is being said (or to what will be said).

I want to give a kind of warning here: if we really feel involved personally in this exploration of the self, if we talk in first person, emotions are bound to arise. That is why usually in forums it is advised not to go personal. But if we want to have a real dialogue as K meant it, and to make meaningful discoveries, we ought to go personal, with all the risks it involves.

So let me go back to the initial posts where we started examining the “I”, that is us.
We start defining what the I is, in order to understand it, in order to set in which direction we have to look. This implies not only the “I, me, mine,” stuff but also the actions, or better the reactions, because the ego is always reacting. Have you observed in yourself, yesterday, those reactions? If we really point our finger to the actual ego, the one we have, it will immediately react. If there are no reactions that means we are not touching the actual thing. The reactions can be subtle or great, and to be aware of them is the most important part or aim of this dialogue. I personally had a variety of small and big reactions yesterday.

This I think could be the main theme of this thread: we are egos who have come in contact with K, egos which want stubbornly to continue to exist and operate in the world, to get more and more gratifications, to accumulate more and more either material possessions or experiences both mundane or “spiritual”. Egos which by nature feel they are important, all that count in life. How those egos, our egos, reacted to K? Can we have the necessary simplicity, sincerity and honesty to reply to this question?

Why my question is not important, can you explain?

please use simple English, as we are from different cultures.

What is the need to give warning?

It’s okay. We have already started with the name “The self:: A dialogue”. Now no need to change.

Please give short explanations, such that it is easy to understand your intention.

I gave the explanation just afterwards:

Does it not seems a sufficient explanation to you?

Sorry but this is simple English and a simple form of language such as can be understood in any culture. The problem is not the language but that of understanding the metaphor. . One of the first and immediate perceptions you have when you examine a flower is its smell or perfume. And every flower has a distinct and peculiar perfume which allows you to recognise that flower. But if you put that flower inside the pages of a book (something I used to do when I was a child) it looses it’s perfume… it’s no more alive. So when we make a discourse too complicate, we loose contact with the real thing and its perfume. And there is no immediacy.

Well, I was not entirely serious in saying that, and perhaps it’s not necessary. (I hope it will not be necessary)
But probably you know how things often end up in a forum when emotions arises… don’t you?

Before going into self deeply, first we have to understand how to behave in social situations. As we learn from other human beings. Therefore, personality is important aspect to discuss about in this thread. :slight_smile:

I got the point. Simple words are effective such that reader will understand easily.

Please use simple words, instead of words like “Warning”.

Yes I do, that is the reason why I would like to be precise with my words

Hope you understood my intention.

Using the word I, me, or self, it is my whole condition as a human being… It is me writing here now, not me writing and there is a separate time and place, a separate existence. Right? So lets drop any innuendo. Lets not diminish the communication into the fragmented perception of everyday debate. Try to keep up. Words are no clarification. It is not a social meeting. Keep up by observing the conflict, mine and maybe yours, of not understanding the immeasurable.

I’m not interested in personality.

Regarding the other answers you gave me: we can’t waste our time in clarifying ridiculous misunderstandings or interpretations such as saying that “warning” is not a simple word. So if you want to continue in that line I won’t follow you.