Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Man, Ego, & Society (Partial)

Expand Messages
  • bjunius30
    Man, Ego, & Society Bryan Evan C. Junius Copyright 2003 1 -The Collective experience – Today would be a good day to destroy Man s ego. It would be joyful in
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 19, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Man, Ego, & Society

      Bryan Evan C. Junius
      Copyright 2003


      1




      -The Collective experience –

      Today would be a good day to destroy Man's ego. It would be joyful in
      fact, and maybe even quite ironic to take such necessary pleasures
      that is simply so pertinent to nature as is existence to mankind.
      Call it cynics if you will – and simply a man's own volition, such as
      my own to give away to patronization and condemnation for the
      humanity that builds fortitude and stability out of birds nests by
      leaps and bounds – what ego can I perceive that no other such as I
      will see? Do I necessarily destroy ego, epitomize and castrate a
      man's mind, or some individual with noble intent that has some moral
      standard that would be considered the ego of mankind? Well what shall
      I call ego, in order to better define the grounds that I stand upon
      as the chassis of reason? To be convinced of ego as the foundation in
      our society, this is true; it is the bearing and the beholder of
      conscious behavior. The process of id, ego as defined in the
      psychoanalysis of Sigmund Freud is not the debate – and for obvious
      reasons, I will try not to confuse the semantics for two conventions
      of thought – as I shall make very clear under this topic.
      There is more to the ego, which I speak of; it is transitive, thought
      produced, transcendental, and resistant to alteration by any physical
      means. This very representation, once solidified by the anterior
      mechanics of socialization and role modification faces a very hard
      and heavy task to carry through in one's experience that is
      personified by an ever increasing machine of mass thought, which is
      simply the "society". The structure of phenomenon, the lived
      experience of one's individuality and means of existence – it is the
      nestling and the niche to keep one safe in the confines of reason and
      necessity; though for the sake of mortality, it is necessary that a
      society as much as the lived existence be in place, for those who are
      part of and are subjected to the boundaries it maintains. In the
      experience of life, the ego, which is the individual, is an object of
      refinement placed before "being", and which is normally, justified by
      the representation of lateral experience – like the qualia of
      something ness; it has value that is to become part of subjective,
      everyday experience (the common breed of abandonment built like the
      box of Russian puzzles, and it too must have a paradoxical
      representation of the whole rather than the self, for-itself, as it
      is in the place of transitive being in the world.)
      What does this representation mean? What is the ego, if but
      egoistical of experience and the live of other individuals that are
      just like it, the replication of thought, role, tradition, neurosis,
      behaviorism instinct, intuitive and contradicting in every sense of
      the word? What is the purpose of purpose to have no purpose than by
      being some object that reflects all condescending patterns in some
      obscure fashion! If ego was the clown, it would be fun watching
      society, and those inhabitants within it, become a living emblem of
      egocentric behavior at it's worst. It is here we may face our deepest
      challenge of denying social constructs as our very being of
      livelihood in the society that sows our transient appearances for the
      sake of uniformity, and the polysemy of an awkward culture.
      How does one go about denying what is self-explanatory and prevalent
      to the nature of identity? As Ayn Rand has stated in her early
      essays, `The Meta-physical vs. The Man-Made', it is apparent, by
      objectivist argument, `the question of how to deal with nature is
      partially understood, at least by some people. It is by Man's faculty
      of volition that sets him apart and makes men regard themselves and
      others as unintelligible, unknowable exempt from the law of
      identity'. In this regard, the law of identity as Ayn Rand portrays
      is much the ego of self, and the ego of society.
      The collective experience is a term, post-modernistic, and ambiguous
      in meaning for the complete answer of what conveys an accurate
      example of collective behavior; where the behavior is synergistic and
      causal by all experience. The experience in itself is that of an
      amalgamation of complete thought that is reflective in social
      thinking, and once amassed, seems like a composite of malevolent
      will; as Arthur Schopenhauer knew very well and quite conceived the
      notion that the world was dominated by this very "will to power", and
      nothing could stand before it, for surely to do so, would only cause
      one to be seriously injured or worse by this incongruent and
      translucent epiphenomenalism in action.
      In the best ideas, of understanding this ego or this self, as
      Foucault, and Lacan have tried to reason through post structuralist,
      and conflict theories in the sociological roles of Man in society,
      they have undoubtedly missed the obvious, by presuming too much from
      the focus of psychoanalysis in the wake of Carl Jung, Skinner, or
      Freud.
      The self is dominated by cognition, which is the ego of collective,
      and reflexive thinking. In our childhood – it is true, we do build
      self or ego from reflective imaging and we mirror the traits of
      society usually starting with our mother and father, as these are the
      most dominating figures and easily recognizable to us in our early
      stages of development.
      Our roles of ego played out over a number of years becomes a
      multiplicity in dimensional depth and breadth of being, as in being
      in the world; our existence is played out from beginning to end,
      carried by the essentialism of produced and induced abilities that is
      conjunctive to society's transport of individuality in the world. It
      defines our thinking methods, our meta-mathematical knowledge, our
      implicit Kantian duties (*), and our existence being of the use by
      trade or tool, as in nature, by giving or contributing in some sort
      of way that is derivative to passive/aggressive causality of nature.
      Our experience does not lie outside of the society; it is as well not
      a closed system, as it allows for limited dissemination, but can not
      be considered either, a hierarchical construct, because it resides in
      the flatness of experience and socioeconomic culture which jumps
      across a wide board like the game of chess or checkers.
      The dependency of Man in his society varies greatly by coherence and
      the idea to formulate that one is never himself, or at least, not one
      he has found unique in pattern, and spends an entire life time coming
      to reason, that one is lost inherently by ego, as ego vacates a known
      variable of cause and identity; again, it is much akin to our souls
      we live paradoxical type lives; the box within the box, within the
      box, within the box – or simpler stated, a layered foundation of
      petulance and social existence. Our existence through the
      metaphysical aspect as a physicality and reality of truth that
      society will have some sort of confinement for our sense of being in
      the world, living a world of otherness, that in the end promulgates
      an isolation and alienation of our true will.
      Society is a will in itself. A creation of platonic relations that
      correlate in mediation toward the individual, but in reality, is a
      collective product, and which the voluntary devices of creativity and
      earnest diligence; once built, is almost impossible to break down by
      physical or mental means. (It is easy here; to conceive why Anarchy
      never truly works in the political regimes that one aspires to once
      one is disgusted by the semantics and rhetoric's of political
      polygamy in government)
      The society is as much a factor to exclusion of criterion as it is a
      much valued representation to being by subsuming within the bounds of
      transient behavior that it will hold certain generalities about
      itself, which is again, the efficacy of collective thinking acting in
      some rationale way that will divide itself from just being abstract
      in nature to actually being something concrete and substantiated by
      rules and codes, as it governed by sentience. The ethics of how one
      lives or what is good, is pretty much set in stone by the governance
      inside a boundary; the culture of pop music, fashion, religion or
      politics are good examples of this once confined to a disposition of
      thought.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.