Transcendental Ego

ENOAH

Some months back I had a discussion on this forum (with whom, I can't recall) about Husserl's phenomenological exercise aiming to get at the transcendental ego. We were not in agreement about something. It wasn't about the fruitfulness of Husserls method. On that we agreed. It was about the so called transcendental ego (t ego). Briefly, they supported Husserls Hypothesis that the t ego was the end game in any search for the self, often confused with our real consciousness. I believe that there is no self but a consciousness before [beyond] the self, and that is the real so called t-ego [true /real consciousness; i.e. before a self is constructed by joining history/human consciousness] philosophers and mystics alike are after. I propose that it is the body in its organic functions simultaneously aware like all creatures to varying degrees, of drives, feelings, sensations movements etc. The t-ego Husserl purports to unravel remains within the world of representation and is therefore still just the illusion of the body "having" a/the Subject, albeit in its purest form. One must leap beyond representation even of the body, to the body itself, if tge end is to arrive at true being.

I acknowledge that my presentation both above and below seems lazy and does not adhere to traditional academic structures. But if you can cross that rickety bridge, I'd be interested in your thoughts.

The so called transcendental ego is still not Real consciousness. The t ego may be the purest [most bracketed] source of meaning [primal signifier], the subject [doing so called it’s best to] reflecting without reflecting upon itself [for a change] the closest that becoming can be to being [the present participle without predicate, but still, a part of speech]. But it’s still within the framework of representation when it necessarily remains in place, implying its own reality as an entity which is other than the simple body. It necessarily becomes a representation, albeit the last and purest representation, and therefore a fiction. What philosophies hope to arrive at when they seek true being [and not the self no matter how stripped naked] is actually the organism in its aware-ing. That is, being [just being]. And the latter is not [state of] a knowledge or an experience. To be a knowledge or experience , is to take it away from being and into becoming [being with a predicate, including being me, i.e. representation]. Being is [just being]. There too is Reality. And only there in being / is-ing.

So how does the phenomenological exercise get you to that, Real consciousness? It can't. But it gets you so close it becomes at the very least, the dream of a possibility. You only access real consciousness when you're being real consciousness. I think, no longer, therefore I am. As soon as think, therefore, and I entered the picture, am was displaced by become. And good luck being am without the incessant intrusion of becoming if you were born into human history.

javi2541997

So how does the phenomenological exercise get you to that, Real consciousness? It can't. But it gets you so close it becomes at the very least, the dream of a possibility. You only access real consciousness when you're being real consciousness. — ENOAH

I think this is very intriguing.

What do you mean by "real"? Because, reading carefully this paragraph, it seems that there could be non-real/hallucinatory/dreamlike consciousness. If this is the case, how can we distinguish? I believe that our ego is always real based on your definition of reality, but at times, our consciousness may not be. There are multiple situations where Cogito is located, but it is challenging to find out which of the different versions of myself is actually real. I do not think reality is dependent upon consciousness.

ENOAH

↪javi2541997

What do you mean by "real"? — javi2541997

"Real" is the aware-ing organism, aware of its drives, feelings, sensations, image-ing etc. Shared by all living organisms in varying degrees

The "unreal" is human consciousness or "mind," representations displacing the real aware-ing with desires, emotions, perception, ideas, etc.

how can we distinguish? — javi2541997

We don't distinguish. Hence, the metaphysical/epistemological problem.

The latter, we access by knowledge, and it displaces the former, always there, but not accessed by knowledge. Rather, accessed by being.

It is only knowing which wants and distinguishes.
Being, just is.

Punshhh

↪ENOAH

One must leap beyond representation even of the body, to the body itself, if tge end is to arrive at true being.

Yes, but this takes one out of philosophy (thinking) and into mysticism, where thinking is merely a side show, or cogitation after the fact.

And good luck being am without the incessant intrusion of becoming if you were born into human history.

I know, but there are well established schools and methods to do this.

javi2541997

The "unreal" is human consciousness or "mind," representations displacing the real aware-ing with desires, emotions, perception, ideas, etc. — ENOAH

So, according to this, our idea or image of reality may be biassed by our perceptions or emotions, which might mean that it is actually non-real, right?

Being, just is. — ENOAH

How can I be myself without consciousness? My being can exist, but I think the mental concept or awareness of existing is also required.

ENOAH

Yes, but this takes one out of philosophy (thinking) — Punshhh

Then so be it. To access reality one must be taken out of thinking.

When it comes to metaphysics:

Philosophy is a useful tool for understanding the system of representations of truth; a system we rely upon for its function. But it cannot access real truth. Accordingly, all of its fruits are relative and subject to change. There are no first principles, no categories, no a priori governing principles outside of the system of representation which philosophy is restricted to.

But Mysticism cannot be a useful tool for accessing real truth, because "mysticism," belongs no less to the system of representation which philosophy is relegated to.

So how do we access real truth? Not by representations (knowing), but only by being.

I agree with your point but it appears in its presentation to have missed the fact that it agrees with mine.

there are well established schools and methods to do this. — Punshhh

Yes there are schools of philosophy. But, as you say, they are necessarily restricted to thinking. How, therefore, can they ever arrive at pure "am" without thinking [and, therefore]?

ENOAH

which might mean that it is actually non-real, right? — javi2541997

Only our "idea of" is unreal, "we" as in humans organisms/species are real.

How can I be myself without consciousness? — javi2541997

You already are [yourself] and you already are consciousness. The minute you "step out" (metaphorically) of consciousness to gaze at the images in your head which for humans have evolved into an entire narrative system---that is, if you are born into History, incessantly---you become [the fictional you of representation; the subject, ego, including the so called transcendental ego]

javi2541997

Only our "idea of" is unreal, "we" as in humans organisms/species are real. — ENOAH

What about the idea I have of humans as organisms/species? Is it too unreal? Furthermore, if I have something on my mind, I think this has to be real in some parts, because my consciousness has already given it some existence.

Punshhh

↪ENOAH

But Mysticism cannot be a useful tool for accessing real truth, because "mysticism," belongs no less to the system of representation which philosophy is relegated to.

The idea of mysticism perhaps, but to a mystic, the practice they follow isn’t necessarily so.

When it comes to “truth” and “real”, the problem is that they are treated as concepts, therefore a result of thinking.

So how do we access real truth? Not by representations (knowing), but only by being.

What is “Real truth”? Perhaps the mystic realises that there isn’t any real falsity, so why is real truth somehow out of reach?

I agree with your point but it appears in its presentation to have missed the fact that it agrees with mine.

Yes, but I was talking about mysticism, in particular.

Yes there are schools of philosophy.

Mystical schools.

unenlightened

It wasn't about the fruitfulness of Husserls method. On that we agreed. It was about the so called transcendental ego (t ego). Briefly, they supported Husserls Hypothesis that the t ego was the end game in any search for the self, often confused with our real consciousness. I believe that there is no self but a consciousness before [beyond] the self, and that is the real so called t-ego [true /real consciousness; i.e. before a self is constructed by joining history/human consciousness] philosophers and mystics alike are after. — ENOAH

This is not something that can be resolved by any amount of discussion. Go, and find out. Not in a thread or a book, but in yourself, is the answer.

I don't know Husserl's method, and the internet seems reluctant to enlighten me in five minutes, alas. But we old hippies have been on the trail a long time, and looking for the centre of self is very much the game we play. I can give you some tips, and some warnings. No one can tell you, no one can even help you, but do not try to do it alone.

Hello, darkness, my old friend
I've come to talk with you again
Because a vision softly creeping
Left its seeds while I was sleeping
And the vision that was planted in my brain
Still remains
Within the sound of silence

Paul Simon

Patterner

"Real" is the aware-ing organism, aware of its drives, feelings, sensations, image-ing etc. Shared by all living organisms in varying degrees — ENOAH

What does "aware" mean that bacteria and archae are aware of drives, feelings, sensations, image-ing etc.?

Mww

….in yourself, is the answer. — unenlightened

Absolutely, and from which follows necessarily, it must be done alone.

unenlightened

….in yourself, is the answer.
— unenlightened

Absolutely, and from which follows necessarily, it must be done alone. — Mww

No. The world of illusion is unlimited, and the harder you look for something, the easier it becomes to imagine you have found it. Meditation absolutely requires a reality check. Ideally the meditation supervisor will patrol the monks practicing zazen with a big stick, and anyone wandering into a dream will be recalled to presence with a sharp blow.

Likewise, one can try a floatation tank for sensory deprivation, but one needs a watcher, because the sense of detachment from the physical world and the body can be terrifying, and hallucination can become nightmare. You must do it, but you need not be alone, and should not be. To try such alone is already to start from a dangerous delusion that you are so special, that no one else can touch you.

ENOAH

What about the idea I have of humans as organisms/species? Is it too unreal? — javi2541997

Yes, it too is unreal. It is functional, but unreal.

ENOAH

but to a mystic, the practice they follow isn’t necessarily so. — Punshhh

Agreed. The practice. Not the preceding, corresponding or after thoughts

Punshhh

Agreed. The practice. Not the preceding, corresponding or after thoughts

Agreed, although the practice may colour the thoughts.

ENOAH

This is not something that can be resolved by any amount of discussion. Go, and find out. Not in a thread or a book, but in yourself, is the answer. — unenlightened

Agreed.

But the "trigger" Mind/History "provides" for us to go and find out, is the discussion.

By analogy, that's why a common idea in Zen, for example, is to burn all the sutras/kill the Buddha after enlightenment.

Punshhh

↪unenlightened

It has to be done alone in the later stages. Because by that point it is internal.

ENOAH

What does "aware" mean that bacteria and archae are aware of drives, feelings, sensations, image-ing etc.? — Patterner

In varying degrees depending upon levels of sophistication of the biological infrastructure. Branches reach for sunlight, protozoa "find" food. We startle at a lound bang. All conditioned responses requiring an aware-ing of some degree.

Admittedly, a scientist would be qualified to reply. I'm hypothesizing. Others far more learned in the required fields can provide the corrections. Its nothing special. Mind/History moves by that dialectic.

Mww

….the sense of detachment from the physical world and the body can be terrifying…. — unenlightened

Dunno about all that. With respect to the transcendental ego, it is irrelevant anyway, for whatever that may be, in whatever form it may manifest, it has only to do with the rational being known by a subject as itself.

unenlightened

the rational being known by a subject as itself. — Mww

Rational being? Speaking of delusional... Let's just say, that if we are ourselves rational beings, and yet we are at war with each other throughout history, then "rationally" we must be possessed by irrational beings that overwhelm us at every turn.

Mww

↪unenlightened

I’m not at war. Not even conflicted.

Sorry if you are; can’t help ya.

Tom Storm

Rational being? Speaking of delusional... Let's just say, that if we are ourselves rational beings, and yet we are at war with each other throughout history, then "rationally" we must be possessed by irrational beings that overwhelm us at every turn. — unenlightened

I see what you mean. But does rational mean level headed and peaceable? It just means capable of reasoning. One so capable can be simultaneously a total cunt. I think Kant (not to be confused with the epithet I just used) argued that our use of reason would eventually lead us to a state of harmony and order, but I’m fairly sure he didn’t think we were there already.

unenlightened

But does rational mean level headed and peaceable? It just means capable of reasoning. — Tom Storm

Well it's not completely clear. Game theory is founded on something called 'rational self-interest' and if that means 'cunning bastard' then the theory works well enough, assuming there is indeed no honour amongst thieves. But then, we ought to be talking about 'inner cunning cunts' rather than rational beings (possessed by devils).

Sorry if you are; can’t help ya. — Mww

What a sad state of affairs that is if the best of all of us cannot or will not help his fellows. All hope is lost.

Mww

↪unenlightened

Nonsense. You said it yourself, no one can even help you.

Given the thread topic, you’re equivocating the denial of help, with the impossibility of it.

Transcendental Ego

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions