Edward Flores4 said:Of course they are... but we don't actually treat people that way, do we? If we did, we'd have to admit that we’re all somewhat schizophrenic to varying degrees. It's really just a matter of being observant enough to notice the "clumsiness" of that phenomenon in our daily lives—that awkward friction that makes us want to limit the movements of people whose schizophrenic "realities" are a bit too intense for the norm.
So, here's where it gets interesting. That line of reasoning forces us into another conclusion. Specifically, we need to decide if these "schizophrenic realities" are actually closer to some kind of theoretically objective truth, or if they are just arbitrary projections of subconscious content onto an "objective" reality. In other words: is schizophrenia an evolutionary leap forward, or is it a defect?
If it's progress, then we urgently need to swap out the staff at the psychiatric wards for the folks over at Congress. We'd just rotate them through the seats and call it a day.
But if it’s a defect, then we’ve used pure logic to circle back to the idea that the ego is nothing more than an irrational, arbitrary, and mostly subconscious projection—something we label as a flaw rather than seeing it as the "normal" or "natural" state of things.
The philosopher in my signature suggests recognizing "his identity with this Unity Software," which basically means realizing your identity as an inseparable part of a much larger whole. But isn't "identity" and "Unity Software" essentially opposites? Once you recognize your identity as part of the whole, the individual identity vanishes—the transformation is complete. The whole process of identification is actually a metamorphosis into a transcendental "object," an attractor, or to put it in McLuhan terms, a "medium" (whatever that may be), which serves as the ultimate goal of the identification process.
When you read ancient philosophers, you really have to approach them through the lens of the cosmology of their era. They didn't write with the literalism that modern philosophers do. Their statements are incredibly compressed—they pack massive amounts of data into very few words. To truly decompress those ideas, you usually have to dive into the original language and its fundamental assumptions, while studying the specific cosmology and mythology of that period... I think they call that "comparative mythology philosophy." Only then do you get the full picture of what those philosophical statements were trying to convey. They weren't writing for the masses back then; they were writing for the highly educated, the well-informed, and the relatively intelligent individuals who shared a specific worldview and a standardized set of assumptions unique to their corner of the world and their time.
But even so, we're really just drawing a parallel between how these two things—the ego illusion and hallucinations—impact what we perceive as reality. It doesn't mean they are functionally identical, of course.
Then again, maybe we're using 'ego' in a different sense—like when I want to lift my left arm or grab a glass of water; I personally see that 'ego' in action and consider it necessary for any movement at all, which suggests it runs deeper—that the ego is precisely that essential process of identification.
Whether I want to lift my left hand, drink some water, identify with Buddhist philosophy, or apply some sort of 'technique,' it all feels fundamentally the same to me (in terms of 'deepening the ego illusion,' obviously). Actually, this whole idea of discarding 'spiritual techniques' sounds a bit like the ego manifesting in its most conventional sense. 😁
Which brings me to this:
The philosopher in my signature mentions recognizing "his identity with this unity," which translates to realizing one's identity as an inseparable part of a larger whole. But identity and Unity Software are actually opposites... aren't they? If you recognize your identity as the whole—identity vanishes—the transformation is complete. Because the process of identification is essentially a metamorphosis into a transcendental "object," an attractor, or to put it in McLuhan terms, a "medium"—whatever that may be—which serves as the ultimate goal of the identification process.
It all sounds a little too much like a fairy tale to me, honestly, because I can't really picture a functioning human being who isn't currently engaged in a process of identification. I mean, I don't see how identity disappears if it's recognized as part of a whole; hasn't the identity just shifted slightly? Doesn't the ego still function?