Hi Athos, could you please clarify ‘what the Ego’ is?
I will refer to the studies of Psycho-synthesis, which say: «The personal
Ego is the conscious Ego of the normal being. It is the center of his personal
interests, his emotions, passion, desires and aspirations. In a higher sense it
is his conscience, reason and moral nature.
In a healthy person it usually has control on the conscious personality; as far
as the unconscious elements are concerned, an indirect control is normally enough
to avoid fierce conflicts, unrests and rebellions from all the parts involved.
The higher Ego, on the other hand, is an active and permanent principle and it
is the true substance of our being. The personal Ego and its ordinary conscience
(personality) are only a reflection of the higher Ego or true Self projected in
space and time. The higher Ego is unique and universal at the same time; it is
an infinite effusion of the Whole and it is unique in its essential centrality.»
If you bear with me you can read a few lines which anticipate a work of mine still
unpublished. You’ll find in there, I hope, some more cues on the subject.
«… through this we express the theory of a ‘one way’,
so to speak, which dips us into the conceptual solid, followed by a way of ‘return’
to the synthesis. In the instance of a resuming conceptual stage man will stay
in the field of emotional reason (unreasonable) and
then of logic (reasonable reason); if we overcome this step we will be in the
field of intuition that leads to intellect
and synthesis of thought (cit. subj. the egoic barycenter,
page. …)
Many thinkers agree in considering the presence of two mental spheres in man;
one is meant to react to the impulses of the physical body and the other is
abstract and it reacts to the subliminal impulses of the metaphysical conscience.
They interact with two kinds of intellect; the first one has its habitat in
the sphere of vigilant activity of the physical reason (memory and erudition);
the other’s is the super-conscious and metaphysical sphere of man (higher
Ego). In order to be clear, in our essay we will use the term reason referring
to the physical sphere of conscience containing the personal ego, whilst the
word intellect will be used to describe the super-conscious sphere, seat of
the transpersonal Self or higher Ego.
The use of these terms has originated many misunderstandings. In communication,
in the esoterical field, every term is considered as a pure convention instead
of a reality, on the contrary of the word where elements of high psychic nature
are condensed. Every judgment must be expressed keeping our observation to the
level of meanings, leaving aside the literal form or dialectic verbalism which
the idea is conveyed by. In other words the idea must be judged for its essence
and not the form it’s expressed by or the more or less attractive terms
used to manifest it. This is true for man as well; we must ignore the fictitious
or charming forms that cover his essence or the intriguing masquerades he uses
to appear and attract in disguise.
The descent in the matter of essential man (the model or archetypical idea
that answers the need for expression as a unity on the physical level) stops
when, even in the blunting of his existence, he starts identifying with speculative
models that, although often irrational, express the first results of reasoning.
Going gradually from ordinary to refined yet imperfect models, determines a
journey backward that is the ‘way of return’ mentioned earlier on.
This journey backwards leads to the focus of the personal ego in a mental level
that, although material, is already so subtle and complex that it is harmonious
with the metaphysical essence of his higher Self of sonorous nature.
This point of contact is called the egoic barycenter
and it is the point where the maximum of the minimum and the minimum of the maximum
join in a particular mental conception; it is the point where the apex of the
conscience of the personal ego and the slope of the conscience of the soul, the
transcendent and impersonal Self, meet.
If we say that a man travels on the ‘initiatory journey’ it means
that he pursues the joining of the existence of the phenomenal self to the essence
of his transcendent Self…»
I have another question and it’s as big as a house. Perhaps I should
wait for the answer to the first one before asking it, but the thirst for knowledge
is too big. Here it is, then: what do you think the Universe is like? Or maybe,
‘what is it’?
I hope you don’t mind if you get a small answer to a big question:
Do you want to see the universe? Well, try and imagine an atom, what it’s
made of, what it contains, how it moves, where it moves and the sphere (aura)
of energy that surrounds it. This is a very good image to understand ‘the
universes’.
… What do you think about Steiner? I’ve read some books …
kind regards to you all, Mario.
Steiner was a follower of the philosopher Johann W. Goethe. Thanks to him we
have, in Switzerland, the first and second edification of the Goetheanum, a
library dedicated to Goethe.
Steiner was a consistent philosopher, a modest initiate but a good divulger.
The conferences on the Rose and Cross he held in Paris were reported by Schurè
and they deserve to be read. Steiner was animated by great admiration and used
to go to Nietzsche’s house quite often. The latter, annoyed by his pestering
although deferent presence, said: ‘I hope that when I’ll die it
won’t be him to write the epitaph on my grave’.
Kind regards,
Esonet’s Editorial Staff
|
