Ego and Forgiveness

Your ego is the source of your pride and shame. All the shitty things you do that you regret later on is the fault of the ego. Your ego came into being because you encountered the pride and shame of others and internalized this energy under the misconception that internalizing these qualities would protect you and help you survive in a dangerous world. The world is dangerous because it is filled with people governed by the whims of their egos. So you adopted an ego too. With an ego you would fit in with everyone else. With an ego you could protect yourself by lashing out when threatened and always being on guard for threats that might materialize. Other people would encounter the energy of your ego and develop egos of their own. And so the over all system self-propagated like a virus infecting bodies and spreading to other bodies.

In a sense your ego is a blessing because you do not need to feel responsible for those crimes you committed while your ego drove the ship of self. It is your ego that is to blame and your ego is not yourself. It is something other than your true self. Therefore you may forgive yourself for these things you feel shitty about. More accurately, there is nothing to forgive. You had falsely accused yourself of these crimes your ego really committed. Your ego set you up.

But isn’t this argument just a convenient way to get yourself off the hook and avoid taking responsibility for your own actions? Recognize it is your ego who is asking this question. Your ego does not want you to recognize that your ego is not really part of your true self. When you do not recognize this separation your ego can take control and steer the ship. When you do not recognize this you take the blame for your ego’s actions and your ego gets off scott free. In a sense, your ego hides itself within yourself by convincing you it is yourself.

But what about the victims of the crimes committed by your ego? Are they to take comfort in the fact that it was not your true self who wronged them but rather it is your ego who is the true culprit? Of course not. You may differentiate between your ego and your true self but other people do not do this. To them you will always be the sum of all your actions. It is your responsibility to separate yourself from your ego. In that sense you are responsible for your ego’s actions. But you cannot separate yourself from your ego without first realizing your ego is in fact separate. You cannot be blamed for not knowing what you do not know.

Even the concept of blame and the concept that there must be someone who should be blamed is an ego invented concept. Your ego wants to blame others to shift the blame from itself. And so it blames others. And so it blames you and you feel shitty for the things you have done.

You may forgive yourself. It is not your fault.

Advertisements

28 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

28 responses to “Ego and Forgiveness

  1. thordaddy

    The ego is not ultimately separated from the constituted self. Every act requires the whole self to be wholly completed. Separating an “ego” from the constituted self is just the many in which the dominant side proceeds under the guise of the uncontrollable and unpredictable “ego.” If one finds his self at battle with his “ego” than he can rest assured it is his dominant self seeking to proceed under the guise of a reckless “ego.” The radically autonomous “ego” is an example of liberationist myth-making. An “ego” entirely detached from the self is nonsensical. As nonsensical as an “ego” without a dominant self. So in fact, the “madness” of one’s “ego” is the making of one’s dominant self. Identifying that dominant self will then help one understand the origin of his inexplicable “ego.”

    • thordaddy

      ^^^ Separating an “ego” from the constituted self is just the [manner] in which the dominant side proceeds under the guise of the uncontrollable and unpredictable “ego.”

      • I think your position on ego is entirely consistent with your position on shame and race.

      • thordaddy

        The presumption is a God-ordained free will ABLE to envelope even those “acting” as though they had no God-ordained free will. Likewise, presuming no God-ordained free will assumes an inability “to act” as though one had God-ordained free will. But this is not the “act” of the radical autonomist… He very much “acts on” a god-like free will. He only “preaches” no god-ordained free will for the idiots that “will” buy it as the excuse for his reckless, self-annihilating, totally detached “ego.”

      • Or perhaps detaching from one’s ego is the means by which one acts with God Ordained Free Will and believing the ego to be the self is the illusion of radical autonomy.

      • thordaddy

        There seems a manner in which one steps beyond basic self-awareness to that creation of the original “ego” set out to push one’s psychological envelope. From the internal monologue to the interally manufactured dialogue with one’s “ego” is that initial kickstart seeking to maximize one’s autonomy.

      • I think we agree that the ego is a maladaptive reaction to a misconception of reality. I think where we differ is that I believe this process is largely unconscious whereas you believe it to be more intentional and therefore something which incurs guilt. Is this correct?

      • thordaddy

        I don’t “see” things in terms of adaptive and maladaptive. The fundamental human process in my view is perpetuating self-annihilators. I do not grant abiogenesis. I “see” an “evolution” usurped by the self-annihilators. I “see” the human being driven by raw desire with just enough good few ones choosing right to constitute an ascending continuum. The “ego” really stands as one’s only truly trusted confidante or very worst enemy OR the appearance of one’s very worst enemy, but in fact one’s understood and very much trusted driving force…. This latter individual is the radical autonomist. His “ego” is that which can get him off the hook with the degenerate masses.

      • Does it gratify your ego to see yourself as being in the group that can look down upon, judge and shame the other group?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        That’s an interesting question for the mindset it seeks to project… There is first the assumption that I CAN think in your terms… An assumption that all think in those terms. But, there is an implicit message in your question that says winstonScrooge does not “think” like this. This this your manner of radical autonomy. You impose a mindset on the masses that you are happily free from thus maximizing your autonomy in relation to the world.

        So in retort, and recognizing a fellow radical autonomist, I have several choices in which to reject your move at maximizing your autonomy at my expense. The primary response is simply feigned ignorance. I CANNOT understand your question? Can you explain what you mean? Other? Who is the “other?” My “ego” never talked about such a thing.

        wS: Oh… But you said you were a genuine white Supremacist?

        Yes, but my world does not include something so abstract as the “other.” Do you mean the anti-white Supremacist?

        wS: Umm… I mean… Yes, I guess I mean why do you look down on the anti-white Supremacist?”

        Lol, silly wS… Is there any “other” possible way to look at him? Perhaps as “equals?” Or, if I render myself absurdly crazy enough… Perhaps, “look up” to him?

      • How am I imposing a mindset on anyone?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        By believing that your questions were comprehensible in the first place.

        Your question is in the form of “when’s the last that you beat your wife?”

        My answer is feigned ignorance. I don’t understand your question. I know of now such “ego” that you speak of? Can you articulate your question in a more concise and understandable way?

      • thordaddy

        ^^^ I know of [no] such “ego” that you speak of?

      • You sound a little upset perhaps we should not discuss this further.

      • thordaddy

        Lol… No.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        It’s not clear who exactly is writing on your behalf? Your “self” or your “ego?” I was always suspicious of those that try to disassociate the two to the point of mutually exclusive “entities.” Where my beliefs are strong, the “ego” is silent. Where trivial efficiency comes into play, the “ego” sometimes goes into overdrive.

      • I would say that when a person feels the need to make ad hominem attacks the ego is probably in the driver’s seat.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        But that is exactly the kind of disassociated, ego-emergent notion that neutralizes the rightful burden at the feet of the Self.

      • I understand that the ego, shame and judgment are the pillars of your world. That is not the world I want or have to live in.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        I would disagree with the first two and grant the last one as a true pillar with the qualification that we are talking of good judgement.

        What you call “ego” had been assimilated by my Self where issues of first principle are involved.

        And what you deem “shame” is simply a rejection for any tolerance of self-annihilation. If I feel truly shamed I KNOW I have degraded myself and there can ultimately be no tolerance for self-degradation in those that honestly desire free will.

      • You clearly feel yourself to be in a position to judge other people who do not share your vision of reality. You have labels for them including “radical autonomist”, “dominant side”, “self-annihilator” etc. I imagine it must be gratifying to your ego to occupy this position you have created for yourself.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Giving labels to phenomena isn’t really judging per se. Plus, I could just deny making any judgements and ask that you substantiate your claim with direct quotes. Do you have at least one?

      • When you label something you confine it to a box that may or may not match up with reality.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        But there is already the impetus to label everything which may or may not have anything to do with putting that now labeled something into a “box.” What is a “box” anyway? This “something” you’ve labeled “box” that then holds other “somethings” requiring designated labeling seems a special kind of “something?” How does this “box” actually “confine” somethings and seemingly not “confine” other somethings? So if I label wS a self-annihilator, how is he really “confined” to a “box” when he already rejects white Supremacy? What exactly is the nature of your confinement when labeled a “white” self-annihilator in a state of radical autonomy “boxed-in” by the self-delusion of being a true Christian?

        PS. A white Christian is a white Supremacist and rejects all acts of self-annihilation.

  2. Pingback: Dialog with a [W]hite Supremacist Part I | Winston Scrooge

  3. Pingback: Dialog with a [W]hite Supremacist Part III | Winston Scrooge

  4. Pingback: Monolog of a [W]hite Supremacist Part I | Winston Scrooge

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s