Is this statement true?

[Arjen]

Originally Posted by boagie

Arjen,

Please expand upon your theory, remember however, that it is largely context which defines, certainly it is context which determines what behaviours will be in ones best interest at any given time. In America if you are a politican, would it be in ones self-interest to be an atheist, it is against the law in most states for an atheist to hold office----you do see what I mean about context.

Hi Boagie,

I was making the seperation between the ego of a person and what a person is. The difference consists of definitions; definitions of oneself are what comprises the ego. What one is, is something else entirely. Seeing as the ego exists only as a means prevent certain knowledge or insight to be gained by a person what is benificial to one's ego is never benificial to what that person is in reality.

The example given by you, Boagie, only serves to illustrate my example. An office (in political terminology) would be benificial to ones ego, but in no way to any person. The benefits of such a position can be benificial socially, or in the process of making structures. Such things only exist as important in human evalutions of oneself and therefore are inline with the ego. They are the opposite of what benefits that what someone is in reality.

Is that in any way understandable?

[de_budding]

Arjen,
By going way back to your post describing 1st and 2nd order psychology I think I'm getting it now. But I've lost all perspective of how deni-all fits in.

But I quite understand the Ego now, and it seems to be a social entity, but then there is what the 'person is in reality'.
Is this a separate entity manifested by others prospective?
Could you recap which one was 1st psychology and which was 2nd?
And finally, last night I was still thinking about 'will’, and it seems there are two types, the wills developed in response to 'us' and preference (necessity?) and ones developed inline with obligation, society; with others in mind (ego?).
Is this divide in any way related to your idea?

Dan.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by cloverleaf

i always know what is best for me but unfortunately i cant do the best things for myself because its not easy to do
mentally ill people cant do best things for themselves because they cant make comparession between things

cloverleaf,

Whether it is born of a mistake or delusional, the organism will act in what he believes to be his own best interest, if he does not, there is somethng organically wrong with the individual, or something wrong with your perception.

[de_budding]

'the organism will act in what he believes to be his own best interest'

Boagie,
I think of my body as a shell, different from 'me', so what guarantee is there that the shell's interests (staying alive + passing on genes) will benefit me? After all I see my genes as nothing but- a potential chance for another consciousness to develop that I owe the world. I got my turn so another should get there’s.
I can’t picture 'me' (not my body or brain) embodied in organic information that can be re-manifested in the womb. My offspring will be closer to ‘me’ through memes and my lessons rather than the mere genes of my shell.

Also with regards to the second will of my shell- staying alive, I can say this again ‘to deny life is to deny death’, my shell doesn’t realize this but I do.

So with those two points of view in mind, what guarantee is there that my shell/body/home will act in 'my' best interest?

Dan.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by de_budding

'the organism will act in what he believes to be his own best interest'

Boagie,
I think of my body as a shell, different from 'me', so what guarantee is there that the shell's interests (staying alive + passing on genes) will benefit me? After all I see my genes as nothing but- a potential chance for another consciousness to develop that I owe the world. I got my turn so another should get there’s.
I can’t picture 'me' (not my body or brain) embodied in organic information that can be re-manifested in the womb. My offspring will be closer to ‘me’ through memes and my lessons rather than the mere genes of my shell.

Also with regards to the second will of my shell- staying alive, I can say this again ‘to deny life is to deny death’, my shell doesn’t realize this but I do.

So with those two points of view in mind, what guarantee is there that my shell/body/home will act in 'my' best interest? Dan.

de budding,

No matter what realization you claim to be in possesion of, it will be this realization which conditions/interprets what your best interest might be. If it is your belief that death is in your own best interest, as is done everyday in the form of suicide, then, that will determine your behaviour.

[de_budding]

Could that realisation then override the organic self-interest (surviving and reproducing), leaving us- as you described, susceptible to suicide, depression etc. Is it possible for us to invent our 'best interests' then?, if so your quite right, we will always act in, what we think is our, best interests- there is just no way of telling if these interests are deluded or wrong.

Is there not a universal goal that we would all agree to wanting to achieve? It would then be in our best interests to fulfill that goal, even if it means dyeing or going hungry or allowing some other fundamental 'best interests' to slip us by in the process.

I am slightly aware that the idea of a goal is quite destructive (I know Arjen and Kant have corrected me on similar issues before), so I tred carefully.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by de_budding

Could that realisation then override the organic self-interest (surviving and reproducing), leaving us- as you described, susceptible to suicide, depression etc. Is it possible for us to invent our 'best interests' then?, if so your quite right, we will always act in, what we think is our, best interests- there is just no way of telling if these interests are deluded or wrong.

Is there not a universal goal that we would all agree to wanting to achieve? It would then be in our best interests to fulfill that goal, even if it means dyeing or going hungry or allowing some other fundamental 'best interests' to slip us by in the process.

I am slightly aware that the idea of a goal is quite destructive (I know Arjen and Kant have corrected me on similar issues before), so I tred carefully.

de budding,

Yes indeed, people act in what they believe is their own self-interest all the time, and are mistaken in numerous ways much of the time. A common will, that certainly would be indicative by self-interest, if one sees life as one thing, then in the struggle for survival, our name is legion.

[de_budding]

I see, thanks Boagie!
Now I am even more worried than before .

[Arjen]

Originally Posted by de_budding

Arjen,
By going way back to your post describing 1st and 2nd order psychology I think I'm getting it now. But I've lost all perspective of how deni-all fits in.

But I quite understand the Ego now, and it seems to be a social entity, but then there is what the 'person is in reality'.
Is this a separate entity manifested by others prospective?
Could you recap which one was 1st psychology and which was 2nd?
And finally, last night I was still thinking about 'will’, and it seems there are two types, the wills developed in response to 'us' and preference (necessity?) and ones developed inline with obligation, society; with others in mind (ego?).
Is this divide in any way related to your idea?

Dan.

De budding,

Deni-all fits in between first and second order logic. First order logic is a knowing; a reacting. Second order logic is a reaction to thoughts of oneself. To do this one must first deny what is taking place. It is precisely what Kant's a priori intuitions make so apparent: a priori certain insights exist which are denied to benefit the definitions of oneself.

Ego is indeed a social entity. Jean-Jacques Rousseau explains ego as coming into existence because of the combination between common humanity and interaction between people. The benefits of giving are translated into benefits for the ego by forgetting that giving was the first step and only rembering that appreciation of others is nice.

First order logic is that which exists. Second order logic is that what can be positioned on top of first order logic: delusion. So, first order logic is consciousness and second order logic is self-consciousness. I cannot find good wikipedia pages on first and second order logic. The same difference is made in philosophical logic though, so I am going to link to that to at least lend a handhold.
first order logic
second order logic

When it comes down to wills I think you should reconsidder. There is only one will, but two categories of going about satisfying them: a hypothetical and categorical way.

I think, however, that you are trying to point something else out that I will state (and second). The thing I think you are pointing to is the coinciding of "goal" and ego, as well as "duty" and "self".

Hope this helps.

[de_budding]

I can feel the nuerons firing and I tink you have provided enough information, anything not comprehended is of my own shortcoming. I will follow your links and see what I can interpret, thanks!!!