The principle of charity is attempting to understand the authors statements and considering their best form of interpretation. When the author uses terms like "all," I am sure they are making generalized statements to keep the post short. I doubt that they believe that every case can be explained by the ego and I am sure that we can all agree that many things are probably at work here.
I do not agree that physical addictions are the same as what we are referring to here, which is habitual thought processes that stem from the ego. I considered the comparison between physical and mental addictions to be an analogy personally (charity). Physical addiction involve very specific brain processes like the dopamine reward cycle, the release of endorphin's and things of that nature. Ego driven thought patterns involve the internal dialogue creating identity.
You do not like my example because it seems that you did not attempt to understand what was said. When it comes to fear there are three main things at work (generalizing - there may be more). Firstly, there is a bodily response: adrenaline, increased heart beat, changes in breathing etc. This response occurs to protect the organism so they can act quickly in the situation at hand. The second thing at play is the interpretation and labeling of the experience which occurs as a backward rationalization (IE I experienced fear in that moment). The third thing is the identification with the fear, "I am afraid of needles." The fear becomes a part of our identity. "I am" = identity.
There is no logical reason to ever say "I am afraid" unless we are conveying who we are. If a bear is chasing us through the woods I doubt we would be thinking "I am afraid of this bear right now." Instead we would just react in the moment, then interpret the body response through backwards rationalization, and then possibly identify with our interpretation.
This is getting too long to rehash the concept of living in the future and living in the moment, but the statement "I am afraid of needles" doesn't relate to a fear response in the moment, it relates to ego identification.
That's such a beautiful concept! :) I'll keep that in mind in the future. Still, I think the point of communication is understanding what the author meant and in platforms like Steemit where interaction is quite common, I guess it's always worth asking. But yeah, asking might have been a better way to go instead of starting with expressing disagreement.
Aren't they likely to involve brain chemistry, too? They probably do, don't they?
It doesn't mean your ego is feeding the fear though and it doesn't mean getting rid of the fear by acknowledging the ego component is likely to work as the ego is not the root cause of the fear. Same goes for addiction.
I just think in a forum like this (social media platform) we need to be generous toward other's ideas and allow for things like generalizations and such since that is how people talk casually. These articles aren't primary research articles meant for peer reviewed journals where precise language is required.
I think there is always going to be brain chemistry taking place. Neurons fire when we are thinking and neurotransmitters are released constantly when our brains are active. However, when we refer to the ego in this context, we are basically referring to ones internal dialogue - the ongoing conversation with our "self." Aside from knowing that neurons within our brain are firing, I do not think that we can identify a very specific brain process like those that are known to be involved in physical addictions. So I think we should simply consider the ego as a type of thinking.
Regarding your second statement. I want to clarify that I am not denouncing the bodily sensation that is associated with fear. I am pointing out how the concept of fear can become a part of ones identity. Individuals certainly have a fear response in a moment of danger, but other individuals identify with their fears and they become a part of who they are. So ego doesn't feed the fear (the actual body sensation or body response), it feeds the identification of "self" with the concept of fear. Saying "I am afraid of snakes" is not a fear response it is an identity, just like saying I am "leaky20" is an identity.
I think we are getting muddled here because we are comparing physical dimensions (IE. the fear response and physical addictions) to mental dimensions (the ego and thought processes). The two cannot really be compared cohesively, but they were never meant to be compared in this way. The bodily sensation associated with fear is irrelevant to what I am saying about the ego and physical addictions was originally meant to be an analogy to describe habitual thinking patterns.
Anyway, you seem to like to discuss things which is what I am all about so I'm going to follow you lol.
sounds like you are a good candidate for @steemdeepthink
ok I will check that out. thanks!
Apologies, i was unaware of this conversation taking place as it didnt pop up in my replies. @leaky20 we are definitely on the same wave length when it comes to identifying with the mind and what it poduces. You interpreted the post exactly as it was meant.
That's no problem
Yes I agree. It appears that we think alike :)
Followed