The Paradoxical Decline of Egocentrism
A number of modern philosophers including Howard Gardner and Ken Wilber believe that development rests in the decline of egocentrism. These philosophers’ beliefs closely resemble Zen Buddhist philosophy as well where enlightenment is described as elimination of the self. The belief goes something like this-
Fulcrum I: When a baby is born, it is completely self-centered. The baby only cares for its own needs. In fact, the baby is so egocentric that it cannot even contemplate the self and the non-self. It cannot separate the physical world from the physical self. Peek-a-boo is played and the baby has no concept that when it covers its eyes, others can still see it.
Fulcrum II: Eventually an infant gains the ability to understand that the world exists outside of the self in the physical sense. The infant still lacks the ability to separate the world in an emotional sense. The baby is no longer physio-centric, but is still bio-centric and emotionally narcissistic. What the infant feels, the world feels.
Fulcrum III: The concept of the self is eventually completely grasped by the child. This ego, though, can only be thought of in the traditional sense. The child lacks the ability to transfer its ego to other things.
Fulcrum IV: Eventually, the young adolescent begins to become socio-centric. The ego has a role as the self and as the tribe. Family, culture, religion and nationality become extensions of the self. The self has a role within the tribe and understanding that role and relations with others becomes very important.
Fulcrum V: Some human become global-centric and begin seeing the entire world as an extension of the self. The role of the tribe diminishes as the human begins to understand world systems and other cultural perspectives.
Fulcrum VI: Transcendence. Some humans can reach a stage of complete understanding and analysis of the self. The human rises above the social roles of previous levels, is freed of social and religious thought and must come to terms with the mortal finite self. It is aware of the mind, the self, stimuli, emotions and experiences. This dizzying stage is beyond egocentrism, beyond socio-centrism and is without perspective.
Where most people seem to fail in life is dealing with Fulcrum V. The problem is dealing with many perspectives. The typical multi-culturalist attempts a logical fallacy. The multi-culturalist will understand that there are other perspectives, but will conclude that they are all equal in the name of tolerance. Well, this instantly creates a contradiction as they claim all perspectives are equal yet they promote tolerance as better. Additionally, they try to be tolerant of all cultures, but have trouble tolerating intolerant cultures. This paradox either sends them back down to Fulcrum IV believing one social “truth” or sends them down to Fulcrum III where they stop caring and only focus on themselves again.
One important thing to remember when living at Fulcrum V is that just because perspectives are different does not make them equal. I understand that there’s evolution and there’s intelligent design and one side is a load of shit. “Equality” seems to be a leftover political remnant from Fulcrum IV being transposed onto Fulcrum V.
This Fulcrum VI seems a little tricky. Somehow, one must understand the world and the self completely without having any perspective on it. I can only imagine a powerful computer achieving this. How can one truly free themselves of egocentricity and still care for one’s own existence? Why think and a self-improve if one is beyond the concept of the self? What’s to stop one from walking in front of a car? For the good of the universe?
What I can never understand about these philosophies and religion that seek enlightenment, is that they always call for the end of the self, but then also demand that the individual spend hours thinking, contemplating and understanding. Thinking, contemplating and understanding have done nothing for me except enhance my self. I have become less selfish and egocentric in the traditional sense, but am certainly selfish and egocentric on a different level. As I read these books by supposed selfless beings like Ken Wilber and the Dalai Lama, I think, why is their name and picture on the front?
Fulcrum I: When a baby is born, it is completely self-centered. The baby only cares for its own needs. In fact, the baby is so egocentric that it cannot even contemplate the self and the non-self. It cannot separate the physical world from the physical self. Peek-a-boo is played and the baby has no concept that when it covers its eyes, others can still see it.
Fulcrum II: Eventually an infant gains the ability to understand that the world exists outside of the self in the physical sense. The infant still lacks the ability to separate the world in an emotional sense. The baby is no longer physio-centric, but is still bio-centric and emotionally narcissistic. What the infant feels, the world feels.
Fulcrum III: The concept of the self is eventually completely grasped by the child. This ego, though, can only be thought of in the traditional sense. The child lacks the ability to transfer its ego to other things.
Fulcrum IV: Eventually, the young adolescent begins to become socio-centric. The ego has a role as the self and as the tribe. Family, culture, religion and nationality become extensions of the self. The self has a role within the tribe and understanding that role and relations with others becomes very important.
Fulcrum V: Some human become global-centric and begin seeing the entire world as an extension of the self. The role of the tribe diminishes as the human begins to understand world systems and other cultural perspectives.
Fulcrum VI: Transcendence. Some humans can reach a stage of complete understanding and analysis of the self. The human rises above the social roles of previous levels, is freed of social and religious thought and must come to terms with the mortal finite self. It is aware of the mind, the self, stimuli, emotions and experiences. This dizzying stage is beyond egocentrism, beyond socio-centrism and is without perspective.
Where most people seem to fail in life is dealing with Fulcrum V. The problem is dealing with many perspectives. The typical multi-culturalist attempts a logical fallacy. The multi-culturalist will understand that there are other perspectives, but will conclude that they are all equal in the name of tolerance. Well, this instantly creates a contradiction as they claim all perspectives are equal yet they promote tolerance as better. Additionally, they try to be tolerant of all cultures, but have trouble tolerating intolerant cultures. This paradox either sends them back down to Fulcrum IV believing one social “truth” or sends them down to Fulcrum III where they stop caring and only focus on themselves again.
One important thing to remember when living at Fulcrum V is that just because perspectives are different does not make them equal. I understand that there’s evolution and there’s intelligent design and one side is a load of shit. “Equality” seems to be a leftover political remnant from Fulcrum IV being transposed onto Fulcrum V.
This Fulcrum VI seems a little tricky. Somehow, one must understand the world and the self completely without having any perspective on it. I can only imagine a powerful computer achieving this. How can one truly free themselves of egocentricity and still care for one’s own existence? Why think and a self-improve if one is beyond the concept of the self? What’s to stop one from walking in front of a car? For the good of the universe?
What I can never understand about these philosophies and religion that seek enlightenment, is that they always call for the end of the self, but then also demand that the individual spend hours thinking, contemplating and understanding. Thinking, contemplating and understanding have done nothing for me except enhance my self. I have become less selfish and egocentric in the traditional sense, but am certainly selfish and egocentric on a different level. As I read these books by supposed selfless beings like Ken Wilber and the Dalai Lama, I think, why is their name and picture on the front?
posted by American Dilettante at
12:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home