ORT. Final chapter. Atto XXII
It's going to be quite difficult for me to describe my personal experiences regarding the consciousness shift phenomenon. I will continue then by delving into the corpus of my research. Let me introduce you to Robert Lanza and his theory: Biocentrism

Lanza is an expert in regenerative medicine and a scientific director at Advanced Cell Technology Company. He is known for his extensive research on stem cells, he was also famous for several successful experiments on cloning endangered animal species.
He then turned his attention to physics, quantum mechanics and astrophysics. It is from this metaphysical milieu that his controversial theory was created. Biocentrism implies that death simply does not exist. It is an illusion fabricated by the dogmatic pathways in our minds.
It exists because people identify themselves with their bodies and with their Ego. Now a brief interlude. What is our innermost essence? What is our life force? Is the idea of who we are a product of the mind, social conditioning, and the thoughts we have? Or are we spiritual
beings, both material and divine? In psychology and theories arising from the West, the ego plays a crucial role in the psyche( Greek, psukhē, which translates to breath, life, soul) It forms our self-concept and is an essential part of human cognitive function.
Conversely, on the spiritual path the ego is an obstruction to enlightenment. If left to its own devices, it can become a monster that needs to be tamed and transcended. When one mentions the Ego, one cannot avoid referring to the Freudian theory of the Id Ego and Superego.
Since Freud's school of psychoanalysis is quite renowned, I won't dwell on this subject. I personally find Carl Jung's conjectures far more interesting. In many ways, Jung bridges the gap between Freud’s model of the psyche and a more Eastern approach. Jung believed that while
the ego was the centre of the both the psyche and consciousness, it wasn’t the answer to the mystery of human life. Instead, he highlights the limits of the ego and placed a lot of importance on the subconscious. Those who are conscious of their Ego believe they know themselves
But the ego knows only its own contents, not the unconscious and its contents. Carl Jung, (The Undiscovered Self.)
Jung entered in a more spiritual territory by acknowledging a mystical element of the psyche that wasn’t necessarily governed by mere biological urges.
I can hear the echo of my posts...
Good night.

More from Alex Dalassio

More from Book

One can make an analysis of how many right wing groups published books before Modi in power and after Modi in power.

Would Akhilesh Mishra, Abhinav Prakash and many others have got a chance to write in an English daily before?

The VC of JNU, IIAS, Nehru center, RRML are all


Right wingers.

This, while some in our own fold were criticizing and backstabbing an excellent book (disagreeable in places) by Harsh Madhusudhan and Rajeev Mantri.

There have been at least 4 lit fests and think tanks developed by right wing in six years. Pondy and +

Mangalore are the prime of them.

There are more media channels and more anchors in neutral channels backing the government then those against in six years.

We have at least three big lawyers: Harish Salve, Mahesh Jethmalani and Mukul Rahotgi fighting cases. We have won

more legal battles than not and are able to get many things done that would look impossible just two years ago.

Yes, textbooks, deregulation, harrasment and cabalism of the left including tech suppression and killing spree of fascistic governments remain and everything is not

a bed of roses. But what was a bed of roses for the opposition is not a bed of roses for them too.
Udhav would have loved to see Republic closed. It hasn't.. Mamata would love to have killed the whose who in BJP - Not possible.. She would not like big wigs of TMC join BJP - Not

You May Also Like

I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x