Those who do not ‘see’ their own consciousness: can argument help?

Here's a simpler explanation.

Most people have a self image that is like a character in a story.

But in reality they are a biological organism with flaws and limitations living in an imperfect world, so the reality of what, where, and who they are is not the same as the character they think they should be or would like to be.

If you examine what happens when you have unpleasant emotions that arise as a reaction to things that happen in life, most of the time the ego is involved because what is happening is that reality is conflicting with the self image.

So if you can see how your self image is not realistic, and you see how the ego causes suffering, and you are willing to let go of your self image and accept reality, it will prevent a great amount of suffering. If you can experience or remember a situation where letting go stopped you from suffering, you can try to cultivate that attitude and develop your ability to let go by keeping mindful of what that attitude is like.

Here's a simpler explanation.

Most people have a self image that is like a character in a story.

I think you might be projecting onto other people how you see yourself. In reality, you have no idea what other peoples' self image is like.

In reality, people's self-image is based around beliefs, emotions, thoughts and ideas that they identify with, and it is nothing akin to being like a "character in a story". Sensory experience is not a "story" nor is it a narrative.

But in reality they are a biological organism with flaws and limitations living in an imperfect world, so the reality of what, where, and who they are is not the same as the character they think they should be or would like to be.

You seem to have a very strange belief that people act like "characters in a story" when nobody who isn't going through derealization or depersonalization thinks like this. Most people have a stable mindset where they are active participants in a real world where there are real consequences to real action, real causes and real effects ~ nothing is "scripted" as it might be in a story with characters, where there is an author who has deterministically chosen everything from beginning to end.

If you examine what happens when you have unpleasant emotions that arise as a reaction to things that happen in life, most of the time the ego is involved because what is happening is that reality is conflicting with the self image.

What you are describing is cognitive dissonance and Shadow influence, not really the ego ~ the ego is simply influenced by Shadow contents. However, not every unpleasant emotion is because of reality conflicting with self-image. Most aren't, actually, even if some are, I believe.

Unpleasant emotions can have quite a range ~ they are reactions to stuff in experience that conflict with our beliefs. That has nothing to do with reality or self-image, so much as our beliefs influencing how we might react to something, but even then we can consciously choose otherwise, if we are aware of our emotions.

So if you can see how your self image is not realistic, and you see how the ego causes suffering, and you are willing to let go of your self image and accept reality, it will prevent a great amount of suffering. If you can experience or remember a situation where letting go stopped you from suffering, you can try to cultivate that attitude and develop your ability to let go by keeping mindful of what that attitude is like.

The ego does not cause suffering. Suffering comes when we cannot accept pain, whether physical, emotional or otherwise psychological ~ this is the stuff of the Shadow. The ego can be in pain, but as long as we can flow and accept, there will be no suffering.

"Reality" here is a very nebulous term, as you almost seem to be excluding the individual from reality... even self-image and suffering is part of reality, because they are possible aspects within our psyche.

What you seem to really mean is intersubjective reality, where our beliefs might clash with those of others or the physical world around us. But that isn't self-image so much as how we believe the world to be, or how it should be.

The confusion here I feel is that parts within the Self might be being confused with the Self being composed of parts, when the latter is not the reality experienced. Maybe it's the wording that reminds too much of Physicalism and Materialism... or maybe it's a consequence of them having such influence on modern philosophical views within science and academic philosophy.

Perhaps a better way is that the Self creates, manifests... forms, ideas, aspects, within itself composed of itself that are given a certain set of distinct qualities. These qualities perhaps must exist with that Self for them to be imbued with those forms more strongly, for them to have identity within the Self.

I think part of this challenge is that the Self has no great analogy to what is experienced/thought, because the Self is that which experiences & thinks.

For example it is both true that "I am angry" and "An anger has come upon me". I am the one feeling the anger, but if I engender some detachment I can also examine this anger and reflect on whether it is justified.

So there are parts in some sense, but also a Unity to a Person.

I agree ~ but not in the sense that we return to Oneness as popular religion and spirituality might proclaim. We are "One" in the sense that we share a common nature as Souls, yet we are unique and distinct in identity in such a way that this can never be erased or destroyed ~ the core of what makes an individual Soul, well, an individual unique unto itself. This common nature is what makes telepathy possible, along with empathy. Perhaps empathy is a form of telepathy?

I don't think the One-ness is an erasure of individuals, but I also am not sure there are individuals that are wholly distinct from each other? If Psi empathically, and perhaps sometimes telepathically, connects us then could it be true we are One & Many all at once?

Not saying this is definitively true, and I get the concern even I feel that simply asserting the truth of seeming paradox can leave a lot to be desired logically.

That does seem to be the case ~ in a more nuanced sense, the Self seems to grant its incarnate aspect insight into the impacts of opportunities taken, yet unnoticed, and opportunities missed, alongside with a perspective of how we affected others and how others affected us.

Yeah, while I dislike all the computational metaphors I do think Tom Campbell has managed to articulate the idea of why a soul might reincarnate, get a life review, and then reincarnate again. I'm not convinced he has the absolute right of things (I don't think there's a Database of memories mediums draw from), and even think the system he suggests have gone awry in some way, but his views can provide some footing on why Survival works the way it does.

It's perhaps as much of a difference between the Soul as a whole, and the aspects within itself that it emphasizes. The microcosm of the incarnate human individual is perhaps simply just a certain manifestation of that, albeit in the form that the archetypal human ego shapes it to be. We have our unique thoughts and feelings as a reaction to stuff within experience, shaped by our ego, and then we have our decisions on how we choose to react to those thoughts and feelings, shaped again by the ego. Does that sound about right, or am I missing something?

That seems about right to me, as decisions should be made distinct from the flow of thoughts/feelings. After all we cannot control the flow completely but we can, in the way rivers are diverted, direct it by acts of attention.

Ah, but is the conceptualization of the mental object in your mind the same as the conceptualization of the mental object in their mind? It's more of a subjective understanding of the words and graphs and such that is being used to convey the mathematical proof. And who's to say that the person who wrote the words and graphs and such even communicated it correctly? Maybe the instructors knows what they mean, but can't communicate it correctly?

Of course, perhaps in the cases where we have a strong understanding with the instructor, maybe there is some unconscious telepathy and intuition going on...

I think the fact you can read about proofs in books, watch videos explaining a proof, and so on suggests there is a common mental object. After all these proofs are the foundation for the maths that allow us to have this forum.

The conceptualizations have to be common enough, if not exact, for there to be a way to shepherd someone's understanding. IIRC Aristotle even thought there as an "Active Intellect" that we all access when we do math & logic. Which to me suggests there is a One that overlaps in Its existence with the Many...

Agreed ~ but the struggle and challenge is in articulating these Truths concisely and accurately... but if we don't have all the details and context, we're sort of left flailing around in the dark somewhat. I feel like we incarnate beings simply cannot comprehend the fuller picture of the Soul, because of how our ego-structures work, how they shape and form our perspectives and perceptions.

I had to be shown in metaphors the nature of the Soul, and even now, I feel like I know less than before. More questions than answers... even worse is the sometimes direct intuitions I receive I cannot even begin to describe using words, because it is so different to this human experience. And even the words I try and use would just be confusing, to myself and others, who might have a different internal dictionary to me, based on their own life experiences distinct from mine.

All to say that language almost limits more than it elucidates... :/

Yeah language cannot even fully articulate our experience, let alone the Experiencer.