The Ego Thread

[Braggi]

...
5. Compassionate and Empathetic conversing from the place of heart, laying ego aside. ...

??? Why lay ego aside? What is it with so many people denigrating the ego? The ego is who we are as individuals, folks! It's what makes us, us. Yeah, yeah, it's an overlay over our TRUE self. Where did that idea come from?

Ya gotta have a healthy ego before you can even think about "laying ego aside."

From Answers.com:

1) The self, especially as distinct from the world and other selves.
2) In psychoanalysis, the division of the psyche that is conscious, most immediately controls thought and behavior, and is most in touch with external reality.
3) a. An exaggerated sense of self-importance; conceit.
b. Appropriate pride in oneself; self-esteem.
=====================

OK, so 3) a. is something to be "conscious" of. Got it.

FWIW, The Dalai Lama wouldn't be nearly so interesting without his really, really huge ego. He's gotta have it or he wouldn't be who he is. He is especially interesting because he balances his ego with humility and good humor. It would be nice if we could do the same here on Waccobb.net.

-Jeff

[shellebelle]

Heheh you answered your own question: Ya gotta have a healthy ego before you can even think about "laying ego aside."

See it makes perfect sense.

As one comes into self health it is easy to lay "things" aside and/or guide them into healthy streams.


??? Why lay ego aside? What is it with so many people denigrating the ego? The ego is who we are as individuals, folks! It's what makes us, us. Yeah, yeah, it's an overlay over our TRUE self. Where did that idea come from?

Ya gotta have a healthy ego before you can even think about "laying ego aside."

From Answers.com:

1) The self, especially as distinct from the world and other selves.
2) In psychoanalysis, the division of the psyche that is conscious, most immediately controls thought and behavior, and is most in touch with external reality.
3) a. An exaggerated sense of self-importance; conceit.
b. Appropriate pride in oneself; self-esteem.
=====================

OK, so 3) a. is something to be "conscious" of. Got it.

FWIW, The Dalai Lama wouldn't be nearly so interesting without his really, really huge ego. He's gotta have it or he wouldn't be who he is. He is especially interesting because he balances his ego with humility and good humor. It would be nice if we could do the same here on Waccobb.net.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

Heheh you answered your own question: Ya gotta have a healthy ego before you can even think about "laying ego aside." ... As one comes into self health it is easy to lay "things" aside and/or guide them into healthy streams.

If everyone who posted did this "laying ego aside" thing there would be no personality in the posts. That wouldn't be very attractive. One of the joys of Waccobb is getting to know the people who post, i.e., their egos.

It's the ego that makes each of us an individual. Love that about us. Love it when we show it to each other.

I would go so far as to say your list of values above is an expression of your ego. Yes? Which means it's a good description of your values or values you aspire to, and that's a fine thing.

Egotistically yours,

-Jeff

[shellebelle]

Actually that post is an interpretation of what Barry wrote. My personal values are on my personal web page. ShelleRae.com (https://www.shellerae.com) they are on the left and as you refresh the page they rotate. There are about 16 of them.

I have a lovely ego it is true and I do embrace him but I also channel him to healthy streams (such as boundaries and saying no with conviction and strength) and yes my ego is male.

And laying aside ego was in context with conversing from heart vs ego in relation to compassion and empathy. It was a direct reflection of Barry's note that MsTerry was insensitive to Sabrina's family. That is a good example where conversing from heart rather than ego would have been appropriate.


If everyone who posted did this "laying ego aside" thing there would be no personality in the posts. That wouldn't be very attractive. One of the joys of Waccobb is getting to know the people who post, i.e., their egos.

It's the ego that makes each of us an individual. Love that about us. Love it when we show it to each other.

I would go so far as to say your list of values above is an expression of your ego. Yes? Which means it's a good description of your values or values you aspire to, and that's a fine thing.

Egotistically yours,

-Jeff

[nurturetruth]

Why lay ego aside indeed! Things can be quite entertaining when we are in our ego mode.
But for me, E.G.O is not what makes me "who I am."
While I feel E.G.O may define my individual personalty
Spirit (many different names here) is what I am and what makes me.
Once I identify I am in ego, (my Earth Self is what i often refer to it as)
I can better understand/observe my body and differentiate when I am reacting versus responding. I become the 'witness'.
When I am responding, I feel I am bringing my 'all ' into my experience or perhaps into my connection with another. I feel present.

I do agree in that in order to put the Ego aside, one first needs to have a healthy ego.

Part of having a healthy ego is accepting and embracing my ego without judgment. Knowing its ok.
Humility and a great sense of humor can be very helpful,indeed!

:heart:


??? Why lay ego aside? What is it with so many people denigrating the ego? The ego is who we are as individuals, folks! It's what makes us, us. Yeah, yeah, it's an overlay over our TRUE self. Where did that idea come from?

Ya gotta have a healthy ego before you can even think about "laying ego aside."

From Answers.com:

1) The self, especially as distinct from the world and other selves.
2) In psychoanalysis, the division of the psyche that is conscious, most immediately controls thought and behavior, and is most in touch with external reality.
3) a. An exaggerated sense of self-importance; conceit.
b. Appropriate pride in oneself; self-esteem.
=====================

OK, so 3) a. is something to be "conscious" of. Got it.

FWIW, The Dalai Lama wouldn't be nearly so interesting without his really, really huge ego. He's gotta have it or he wouldn't be who he is. He is especially interesting because he balances his ego with humility and good humor. It would be nice if we could do the same here on Waccobb.net.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

Why lay ego aside indeed! Things can be quite entertaining when we are in our ego mode.
But for me, E.G.O is not what makes me "who I am."
While I feel E.G.O may define my individual personalty
Spirit (many different names here) is what I am and what makes me. ...

Kali, I have no idea what you're talking about. What is E.G.O?

What is "ego mode?"

I think a lot of people use the term ego but don't know what it means. That's why I posted a definition of it. Somehow ego has become a dirty word, which I don't understand. Please explain. Also, please explain how ego is different from "individual personality Spirit." I'm clueless.

-Jeff

[alanora]

ego=self that does not want to die. spirit=self that wants experience, to whom eternity belongs. Close?


Kali, I have no idea what you're talking about. What is E.G.O?

What is "ego mode?"

I think a lot of people use the term ego but don't know what it means. That's why I posted a definition of it. Somehow ego has become a dirty word, which I don't understand. Please explain. Also, please explain how ego is different from "individual personality Spirit." I'm clueless.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

ego=self that does not want to die. spirit=self that wants experience, to whom eternity belongs. Close?

Well, thanks for the post, but no, still open.

A person without an ego would make a pretty boring spirit.

-Jeff

[nurturetruth]

I respect that we are a diverse community and honor/accept all the many different viewpoints and definition of words,perceptions and values one may have to offer/gift.

I notice that I am my own living dictionary with my own meanings based on experience and observations. I don't always 'go by the book'.

I feel complete with what I expressed/shared regarding my own personal stance on the concept of ego. I don't feel the need to say any more other than to share a light humored acronym I found:

Effect of
Garlic
Oil

and all of my self(s) (ego , superego, id and Spirit Self) absolutely just appreciates and honors the potent and medicinal effects Garlic can have!
Just like the ego, while some do not have an acquired taste for Garlic, (or perhaps they have negative/unhealthy associations with it)
I always make sure to have some on hand as I find it is one of many things that can help bring me to good health!

I would be open to hearing more of what is true for you Jeff, or anyone else's perspectives/experiences of "EGO " :):


P.S.. in my car underneath my stereo there is a small black sticker with yellow text: "Check Ego"
luvin it!


Kali, I have no idea what you're talking about. What is E.G.O?

What is "ego mode?"

I think a lot of people use the term ego but don't know what it means. That's why I posted a definition of it. Somehow ego has become a dirty word, which I don't understand. Please explain. Also, please explain how ego is different from "individual personality Spirit." I'm clueless.

-Jeff

[someguy]

If everyone who posted did this "laying ego aside" thing there would be no personality in the posts. That wouldn't be very attractive. One of the joys of Waccobb is getting to know the people who post, i.e., their egos.

It's the ego that makes each of us an individual. Love that about us. Love it when we show it to each other.

I would go so far as to say your list of values above is an expression of your ego. Yes? Which means it's a good description of your values or values you aspire to, and that's a fine thing.

Egotistically yours,

-Jeff

But Jeff I fail to see how everyone is so different. Dont you think that really everyone is exactly the same? All their egos are filled with prejudiced, religion, and belief systems.... And how could we bring about individuality, when everyone thinks the same way? Or how are people different?

[NudeTea]

Jeff, I don't profess to have answers. The word 'ego' always confused me. I'm still trying to define 'conscious.' My personal assessment is that our ego is indeed pride in oneself and self-esteem. But that's only on a personal level. My experience in 'community' is different, almost opposite. I find I have to guard my words and speak kind, encouraging comments, put my knee-jerk reflex snarky comments aside or I'll just start a fire, especially here on a public bulletin board.

It's not my intention while here to spark debates, or get into debates, or respond to debates. The only way I can achieve that is to squelch my ego and shift into 'community' mode. I always hope to build others up and speak well of others, even if deep inside my mind, my ego is trying to toss in some gritty personal judgments.





??? Why lay ego aside? What is it with so many people denigrating the ego? The ego is who we are as individuals, folks! It's what makes us, us. Yeah, yeah, it's an overlay over our TRUE self. Where did that idea come from?

Ya gotta have a healthy ego before you can even think about "laying ego aside."

From Answers.com:

1) The self, especially as distinct from the world and other selves.
2) In psychoanalysis, the division of the psyche that is conscious, most immediately controls thought and behavior, and is most in touch with external reality.
3) a. An exaggerated sense of self-importance; conceit.
b. Appropriate pride in oneself; self-esteem.
=====================

OK, so 3) a. is something to be "conscious" of. Got it.

FWIW, The Dalai Lama wouldn't be nearly so interesting without his really, really huge ego. He's gotta have it or he wouldn't be who he is. He is especially interesting because he balances his ego with humility and good humor. It would be nice if we could do the same here on Waccobb.net.

-Jeff

[DeadwoodPete]

Hi Jeff,

First, let me ask why you are bringing this up? Not that I am negative about it, in fact, I really enjoy thinking about this subject. But, putting it in context can be helpful.

In my view, laying the ego aside is not denigrating it. Yes, there are those who do try to "squash" the ego, and in my mind that is destructive, but setting it aside raises a different issue.

No matter how you define ego, it is still associated with idenity and "mind". The ego, in this way of talking, is a controller, and yes, up to a certain time, it is imperative to to have it and identify with it. The difficulty comes when you are on a spiritual path and want to explore territory that is beyond ego. The ego, or mind, fights hard to stay in control. There seems to me much fear and resistance to "putting it aside". Finding ways to "let go", inviting cooperation of the ego is tricky business. All of us who have worked on ourselves in this way will attest to the power of the ego.

Anyway, I just wanted to add my two-bits. Oh, BTW, I disagree about the DL, I am pretty sure that while he has much personality, that is not the same as being identified with it.

Be well, Deadwood


??? Why lay ego aside? What is it with so many people denigrating the ego? The ego is who we are as individuals, folks! It's what makes us, us. Yeah, yeah, it's an overlay over our TRUE self. Where did that idea come from?

Ya gotta have a healthy ego before you can even think about "laying ego aside."

From Answers.com:

1) The self, especially as distinct from the world and other selves.
2) In psychoanalysis, the division of the psyche that is conscious, most immediately controls thought and behavior, and is most in touch with external reality.
3) a. An exaggerated sense of self-importance; conceit.
b. Appropriate pride in oneself; self-esteem.
=====================

OK, so 3) a. is something to be "conscious" of. Got it.

FWIW, The Dalai Lama wouldn't be nearly so interesting without his really, really huge ego. He's gotta have it or he wouldn't be who he is. He is especially interesting because he balances his ego with humility and good humor. It would be nice if we could do the same here on Waccobb.net.

-Jeff

[CSummer]

I think of ego as the survival mind - the mind created by the organism to adapt to and cope with its environment. It's first function is to get the person's needs met, whatever that may take. When the mind has an experience in which some need(s) cannot be met, it switches to what I call the secondary survival function, which seems intended to keep the person from getting stuck in negative feelings that arise from such experiences. These especially include a sense of failure and powerlessness that could be detrimental to successfully dealing with life.

The unfortunate thing about the secondary survival function is that it operates by splitting off or masking over those experiences in which we failed to get our needs met. It does this to "protect" us from feeling the negative emotions associated with those experiences. In trying to make sense of these experiences in a way that we can live with, the mind will come up with "stories" or explanations that help to distance us from the real experience. Some of these include negative beliefs about ourselves and our ability to function successfully in the world and in relationships; other beliefs have to do with the way the world is and how other people - especially significant others - are and what we can expect of them.

This is especially unfortunate because along with these experiences we tend to disassociate ourselves from valuable aspects and qualities within - and opportunities without. We can lose touch with our natural generosity, groundedness, intuition - even our own bodies, in whole or certain parts. This inner disconnectedness or fragmentation is the source of essentially all human suffering, addiction, violence, dysfunctional relationships, families and organizations. It is, to me, the definition of "un-conscious:" being unaware of much that is within us, especially our true needs, feelings, beliefs and (mis)perceptions.

To be "conscious" is to have or be an ego that is integrated, whole, with all of who we are included in awareness. This is, I believe, extremely rare in most all present-day societies, and fragmented consciousness is what we consider normal; it is the ocean (society) we swim in and we find it difficult to imagine any other. Since it arises from our consciousness, the society reflects our inner fragmentation and functions to reinforce it.

I have had dreams of piloting a large ship, but having little awareness of what the ship really contains and what it's capable of. Sometimes, I also seemed to be largely out of control of the ship. Such is the life of fragmented consciousness (I certainly don't exclude myself!), like a ship with many compartments sealed off and systems shut down. As humans, it means having many of our capabilities and capacities unavailable or unexpressed.

A "conscious community" is one that is made up of whole, integrated beings. Please let me know if you happen to meet any! Meanwhile, the best we can do is create communities for healing - for restoring wholeness to our consciousness so that we can be healthy egos functioning and relating from a place of true inner power and responsibility, with our capacities for acceptance, caring and compassion restored. If you're interested in knowing how we can do that, I'd be eager to explore that with you. I believe it is possible!

Thanks for reading . ..
Clint

[Braggi]

But Jeff I fail to see how everyone is so different. Dont you think that really everyone is exactly the same? All their egos are filled with prejudiced, religion, and belief systems.... And how could we bring about individuality, when everyone thinks the same way? Or how are people different?

Methinks me leg is being pulled. No, I don't think we're all the same. There are jerks and there are cool people, right? The difference is in their egos. I certainly don't think we're all filled with prejudice, religion and belief systems (which I assume you are viewing in a most negative light in your statement). A whole lot of people have become conscious enough (by conscious I mean aware) of their own reactions to stimuli they can maintain control in spite of these forces most of us are raised with. I think that's the job of a healthy ego: to get beyond conditioning and negative reactivity into a place of relatively calm self control.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

By the way folks, I deplore the title of this thread. This is Barry's title not mine.

Perhaps we could change it to: What's wrong with a healthy ego?

Barry?

-Jeff

[Braggi]

... First, let me ask why you are bringing this up? Not that I am negative about it, in fact, I really enjoy thinking about this subject. But, putting it in context can be helpful. ...

I didn't bring it up nor did I start this thread. Shelley mentioned "laying aside the ego" in posts as one of the core values of Waccobb.net, which is, of course, her view of something Barry said, so I'm way down the line with this one.

I think it's worth bringing the word and the concept of ego into the light, that is, making it "conscious" because most of the people I've heard mention the ego in a negative light don't seem to know what the word means.


... In my view, laying the ego aside is not denigrating it. Yes, there are those who do try to "squash" the ego, and in my mind that is destructive, but setting it aside raises a different issue.
...

Pete, if you were somehow able to communicate outside of or without your ego ... well, you wouldn't be able to. It is your ego that communicates. So you are making this statement through your ego. My question is what is wrong with that? What's the problem here?


... No matter how you define ego, it is still associated with idenity and "mind". The ego, in this way of talking, is a controller, and yes, up to a certain time, it is imperative to to have it and identify with it. ...

OK, but what's left after you leave your ego behind and you are not identified with it? I would call that condition brain dead.


... The difficulty comes when you are on a spiritual path and want to explore territory that is beyond ego. The ego, or mind, fights hard to stay in control. There seems to me much fear and resistance to "putting it aside". Finding ways to "let go", inviting cooperation of the ego is tricky business. All of us who have worked on ourselves in this way will attest to the power of the ego. ...

We are all individuals, Pete. We will all face this kind of a situation on our own and in our own way. You are describing your personal experience or some teaching that was pressed upon you. Not everyone thinks this is such a tricky business. I do know what you're talking about and I'm saying that your experience is not universal. I've experienced it in the way you're describing and also in other ways. I've been with people who could "go there" with no issues whatsoever.


... Oh, BTW, I disagree about the DL, I am pretty sure that while he has much personality, that is not the same as being identified with it. ...

That statement makes no sense to me Pete. I'll leave it at that.

-Jeff

[oreokid]

its always seemed to me that the ego is about as important as the color of a car. they all have one, some are interesting, some are not. it makes little difference in the function of the car.
the problem seems to arise when one car thinks its color its better than another color.
i personally delight in all of the different colors and flavors of egos, it makes the world an interesting place.
even if one has to side-step one thats out of control occasionally.

[Braggi]

... To be "conscious" is to have or be an ego that is integrated, whole, with all of who we are included in awareness. ...

Clint, I pretty much disagree with your definition of ego, which is not the textbook, dictionary definition. To be conscious is to be aware. To be conscious of your ego is as you describe it above. We agree.


... This is, I believe, extremely rare in most all present-day societies, and fragmented consciousness is what we consider normal; it is the ocean (society) we swim in and we find it difficult to imagine any other. Since it arises from our consciousness, the society reflects our inner fragmentation and functions to reinforce it. ...

Rare is not non existent. Be careful how you use the word "we." Our present day culture of the television and the video game works wonders in the field of fracturing consciousness. This is the stuff of partisan politics and there's a lot of money to be made and power to be gained by keeping people apart from each other and keeping minds compartmentalized.

I'm all for integration on many levels beginning with integration of various aspects of our egos.


... I have had dreams of piloting a large ship, but having little awareness of what the ship really contains and what it's capable of. Sometimes, I also seemed to be largely out of control of the ship. Such is the life of fragmented consciousness (I certainly don't exclude myself!), like a ship with many compartments sealed off and systems shut down. As humans, it means having many of our capabilities and capacities unavailable or unexpressed. ...

Heh heh. So, becoming fully conscious means you are totally aware of the fact that your ship has many compartments you are unaware of the contents of and that you are out of control. But at least you know that and can say so with certainty. :-)


... A "conscious community" is one that is made up of whole, integrated beings. Please let me know if you happen to meet any! ...

I think a conscious community is a group of people working toward awareness and open to the notion that they will always have a lot to learn. Whole, integrated beings? That's quite a concept. So is traveling faster than the speed of light. Let me know when we've figured out what either of them looks like.


... Meanwhile, the best we can do is create communities for healing - for restoring wholeness to our consciousness so that we can be healthy egos functioning and relating from a place of true inner power and responsibility, with our capacities for acceptance, caring and compassion restored. If you're interested in knowing how we can do that, I'd be eager to explore that with you. I believe it is possible! ...

So do I Clint. I've been involved in overlapping communities on this path for the last twenty years. I'm not sure how much I want to talk about it here, because it involves a whole lot of very private work. I can share with you that this work, along with physical health care, is the playground of charlatans and rip offs in the guise of "wise men and women," "gurus," "enlightened ones," and various self-aggrandizing people the likes of whom I'm very suspicious of. In fact, I would propose this field is a trap for all of us who think we have something to teach or share, certainly myself included. That's one reason I'm hesitant to even talk about it except at the most basic or theoretical levels.

You know what I mean?

-Jeff

[Braggi]

Jeff, I don't profess to have answers. The word 'ego' always confused me. I'm still trying to define 'conscious.' My personal assessment is that our ego is indeed pride in oneself and self-esteem. But that's only on a personal level. My experience in 'community' is different, almost opposite. I find I have to guard my words and speak kind, encouraging comments, put my knee-jerk reflex snarky comments aside or I'll just start a fire, especially here on a public bulletin board.

It's not my intention while here to spark debates, or get into debates, or respond to debates. The only way I can achieve that is to squelch my ego and shift into 'community' mode. I always hope to build others up and speak well of others, even if deep inside my mind, my ego is trying to toss in some gritty personal judgments.

Good post. Another way to look at what you're saying here is that you're becoming conscious (aware) of your ego and its limitations, are expanding that ego to contain your community spirit, and are modifying your behavior in such a way that your community contributions are universally positive or at least productive.

I'd say that pretty much defines a conscious community member and congratulations to you for your awareness and your healthy expansion of ego.

Bravo!

-Jeff

[Braggi]

... I notice that I am my own living dictionary with my own meanings based on experience and observations. I don't always 'go by the book'. ...

Love you Kali, but you're checking out of the conversation with this statement. In order to have an intelligent discussion we have to have some basic understandings about the meaning of words.

-Jeff

[Barry]

"Ego for the sake of Ego" was Kali's suggestion, which I thought was cute reference to the other current thread: "Sex for the Sake of Sex (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/conscious-relationship/51171-sex-sake-sex-new-post.html)"

As with the discussion of "conscious", "ego" can have several different meanings and degrees. Without an ego we'd a blissful point of undifferentiated awareness without any sense of self (ie self-awareness). blissful indeed, and maybe boring too!

My version of the Jewish creation story is that "in the beginning" there was God (awareness, oneness). And God was bored and decided to play a game so that God could know itself. God emanated a multitude of "god-sparks" into the universe, each with the essence of God, but, just to make it interesting, they would not know that to start with...

So, really, "Life, the Universe, and Everything" is really just a big game/experiment (just like "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" said!) for us to know god. And the irony is that in order to for us know god (the undifferentiated oneness) there needs to separateness/individuality, and that's where ego comes in.

So the question(s) at hand seems to me, What's ego? When is it healthy and when is it not? I think we just seen, elsewhere, an excellent example of an unhealthy ego. (OK, and mine got a bit triggered too.)


By the way folks, I deplore the title of this thread. This is Barry's title not mine.

Perhaps we could change it to: What's wrong with a healthy ego?

Barry?

-Jeff

[Braggi]

.. it makes little difference in the function of the car.
...

I like your post but this one statement is where I disagree with you. It is our ego that allows us to function or fails us in that regard. That statement assumes the basic needs for functionality are present.

Whether we are good students or not is part of our ego. Other functionality goes out in similar ways.

-Jeff

[CSummer]

I enjoy oreokid's comparison, though I think it's a bit of an understatement. Seems to me the ego is rather more important than that. It's very true that egos generally all have the same function - to help us get our needs met, and we all have essentially the same needs (though different ways of meeting them). The essential differences are the consciousness (degree of awareness) and confidence with which we go about attempting to meet our needs.

The car analogy: all cars have the same basic function - to get us from point A to point B. How well or efficiently they do that depends on the other functions that have been incorporated, e.g., to entertain us, make us feel secure and comfortable, give us a sense of power (most of which may be illusory).

The fragmented ego has added on a lot of pseudo-needs as a way of masking over our real needs - usually old unmet emotional needs. This is why we use our life energy for things that may not be healthy for us: getting drunk, eating junk food, starting fights, spending a lot of time on the computer (!) or watching TV, working at jobs that don't fulfill our real creative needs or just thinking (being in our heads) a lot. And so much that could be accomplished doesn't happen because of the energy we've used in these questionable ways.

I would say the problems arise interpersonally when we allow strong needs (which may be unconscious) to constrict our awareness and imagine that the needs and feelings of others are not as important or significant as our own. We then start to view others in terms of our needs - whether or not they help or hinder us in getting what we (imagine we) need. When this happens, respect is lost as we're unable to see another as they really are - as whole persons who are essentially the same as us. And respect in this sense is essential to any caring relationship.

Peace . . .
and may we find our way together - and to wholeness!


its always seemed to me that the ego is about as important as the color of a car. they all have one, some are interesting, some are not. it makes little difference in the function of the car.
the problem seems to arise when one car thinks its color its better than another color.
i personally delight in all of the different colors and flavors of egos, it makes the world an interesting place.
even if one has to side-step one thats out of control occasionally.

[Mrs. Wacco]

I love this discussion....but first I think a refresher on the definition is in order :
"Ego" according to Wikipedia: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id,_ego,_and_super-ego)


"The Ego comprises that organized part of the personality structure which includes defensive, perceptual, intellectual-cognitive, and executive functions. Conscious awareness resides in the ego, although not all of the operations of the ego are conscious. The ego separates what is real. It helps us to organize our thoughts and make sense of them and the world around us. <sup id="cite_ref-8" class="reference">[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id,_ego,_and_super-ego#cite_note-8)</sup>


According to Freud,
<table style="border-style: none; margin: auto; border-collapse: collapse; background-color: transparent;" class="cquote"> <tbody><tr> <td style="padding: 10px; color: rgb(178, 183, 242); font-size: 35px; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-weight: bold; text-align: left;" valign="top" width="20">“</td> <td style="padding: 4px 10px;" valign="top">...The ego is that part of the id which has been modified by the direct influence of the external world ... The ego represents what may be called reason and common sense, in contrast to the id, which contains the passions ... in its relation to the id it is like a man on horseback, who has to hold in check the superior strength of the horse; with this difference, that the rider tries to do so with his own strength, while the ego uses borrowed forces [Freud, The Ego and the Id (1923)]</td> <td style="padding: 10px; color: rgb(178, 183, 242); font-size: 36px; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-weight: bold; text-align: right;" valign="bottom" width="20">”</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

In Freud's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freud) theory, the ego mediates among the id, the super-ego and the external world. Its task is to find a balance between primitive drives and reality (the Ego devoid of morality at this level) while satisfying the id and super-ego. Its main concern is with the individual's safety and allows some of the id's desires to be expressed, but only when consequences of these actions are marginal. Ego defense mechanisms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_mechanisms) are often used by the ego when id behavior conflicts with reality and either society's morals, norms, and taboos or the individual's expectations as a result of the internalization of these morals, norms, and their taboos."


Hopefully, we can all "agree" on this definition.


I work with/manage teams - architects, designers, builders, engineers, lawyers - a population with A LOT of ego. And I have a very healthy one myself. I also have a project mantra: "check your ego at the door".



When this occurs, projects run incredibly smoothly and wonderfully and working with teams that know how to do this are a delight. Interestingly, it generally occurs with people who have very healthy egos.



When it doesn't happen, the project dynamic sucks and teams are generally dysfunctional. Someone on the team is usually insecure and feels threatened when things don't go their way. Usually, they have HUGE egos that get in the way.



So, what does "check your ego at the door" mean?


In the context of a project (analogous to Wacco or a community?), it means one is able to see and function from a bigger picture regardless of one's personal stake/opinion. It's the ability to truly listen and assess/think from a different point of view without giving up your own.



It means :it doesn't have to be your way, or "it's my way or the highway". You can truly listen to another and involve yourself without making someone wrong. It doesn't mean you don't have an opinion/viewpoint/desire/idea, etc, but you have the ability to bend or blend or disagree without malice. Agree to disagree if that's the case.


A crucial element is the knowledge that one is not less than or gave something up or "lost" because an outcome wasn't their idea or they actually changed their mind or totally disagree but can see the other viewpoint. Your ego is still intact rather than feeling bruised or offended. The ego doesn't get in the way but contributes (or not) to the whole.



Within relationships, this plays out all the time. Barry and I have a rule: everybody gets to be who they are. We are quite successful at this precisely because we each have a strong sense of self (ego) so that we don't feel diminshed if the other doesn't bend to our will. That strong ego also allows us to be willing to be trained to change for the sake of the other when something might not be working in the relationship. It also allows for the "No" answer to a request for change when the requested party doesn't want to change. No one's wrong, it just is. A strong healthy ego allows for all this.


To the question of when is it unhealthy:when it's not fully developed (lack of self-esteem, insecurity, feafulness) or over developed (conceit, domineering, close-minded, etc) and then get's in the way via causing discordance, interferes with another's well-being, causes pain, having feelings of being lost or resentment, etc, etc.



So perhaps the goal in life is to have that strong sense of self, know who you are AND be able to allow others to be who they are. Sounds vaguely like respect?:):


Egotistically submitted,
Linda




"Ego for the sake of Ego" was Kali's suggestion, which I thought was cute reference to the other current thread: "Sex for the Sake of Sex (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/conscious-relationship/51171-sex-sake-sex-new-post.html)"

As with the discussion of "conscious", "ego" can have several different meanings and degrees. Without an ego we'd a blissful point of undifferentiated awareness without any sense of self (ie self-awareness). blissful indeed, and maybe boring too!

My version of the Jewish creation story is that "in the beginning" there was God (awareness, oneness). And God was bored and decided to play a game so that God could know itself. God emanated a multitude of "god-sparks" into the universe, each with the essence of God, but, just to make it interesting, they would not know that to start with...

So, really, "Life, the Universe, and Everything" is really just a big game/experiment (just like "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" said!) for us to know god. And the irony is that in order to for us know god (the undifferentiated oneness) there needs to separateness/individuality, and that's where ego comes in.

So the question(s) at hand seems to me, What's ego? When is it healthy and when is it not? I think we just seen, elsewhere, an excellent example of an unhealthy ego. (OK, and mine got a bit triggered too.)

[nurturetruth]

Jeff, dear....

thank u for expressing ur love.

what do u mean when u say "ur checking out of the conversation with this statement?"

I sent u a couple of private email's with what I felt was a well thought out (intellectual) response regarding the "book meaning' of ego .
Just as Linda beautifully quoted Freud... I too sent u Freud quotes (nearly the same one!) which i found in the dictionary under "ego" and even included quotes from Carl Jung.
It is in my opinion that it is possible to have a fulfilling productive discussion about the ego and including more than just on the intellectual level and what the mind has to think about it. (perhaps bringing more of our heart's into the discussion as well!)
By bringing our own personal meaning for words based on experience/observations can only make a conversation richer!

Jeff, I seem to recall u and I both agreeing that when dancing with Ego in a healthy way, it is always great to have a healthy sense of humor.
So, this is what i chose to gift community along with some positive vibes.

I knew that someone else out there would be fully capable of intellectually defining ego 'by the book' and that perhaps their ego would feel fulfilled in doing so!

Respectfully,

kali



Love you Kali, but you're checking out of the conversation with this statement. In order to have an intelligent discussion we have to have some basic understandings about the meaning of words.

-Jeff

[CSummer]

Linda wrote: Hopefully, we can all "agree" on this definition.

I do appreciate your contribution of the historical definition according to Freud, Linda. I do question, though, the usefulness of the concept as defined by Freud (who one of my first psych teachers referred to as Sigmund Fraud). I think he had a lot to offer - and - I've found other concepts more useful in coming to understand my own mind's workings and difficulties.

So perhaps it's not 'fair' to co-opt his word and apply our own meaning to it. On the other hand, why not? As long as we state what we mean by a word, there's a chance we'll be able to understand each other. (I can also see the value in coming up with other terms.)

> "The ego separates what is real. It helps us to organize our thoughts and make sense of them and the world around us."

If this is true, why would we want to "check our egos at the door?"

Just wondering . . .


[QUOTE=Mrs. Wacco;90578]




Hopefully, we can all "agree" on this definition.


I work with/manage teams - architects, designers, builders, engineers, lawyers - a population with A LOT of ego. And I have a very healthy one myself. I also have a project mantra: "check your ego at the door".



When this occurs, projects run incredibly smoothly and wonderfully and working with teams that know how to do this are a delight. Interestingly, it generally occurs with people who have very healthy egos.



When it doesn't happen, the project dynamic sucks and teams are generally dysfunctional. Someone on the team is usually insecure and feels threatened when things don't go their way. Usually, they have HUGE egos that get in the way.

[Braggi]

Jeff, dear....

thank u for expressing ur love.

what do u mean when u say "ur checking out of the conversation with this statement?" ...

Here's what you wrote that I quoted: nurturetruth wrote:
"... I notice that I am my own living dictionary with my own meanings based on experience and observations. I don't always 'go by the book'. ..."

That's fine but it's declaring we're not on equal footing in this conversation and you're planning to use your own definitions of words. You can do that in your own mind and perhaps to good effect, but you can't do that in a public forum and expect other people to understand what you're talking about.

I didn't mean to offend you but to point out what you're saying is confusing to your readers.

I think you're a Dear Spirit with a delightful Ego.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

... I do question, though, the usefulness of the concept as defined by Freud (who one of my first psych teachers referred to as Sigmund Fraud). . . .

Aha. Sounds like that psyche teacher had his own ego issues.

-Jeff

[nurturetruth]

my above edited post reads :

"It is in my opinion that it is possible to have a fulfilling productive discussion about the ego and include more than just on the intellectual level and what the mind has to think about it. (perhaps bringing more of our heart's into the discussion as well!)
By having our own personal meaning for words based on experience/observations can only make a conversation richer!"

I do however, agree that if we use a word without expressing what we mean by it and we use it in a different way than what is accepted as "norm", I could see how it could add to state of confusion.

I brought my "all" into this particular thread and my "all" feels satisfied as to what I have contributed thus far.
and jeff, I was not offended.
if i were to be offended, I would be caught up in my Ego and on the defense.
For me , the word "offended" is more of an accusation word than an expression of a 'true feeling'.

I was merely offering more explanation for my words and had a need to be understood.

hugs!


Here's what you wrote that I quoted: nurturetruth wrote:
"... I notice that I am my own living dictionary with my own meanings based on experience and observations. I don't always 'go by the book'. ..."

That's fine but it's declaring we're not on equal footing in this conversation and you're planning to use your own definitions of words. You can do that in your own mind and perhaps to good effect, but you can't do that in a public forum and expect other people to understand what you're talking about.

I didn't mean to offend you but to point out what you're saying is confusing to your readers.

I think you're a Dear Spirit with a delightful Ego.

-Jeff

[Mrs. Wacco]

You are too literal....The spirit of the mantra is to inspire working together :hifive: for something other than one's personal position; not give up our ability to think.


Linda wrote:
> "The ego separates what is real. It helps us to organize our thoughts and make sense of them and the world around us."

If this is true, why would we want to "check our egos at the door?"

Just wondering . . .

[oreokid]

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="OneNote.File"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft OneNote 12"> I'm not sure freud is the last word on the nature of the ego. I think he is correct in the multi-layerness of it. Perhaps more for some less for others. I've always felt a duality to my self. One I see as my core or root. It is who I am. It is defined by the boundaries I will not cross. What I value. What I care about. Another is what I am. This one seems to be more of what I am capable of and governed by emotions and tends to get me in trouble. The other boundaries that shall not be crossed are devoid of emotion and seem rather cut and dried. As in: no, I will not kill. Yes, you deserve to exist as much as I do. I've also noticed that these boundaries have changed over the years.
Who I am is driving the car. What I am paints it the color it chooses.
I learned a while back that what I think matters only to me. I came to understand that if I acted with respect for myself and everyone else I had little to fear from any others thoughts as I could be confident of my actions. Rarely does what someone else think affect what I think about myself. Some folks have yet to learn this. When one does its easy to let the rude ones pass by. So long as they are not deliberately aiming for you.
The original question is "why lay ego aside?". I don’t think you need to.To me it seems more of a control issue. The ego is a dynamic thing. At once demanding to drive and can't reach the pedals. Sometimes its so loud and out of control it manages to drive for a bit. Someone usually gives me a ticket when this happens. Most of time we manage to co-exist peacefully. That’s when we want the ego part of ourselves. That’s the fun part. The trick is have fun without impairing another's fun. I hope everyone who reads this remembers a day when everyone had a blast and went to sleep with a smile on their face. To me that’s something to strive for everyday.
I know exactly what you mean linda, about the egos getting in he way. More projects and companies fail for this reason alone. Its sad, because its entirely preventable. I've known several boss's and executive directors who thought they knew everything. Their education cost people more than it should.

Jeff said
Ya gotta have a healthy ego before you can even think about "laying ego aside."

This seems absolutely correct to me. Only when you are secure about it can you let it go...

[CSummer]

Is it that I'm too literal, or that the concept (of ego) is too limited? I prefer what I call the "survival mind," which could also be called the small "self." This isn't a derogatory adjective, just indicating that the survival mind tends to be focused on taking care of 'me,' which is a pretty necessary function.

When we want to work together toward a common purpose, it's useful to see if we can expand our sense of self to include others, to see that we all have the same needs and (for the moment, at least) purpose. I imagine this is what you mean when you suggest "checking our egos at the door." It is a wonderful thing to experience that sense of "selves" joined in an effort that transcends - and yet incorporates - individual needs and qualities.

Would it not be useful to have this discussion go beyond the definition of a word to perhaps enabling a greater understanding of our minds and how they work?



You are too literal....The spirit of the mantra is to inspire working together :hifive: for something other than one's personal position; not give up our ability to think.

[Braggi]

Is it that I'm too literal, or that the concept (of ego) is too limited? ...

I think your concept of ego could use some un-limiting. Why should the ego be so small as you describe it? I think of an ego as a growing, and not limited part of our persona (let's toss Jung into the mix). As we experience spiritual growth it is our ego that grows too, in the sense that it expands from a personal sphere, to a family sphere, to a clan, to a city, etc. until at some point our ego can embrace the notion that each of us is a part of the Earth community and so is everybody else. Nice.

This notion is actually why I made my original post. I don't see our ego/persona as a thing that is limited. I see it as open ended, open to limitless growth and limitless health. It takes a lot of work, both on the inside and on the outside, but we're nearly all doing this work whether we want to or not. A good open attitude helps but sometimes we learn despite our stubbornness.


... Would it not be useful to have this discussion go beyond the definition of a word to perhaps enabling a greater understanding of our minds and how they work?

Now that sounds messy. :wink:

-Jeff

[magenta]

My:2cents:
I value the Buddhist perspective of transcending the ego, and operating from a place of spirit and love.

The ego is a manifestation of the mind, and is therefore an illusion.
The ego is self-centered, and is what separates us from each other, from the totality of all.

There's no denying ego, we all have it, and a healthy ego is important BUT to continually operate strictly from ego, well, isn't that selfish? or is that all beside the point here?

[Braggi]

My:2cents:
I value the Buddhist perspective of transcending the ego, and operating from a place of spirit and love. ...

I don't see having a healthy ego as getting in the way of spirit and love. In fact, I think one is necessary for the other and the other.
I am clearly not a Buddhist nor do I value most (classic) Buddhist perspectives. That philosophy grew mainly in overcrowded cultures that devalue the individual while I grew up in a U.S. Christian culture that puts the individual on a pillar (or on a crucifix as the case may be). My current Pagan path finds a nice balance somewhere in between while cherry picking the best values from ... everywhere.

Ego, Spirit, Love. All in balance. All in good health. I see no conflict.


... The ego is a manifestation of the mind, and is therefore an illusion. ...

One person's illusion is another's solid reality. The notion that all our experiences are illusion I find offensive. A psychiatrist would call it dissociative. That notion itself is an illusion. Know what I mean?

Chop wood, carry water. Breast feed the baby. That's no illusion.


... The ego is self-centered, and is what separates us from each other, from the totality of all. ...

And this is where definitions and the hope and possibility of greater understandings come into play. Although the ego begins self centered, it doesn't have to remain that way. A mature ego is community centered. An advanced ego is centered in "the all" and is unlimited. I think the Buddhists would call that state: enlightenment. That's cool. Same state. Different way to describe it. Different paths for getting there.


... There's no denying ego, we all have it, and a healthy ego is important BUT to continually operate strictly from ego, well, isn't that selfish? or is that all beside the point here?

Note how you put that: " ... to operate strictly from ego ..."

Is that your projection? I don't think anybody in this thread has suggested anyone should operate strictly from ego. That is your statement. Perhaps you should ponder why you came up with it.

-Jeff

[magenta]

Hmmm, yes, balance seems to be a theme for me.:Yinyangv:
and while I value all viewpoints, including the Buddhist perspective, I find myself troubled by the concept of illusion.
I came here to learn about myself through others, and have no intention to offend or project.
:heart:

[Mrs. Wacco]

I just read these 2 quotes (from "What I've Learned", a column in Esquire magazine; the last word on how to be a man:wink:) that seem appropriate to this thread:

"To succeed as a father, to succeed as a husband, to succeed in the financial world are so important to the way a man looks at himself. It can actually block insight."

"The secret to life is hedonism (my personal theory): do what makes you feel good, whether its feeding your ego, feeding your face or feeding the hungry."

Enjoy
Linda

[Braggi]

Hmmm, yes, balance seems to be a theme for me.:Yinyangv:
and while I value all viewpoints, including the Buddhist perspective, I find myself troubled by the concept of illusion.
I came here to learn about myself through others, and have no intention to offend or project.
:heart:

I found your post well written and respectful. No offense taken. I hope you feel the same about my response. No offense intended. I'm also here for the learning. Sometimes I have to write it before I understand it myself. Sometimes I still don't understand it after I've written it. Oh well!

-Jeff

[hales]

Hi, everybody..

I'd like to suggest that it's possible to have an ego, (for the purposes mentioned, such as communication, survival, finding a mate, keeping a job, etc.. ) yet one does not have to identify fully with it. My experience is that I need to have an ego, and to some extent, I have had to build it up, rather than to leave it behind. I think that I would prefer to be less ego driven or identified. I'd like to be able to essentially turn it off or down, some of the time and simply swim or dance in the sea of being. ; )

BTW, I'm listening right now to an interesting interview with Jill Bolte-Taylor talking to the wonderful interviewer Terry Gross, about the neurology of self-awareness.. she wrote "My Stroke Of Insight".

After a Stroke, a Scientist Studies Herself : NPR (https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91861432)

She essentially lost her sense of self, temporarily, along with the use of her left hemisphere of her brain.

for more on this fascinating speaker, check out this article on TED.com, if you haven't already..

Jill Bolte Taylor&#039;s stroke of insight | Video on TED.com (https://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html)

Enjoy your sense of self, while you still have one.. ; )

Scott.



I didn't bring it up nor did I start this thread. Shelley mentioned "laying aside the ego" in posts as one of the core values of Waccobb.net, which is, of course, her view of something Barry said, so I'm way down the line with this one.

I think it's worth bringing the word and the concept of ego into the light, that is, making it "conscious" because most of the people I've heard mention the ego in a negative light don't seem to know what the word means.

Pete, if you were somehow able to communicate outside of or without your ego ... well, you wouldn't be able to. It is your ego that communicates. So you are making this statement through your ego. My question is what is wrong with that? What's the problem here?

OK, but what's left after you leave your ego behind and you are not identified with it? I would call that condition brain dead.

We are all individuals, Pete. We will all face this kind of a situation on our own and in our own way. You are describing your personal experience or some teaching that was pressed upon you. Not everyone thinks this is such a tricky business. I do know what you're talking about and I'm saying that your experience is not universal. I've experienced it in the way you're describing and also in other ways. I've been with people who could "go there" with no issues whatsoever.

That statement makes no sense to me Pete. I'll leave it at that.

-Jeff

[yogatree]

I have been enjoying reading this thread! I got a chuckle when reading Barry’s version of the “Jewish creation story.” Well said!<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I understand that some who are posting in this thread are using Freud’s version of ego as a foundation, a starting place, for discussion about the ego. There seems to be so many different views of what ego is, so it is understandable to have a structure from which to work. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I am not choosing to use Freud’s description of ego, however, for this post. I prefer the original description Braggi posted from Answers.com, #1<o:p></o:p>
1. The self, especially as distinct from the world and other selves. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Using this description, ego is simply how we identify as a separate being, our unique personality. As some of you have mentioned, we would not be functioning humans without our sense of self, without ego. Our bodies would just be lying (or sitting in lotus) in a dreamless sleep-like state while our consciousness would be off playing in the unified field of essence. Like Barry said, “Without an ego we'd a blissful point of undifferentiated awareness without any sense of self (ie self-awareness). blissful indeed, and maybe boring too!” <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
So when we talk of “laying ego aside” I’m understanding that we are meaning: Let’s be open, receptive, understanding and RESPECTFUL of different views/opinions/perspectives, not just on a surface level, but on a deep, genuine level . To not just have a knee-jerk reaction but taking a breath, perhaps putting ourselves in the other person’s shoes for a few moments, being fully present and responding from our heart.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Nurturetruth said it beautifully: “Once I identify I am in ego, (my Earth Self is what i often refer to it as) I can better understand/observe my body and differentiate when I am reacting versus responding. I become the 'witness'. When I am responding, I feel I am bringing my 'all ' into my experience or perhaps into my connection with another. I feel present.”<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
We have the opportunity to experience life from both the individualized, sense of self, ego perspective and also from the unified, divine perspective. When we interact with others from a place of witness, with the understanding/experience/remembrance that essentially we are all One, there is little left but the opportunity to LOVE. Because that essence IS love.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Going back to what alanora offered early in the thread: “ego=self that does not want to die. spirit=self that wants experience, to whom eternity belongs.”<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
From a “spiritual” perspective, ego includes that part of us that believes our bodies make up all of who we are. To those who live more from a place of witness, understanding that our true Self exists well beyond the container of our skin, “death is no more traumatic than taking off an old coat.” – Easwaran<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
But what it all boils down to is, without an individual personality, without ego, life would not be nearly as interesting and entertaining of a ride!!!!! :heart: <o:p></o:p>

[NudeTea]

<o:p></o:p>
As some of you have mentioned, we would not be functioning humans without our sense of self, without ego. Our bodies would just be lying (or sitting in lotus) in a dreamless sleep-like state while our consciousness would be off playing in the unified field of essence. :heart: <o:p></o:p>

I don't know if it's my ego or my consciousness but part of me is sitting here tappin' my foot and strummin' a banjo ~ some part of my mind.

[DeadwoodPete]

Hi Clint and all,

I am also enjoying this thread. Good to hear some wisdom bantered around that I resonate with. Many of these posts have touched me.

I thought I had said my two-bits worth, but now find that I want to add one more bit. While there is a growing consensus here about what ego means in a spiritual context, there is an aspect that I would like to note. As a culture, we are known for our ingenuity and practicality. The example in this arena is what happened when Existentialism came to the US. While in Europe, it was much more a philosophical discussion, we basically turned it into Humanism and began to devise new psychological systems. Take for example Carl Roger's Client-Centered Therapy, TA, and other predecessors of the therapies we now see flourishing.

In this same way, I think those of us interested in some version of the ancient notion of Transcendence (Nirvana, for example), are looking for ways to attain spiritual awakening in a more natural way and more practical way. The Buddha said that the path to Nirvana was counter-intuitive. Ask DharmaJim where he said that. It seems to be ours to find paths that work for more than the ultra-committed. Once we accept that there is a way to find deep peace that is genuine, we are prone to ask, what technology will make it possible for the masses rather than for the rare individual.

I am fascinated with Focusing (see FocusingInstitute.org) as a beginning to such a path, but I am aware that there is a growing number of such attempts. Given where we are in the state of the Earth organism, it seems that such open and practical means are imperitive.

May we all attain the wisdom that we seek, Deadwood
-
-
-

I think of ego as the survival mind - the mind created by the organism to adapt to and cope with its environment. It's first function is to get the person's needs met, whatever that may take. When the mind has an experience in which some need(s) cannot be met, it switches to what I call the secondary survival function, which seems intended to keep the person from getting stuck in negative feelings that arise from such experiences. These especially include a sense of failure and powerlessness that could be detrimental to successfully dealing with life.

The unfortunate thing about the secondary survival function is that it operates by splitting off or masking over those experiences in which we failed to get our needs met. It does this to "protect" us from feeling the negative emotions associated with those experiences. In trying to make sense of these experiences in a way that we can live with, the mind will come up with "stories" or explanations that help to distance us from the real experience. Some of these include negative beliefs about ourselves and our ability to function successfully in the world and in relationships; other beliefs have to do with the way the world is and how other people - especially significant others - are and what we can expect of them.

This is especially unfortunate because along with these experiences we tend to disassociate ourselves from valuable aspects and qualities within - and opportunities without. We can lose touch with our natural generosity, groundedness, intuition - even our own bodies, in whole or certain parts. This inner disconnectedness or fragmentation is the source of essentially all human suffering, addiction, violence, dysfunctional relationships, families and organizations. It is, to me, the definition of "un-conscious:" being unaware of much that is within us, especially our true needs, feelings, beliefs and (mis)perceptions.

To be "conscious" is to have or be an ego that is integrated, whole, with all of who we are included in awareness. This is, I believe, extremely rare in most all present-day societies, and fragmented consciousness is what we consider normal; it is the ocean (society) we swim in and we find it difficult to imagine any other. Since it arises from our consciousness, the society reflects our inner fragmentation and functions to reinforce it.

I have had dreams of piloting a large ship, but having little awareness of what the ship really contains and what it's capable of. Sometimes, I also seemed to be largely out of control of the ship. Such is the life of fragmented consciousness (I certainly don't exclude myself!), like a ship with many compartments sealed off and systems shut down. As humans, it means having many of our capabilities and capacities unavailable or unexpressed.

A "conscious community" is one that is made up of whole, integrated beings. Please let me know if you happen to meet any! Meanwhile, the best we can do is create communities for healing - for restoring wholeness to our consciousness so that we can be healthy egos functioning and relating from a place of true inner power and responsibility, with our capacities for acceptance, caring and compassion restored. If you're interested in knowing how we can do that, I'd be eager to explore that with you. I believe it is possible!

Thanks for reading . ..
Clint