The Ego Thread

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...

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?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by CSummer:

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by CSummer:

... 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

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?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by magenta:

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by magenta:

... 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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by magenta:

... 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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by magenta:

... 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

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 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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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:

---

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

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

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's stroke of insight | Video on TED.com

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

Scott.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Braggi:

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

---

I have been enjoying reading this thread! I got a chuckle when reading Barry’s version of the “Jewish creation story.” Well said!

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.

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
1. The self, especially as distinct from the world and other selves.

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!”

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.

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.”

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.

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.”

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

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:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by yogatree:

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:

---

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.

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
-
-
-

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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

---