confidence + arrogance + ego

[rookie]

Well, like I said, we have differing understandings of what the ego is and its importance in our life.

 

The things you mentioned above are descriptive of a diseased ego.

 

Ego:

 

1. self-esteem: somebody's idea of his or her own importance or worth, usually of an appropriate level

The climb left us with frostbite and bruised egos.

 

2. psychoanalysis part of mind containing consciousness: in Freudian psychology, one of three main divisions of the mind, containing consciousness and memory and involved with control, planning, and conforming to reality

 

3. philosophy self: the individual self, as distinct from the outside world and other selves

 

The above is from Incarta. And this, I think speaks to a healthy ego.

 

I am aware of the fact that some think that they can eliminate their ego. But what would that bring to the person? A state of emptiness. A condition of worthlessness. Apathy!

 

I have talked to this subject many times here on this forum and my opinion and understandings have not changes since my very first post to the subject.

 

Taoism does not recommend we eliminate our ego; it recommends we lessen our ego. That is, we keep our ego compatible with reality.

 

So we could probably talk about this for many years but to what avail? You have your opinions and I have mine. These differences represent our egos; our understanding of Self.

 

And your truth will not necessarily be my truth nor will my truth be your truth. Philosophical (and religious) truths are personal things and truths will vary from one individual to another.

 

So, just because you disagree with me doesn't make me wrong. And that I disagree with you doesn't make me right. But I am right for me and that is all that really matters as your right is for you.

 

Peace & Contentment!

 

Marblehead,

It really sounds like you are missing something here, and it is based on seeing something within oneself. I am not sure if I could explain it or bring out the recognition of it through these kinds of written communications, and that is more than I have energy and motivation for anyway. You seem content with your position and that is great.

 

There are several things we agree on. My examples of disfunctional behavior driven by ego desires could be called a diseased ego. I prefer the word "disfunctional" because the ego/personality/self is basically a functional thing much like a computer program. You can change the program and change the resulting behavior and make it more "healthy", normal, or functional.

 

I don't know if it is possible to eliminate the ego, or necessarily or desirable. But since I see it as a functional process, I don't think that one would forget how to drive a car, do their job, get home, speak or read if it were not operating. Compassion is not absent, that is for sure.

 

I have to go back to the example of seeing. Can you see the process operating within yourself?

[rookie]

O, yes I can see that you need to make the distinction based on what you have said. Your definition is like the 2nd definition posted by Marblehead, the Freudian one, where the ego contains conciousness.

 

The way I have used it is as a process observed.

 

I am not sure of needing to make all of those distinctions. But I think I would need you to strictly define how you are using the terms conciousness and awareness.

[Guest paul walter]

become something that von goheo wants you to be? and i knew that would be the response you would give me. i just dont trust someone who insults someone for a direction towards progression. instead of beating around the bush and giving critique you could help by just coming out with the information that you have that would be beneficial for me. i think its egotistical to get a laugh on someone elses problems. when you know the answer.

 

 

 

That last bit was a quote from Goethe. Well you hold all the cards LT--of course it was the response you "expected" cause it's the response yourself needs, I hand picked it for your personality. I'm not getting a laugh at your expense btw, you are the one providing the entertainment by taking yourself too seriously. I tried to be helpful on other posts but now it's time to just be crazy, spontaneous and not pander to your sense of logic and self-need. You don't trust anyone LT, that's why you're asking for direction--lack of trust starts (and ends) with not trusting the self and that ends with not trusting anyone else. How can I bother being serious to a person who is already serious for the both of us? The glass is full, there's no more room it seems in your 'search' perhaps for real doubt as oppossed to questioning? When you empty yourself a bit more and see yourself with more perspective then you can start answering your own 'questions' more. Do you think I "know the answer" to what you're asking, really? If you do then I really will talk to you on that level if that's what you want-i certainly don't want to harm you, but you need to learn to listen to others more closely if you ask questions of them. Best, Paul.

Edited September 29, 2010 by paul walter

[Marblehead]

 

It really sounds like you are missing something here, ...

 

Hehehe. Are you sure it is not because I am not imagining something that does not exist?

 

Yes, I am at peace with my understanding even though it is probably incompatible with everyone who considers themselves Buddhist. (I just had to say that, sorry.)

 

I am glad that you agree that we have some understandings in common. This is important, you know.

 

And I do agree that we can change how our ego effects our life and our interaction with our external reality. This is the same line of thought as where Dr. Wang (Dynamic Tao) suggests that there are those who have lost Tao (the Way) but yet we are never forsaken by Tao and can always return if we make the effort.

[Marblehead]

Id say its a force which keeps you honest to your parents and to societies moral values, which may actually be in opposition to your own

 

Yep. More thoughts:

 

I think it is exactly these 'forces' that Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu are tellig us to unlearn so that we can be true to our true nature.

 

What a bummer! Just when I was ready to accept the superego as having a usefull function I realize that it is one of the blockages that prevent us from being 'true' to our Self.

 

Maybe someone will cause me to have further thoughts on this concept.

[Apech]

Hi im trying to progress to new chapters in my life and i have very low confidence levels purely because every time i get confident my ego seems to build with it. couples with arrogance and a lack of care for things. i want to know how to grow confidence without the strings attached and to know that im going in the right direction. any advice would be appreciated.

 

Hi LZ21,

 

This is an interesting thread but I just wanted to go back to the first question.

 

Confidence means literally 'with faith' and faith is to do with energy or power (in the sense of ability to to things). So confidence means that you know you have the ability to adequately respond to the situation in which you find yourself. Adequate means that your actions meet the needs of the situation.

 

Arrogance means something like over reaching (ad + rogare) in other words the belief in abilities goes beyond that which is actually possible. It denotes a sense of lack of respect for the situation and particularly other people who are involved. On a macro scale the invasion of Iraq was an arrogant act because the US and Britain did not respect Iraq as a country - hence the melt down after the initial fighting. Arrogance is a misplacing of power.

 

Ego is just 'I' in Latin. It has gained a pejorative meaning through the misunderstanding of the Buddhist no-self and pop-psychology. We all have a self its just its nature that we debate.

 

Anyway.... true confidence negates arrogance. You don't need arrogance. If you start from a position of low confidence and self esteem then you spend long periods feeling weak and inadequate. On occasion you might break through this and then there is a tendency to over compensate and feel a little too pleased with your self (until the next knock comes along). This is only natural and not a big deal unless your own self criticism causes you to overdo your own reaction to this and plummet deeper into low self esteem.

 

Building real confidence is an iterative process. By this I mean it is a slow feedback process. We are all 'blessed' with a quantity of baggage, a jumble of thoughts, feeling and emotions which we accumulate in childhood (or before if you subscribe to rebirth). They operate as a kind of cloud which confuses our will and stops us acting as we would like. They are the reason that we think we should act one way and yet do something else, or have strange feelings in certain situations and say daft things we don't mean. They are essentially unassimilated experience, the loose ends of old stored emotional records. The way to deal with them is as a hunter or a warrior. That is to pick them off one by one by understanding their routines and then challenging and taking back the energy they lock up.

 

So pick on small things that challenge you, face up to them, do whatever you need to to, then review it. Say to yourself now I've done it its no big deal and move on to the next bigger challenge. Step by step not all at once. Give yourself a timescale to do this over. Build a quiet confidence which has no arrogance in it. If you notice 'lack of care' creeping in you will know that there is something you haven't dealt with.

[Jetsun]

Yep. More thoughts:

 

I think it is exactly these 'forces' that Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu are tellig us to unlearn so that we can be true to our true nature.

 

What a bummer! Just when I was ready to accept the superego as having a usefull function I realize that it is one of the blockages that prevent us from being 'true' to our Self.

 

Maybe someone will cause me to have further thoughts on this concept.

 

My view is that the superego is utterly essential when you are a child, as when you are a child you are completely dependent on your parents for survival and they are much more powerful than you so you need to adapt to learn how to fit in so they don't abandon you so you can survive and so they keep loving you, but then when you become an adult you are less dependent so it's not essential for the superego to retain so much of your power, but unfortunately in the majority of people it never loosens it's grip even after their parents are long dead. Whether you need the superego at all as an adult I'm not sure, perhaps the crazy mystics have dropped it completely

[LaoTzu21]

[Birch]

"Women, who are considered to be already castrated, do not identify with the father, and therefore form a weak super-ego, leaving them susceptible to immorality and sexual identity complications."

 

Thank god for that! Means there's less BS to get rid of in practice

 

I hold the belief that all this is stuff that Freud made up based on his own personal story, assumptions, erotic leanings, a few "case studies" he himself interpreted through his own lens.

 

Anyone read Reich?

 

Excellent post Apech

[Jetsun]

I don't think Reich knew what to do with the energies he was encountering and they sent him insane, if he had a teacher perhaps he could have become a powerful Taoist

[rookie]

Hehehe. Are you sure it is not because I am not imagining something that does not exist?

 

Yes, I am at peace with my understanding even though it is probably incompatible with everyone who considers themselves Buddhist. (I just had to say that, sorry.)

 

I am glad that you agree that we have some understandings in common. This is important, you know.

 

And I do agree that we can change how our ego effects our life and our interaction with our external reality. This is the same line of thought as where Dr. Wang (Dynamic Tao) suggests that there are those who have lost Tao (the Way) but yet we are never forsaken by Tao and can always return if we make the effort.

 

Well I think we probably have more in common than not. Communication about these things takes a pretty fair amount of work to be clear about how certain words are used.

By the way, I cannot consider myself buddhist, or taoist, or subscribibg to any faith or belief system. I have never formally studied or been introduced to any of them other than the religion I grew up with but even then I didn't just swallow what was offered. I have never even read a single buddist book.

I am looking at life as it appears, not taking any persons theory or thoughts as authority.

I will listen, interact, have conversations, and have developed a reasonably good ability to see what is happening with the self. And I use this word broadly, maybe you or O would call this the ego.

 

But there is more. There is something beyond the mind (the thinking, percieving function), which is wholly where this self/ego exists, unless of course you want to include the brain in that. Seeing is the best way I have to describe this, like either you see it or you don't, or would being be a better description?

It cannot be apprehended with the mind, so no theory or belief will help. Although each persons experience is subjective, I suspect that each person has experiences of this or is in this state frequently but without recognizing it. It may be true that recognition of it is key. And two people can be "being" exactly the same, or have the same experience and then use different words and not be able to communicate effectively about it.

 

I do know what imagining is, which again is completely a mind activity, and I am not doing that. In fact allowing as direct perception, or experience, to happen without manipulating with the mind, without creating meaning, or even naming or identifying, doing this as much as possible is required to approach the truth.

 

What is is. Who and what you are is. What you think you are is just in the mind. Make sure you get that word "think", because now you are in the land of concept, and you are dealing with self concept, and the self wants to continue itself, but that can only continue with mind activity.

 

This mind activity is not truth. It may as well be called imagination.

In fact the minds function is not to apprehend truth or reality, but making abreviated, filtered maps of reality for faster processing, for prediction, for better chances of survival.

 

So I would ask you, what is it that you are imagining?

And then, what is? what are you being when you are not imagining yourself as something?

 

A good question for everyone is how much of your life is lived only in your mind? I would say it is probably far more than realized until one starts to watch it, and then more and more seeing can occur.

 

At this point I will borrow your words here and say if we disagree then that is just what it is, lol.

 

That reminds me of that popular slang saying "it is what it is" lol, just so true lol

was that something Yogi Berra said? he he

 

Well that's it. Maybe you see it, maybe not. But I have done my best to try and communicate.

This is not necessarily mysterious, not necessarily spiritual, but not always seen.

[rookie]

Hi LZ21,

 

This is an interesting thread but I just wanted to go back to the first question.

 

Confidence means literally 'with faith' and faith is to do with energy or power (in the sense of ability to to things). So confidence means that you know you have the ability to adequately respond to the situation in which you find yourself. Adequate means that your actions meet the needs of the situation.

 

 

Well faith means accepted as true without proof, so following your reasoning this confidence based on faith can be a false confidence, something believed but without proof.

 

The rest of your post about how this develops and your advice is quite good from a psycholigical perspective.

 

My first suggestion about taking ones attention off of the self I think is a very healthy thing to do with benefits on many levels. Them, when attention comes back on the self let it be from a perspective of looking at it, not so much identifying with it. Watch what it does.

 

Just look. Drop the interpretations, just watch what happens.

[Apech]

Well faith means accepted as true without proof, so following your reasoning this confidence based on faith can be a false confidence, something believed but without proof.

 

 

 

That's the opposite of what I was saying. You are referring to faith as presented by organized religion i.e. just believe and don't question what we say ... blind faith. I was talking about building faith in one's own abilities through the experience of pushing back the false boundaries created by fear etc. You prove your abilities step by step, from small obstacles to big ones.

[rookie]

That's the opposite of what I was saying. You are referring to faith as presented by organized religion i.e. just believe and don't question what we say ... blind faith. I was talking about building faith in one's own abilities through the experience of pushing back the false boundaries created by fear etc. You prove your abilities step by step, from small obstacles to big ones.

 

apech, yes I get what you are saying and it is a good description of what can develop psychologically.

I haven't seen a definition of "faith" like that before. Where did you get it?

 

It is interesting that the process you describe is paralleled in the classical scientific method. I know there are differences, but the building up of a level of confidence is similar to building theories based on experimental results. The problem is of course these are always moving targets and a new experimental result or psychological experience will come along and undermine everything that has been built up so far. In science, it is just time for a new theory. Psychologically what is this called, self discovery? lol

no really, I don't know.

[Apech]

apech, yes I get what you are saying and it is a good description of what can develop psychologically.

I haven't seen a definition of "faith" like that before. Where did you get it?

 

 

Its not that this is a different definition but that the 'faith' of religious dogma is false. Real faith is either confidence which grows out of experience or the necessary consequence of our true spiritual nature.

 

The developing power of confidence of an individual is actually an affirmation of their nature as spirit. We all fall into confused states brought about by identification with the content of our mind. We think we are something we are not - we might believe in our self-concept or identify with a particular emotional state. But we are not that. Its not that we have to create our spiritual nature - it is what we are. So our faith in it is not artificial but just a kind of remembering (if you see what i mean). So there is always a spark or a feeling that it is possible to be more than we seem to be. OK some people fall deeply into depressed states where this feeling seems inaccessible - so it's difficult - but mostly there is a chink of light in there somewhere. So the foundation of faith is that our nature is spirit and not some kind conditioned, limited, thing. This is the alpha and omega thing of non-dualism.

 

On the other hand, once moved to do something about ourselves by the call of that spirit, confidence is built as I described by challenging bit by bit that which opposes us.

[Marblehead]

My view is that the superego is utterly essential when you are a child, as when you are a child you are completely dependent on your parents for survival and they are much more powerful than you so you need to adapt to learn how to fit in so they don't abandon you so you can survive and so they keep loving you, but then when you become an adult you are less dependent so it's not essential for the superego to retain so much of your power, but unfortunately in the majority of people it never loosens it's grip even after their parents are long dead. Whether you need the superego at all as an adult I'm not sure, perhaps the crazy mystics have dropped it completely

 

Exellent thoughts and I have no problem agreeing with them.

[Marblehead]

 

Well that's it. Maybe you see it, maybe not. But I have done my best to try and communicate.

This is not necessarily mysterious, not necessarily spiritual, but not always seen.

 

Nice post.

 

I accept the concept of brain and mind. IMO it is through the mind that we are inspired by intuition. The brain is (or should be) logical whereas the mind need not be.

 

But basically, my understanding is that ego is self-recognition and self-realization. Both these belong to the brain. And I will agree (if this is what you are saying) that mind is ego-less. But we cannot live in the mind all the time. We need to live in the brain in order to interact with the 'real' world.

 

I really don't know how to speak of the aspects of the mind exclusive of the brain so I rarely talk about that. The brain can be described therefore I can talk about it.

 

I did mention 'Buddhist' intentionally so that I could get a better feel of where you were and are coming from. (Nothing against Buddhists, please understand, it is just that their philosophy is sometimes funny to me.)

 

Anyhow, I will agree that when one is in the state of 'wu' we are without ego. Most people are rarely in this state. I sometimes achieve the condition when in meditation but return to my own reality when I finish meditating.

[LaoTzu21]

LaoTzu21, a great way to build confidence would be to apply apepch7's suggestions to your taoist IMA practice(s). With patience, you can see your confidence grow in stages. In weeks', months', a year's time, you can expect to have a strong foundation, built with your own elbow grease. And you will know every brick on that foundation.

 

Find a practice. Stick with it. Keep track of your progress. Keep us posted.

 

i have a good ZZ teacher from master lams lineage the zz is really opening me up to my natural energy and feelings. i like it alot

[JohnC]

Don't make it complicated, keep it simple.

 

Journal, mirror work, qigong/energy work, meditate, and dig inwardly. Practice, live and love.

 

The energy work will help you release bodily blockages which will open up your mind. And examine your mind, beliefs, values and perceptions which will allow you to live better/freer. Usually once you let go of the emotion around a belief/action/pattern, you can usually just change by making a decision.

 

Because what is 'confidence' really?

 

A lot of these things are just labels we put on states of mind and emotion... that are transient. Like are you supposed to be 'confident' at all times? Cause sometimes your not going to be.

 

It's more about being present to emotions as they come through and not letting them impact you. Not maintaining some state of superawesomeness or whatever.

 

It's basically that your mind has played an amazing trick on you and convinced you that what you feel is real.

 

And that you have created a cage of smoke, that only feels real because of the emotions you feel inside... but if you were to act anyway, you would see the prison really is only smoke, made real by you through how you feel.

 

Remove and let go of the emotion, test the cage, and be free.

 

Probably starting with that you need to be confident... or whatever.

 

Cause what is it that you think confidence will give you?

 

And why is arrogance bad?

 

And it sounds like you get apathetic, but what has you? Why do you not care for things? Like if you put effort to things or cared about them what?

 

 

 

I'd also say, don't just call it your ego, put some more definition around it. Because yea, it's your ego, but what about it?

 

Like you start to abuse people when you feel good, because you feel that you are better. Are you really? How do you know? what if they are better? can they abuse you? And dig and question around it till you find the assumption.

 

Cause you can just be present to all these things, or you can tackle it by digging into it. Being present is like shaking the table to get something off of it, and laser focusing on it is like picking it up and moving it off. The focus is only on one issue, while presence may have you dump a bunch at once.

 

 

The more awarness you have around all your trips and the like, the easier it is to change them.

 

Fish water, man unto himself. Fish doesn't know he's swimming, and man doesn't know his perception and world view is skewed, biased and warped.

 

Till you see you have goggles on. And you take them off.

 

 

---- Practice:

 

There are programs and things out there that can help, but mostly just be curious and dig inward. You will unravel these things by virtue of paying attention and noticing your trips and deciding to continue to do them or (most cases) stopping.

 

Ken wilbur's work is great, especially integral work and all that.

 

Psychology is good, but lacks in some places and isn't holistic. Zen, and the like is just 2000 year old psychology that is much more complete.

 

www.authenticmanprogram.com is very powerful, in that they focus on how you are with anything is how you are with everything, and help you to see what your swimming in (my mom did this, my dad did that, I hang onto the past and project onto the future and live everywhere but right now.)

 

The sedona method/abundance course are really good. Both based on Lester Levinson's ideas.

 

EFT and the like are also good.

 

John

Edited September 29, 2010 by JohnC

[FT88]

Good topic OP. I too know exactly what u mean. Im confident by nature but i seldom feel my ego wanting to judge/discredit/look down upon and i usually supress it right away and keep my mouth closed. I suggest reading the book Silent Power by Staurt Wilde...its pretty short but very powerful.

[Guest paul walter]

I don't think Reich knew what to do with the energies he was encountering and they sent him insane, if he had a teacher perhaps he could have become a powerful Taoist

 

 

 

I think you'll find it was the American government etc that sent him "insane" . He was doing serious research but of course didn't have the knowledge of traditions and such to start tying it all together properly. Being ostracised, hounded and persecuted didn't help him be less angry/resentful (nor did being put in prison for his work , dying there and having his research stolen by the forces that be...)

[rookie]

Its not that this is a different definition but that the 'faith' of religious dogma is false. Real faith is either confidence which grows out of experience or the necessary consequence of our true spiritual nature.

 

The developing power of confidence of an individual is actually an affirmation of their nature as spirit. We all fall into confused states brought about by identification with the content of our mind. We think we are something we are not - we might believe in our self-concept or identify with a particular emotional state. But we are not that. Its not that we have to create our spiritual nature - it is what we are. So our faith in it is not artificial but just a kind of remembering (if you see what i mean). So there is always a spark or a feeling that it is possible to be more than we seem to be. OK some people fall deeply into depressed states where this feeling seems inaccessible - so it's difficult - but mostly there is a chink of light in there somewhere. So the foundation of faith is that our nature is spirit and not some kind conditioned, limited, thing. This is the alpha and omega thing of non-dualism.

 

On the other hand, once moved to do something about ourselves by the call of that spirit, confidence is built as I described by challenging bit by bit that which opposes us.

 

This is quite beautiful. It rouses something in me, yes- a recognition.

I accept your definition of faith, but it is a new definition to me. I personally would not use the word faith for what you are describing. You have used "remembering", and I use "knowing" for this for this, not to be confused with mental activity, but the word knowing is what just comes to me when describibg it or putting it in words.

There is actually quite a lot to what you have said here. You speak as it is your own experience. Is it part of a teaching you have seen or received, or is it a synthesis from your own experience?

 

Thanks anyway for posting that. It is probably the best post I have ever seen on this board.

[Apech]

This is quite beautiful. It rouses something in me, yes- a recognition.

I accept your definition of faith, but it is a new definition to me. I personally would not use the word faith for what you are describing. You have used "remembering", and I use "knowing" for this for this, not to be confused with mental activity, but the word knowing is what just comes to me when describibg it or putting it in words.

There is actually quite a lot to what you have said here. You speak as it is your own experience. Is it part of a teaching you have seen or received, or is it a synthesis from your own experience?

 

Thanks anyway for posting that. It is probably the best post I have ever seen on this board.

 

Well thanks, I'm glad you liked my post.

 

What I said was is my own experience but equivalent ideas can be found in any system such as Taoism, Vajrayana Buddhism, Advaita or even Christian mysticism.

 

I used 'remember' because a few years ago I discussed experiences I was having with a Buddhist Lama and he said that discovering Buddha nature is like remembering. It can evoke a kind of nostalgia which is a longing to return.

 

John

Edited September 30, 2010 by apepch7

[C T]

Its not that this is a different definition but that the 'faith' of religious dogma is false. Real faith is either confidence which grows out of experience or the necessary consequence of our true spiritual nature.

 

The developing power of confidence of an individual is actually an affirmation of their nature as spirit. We all fall into confused states brought about by identification with the content of our mind. We think we are something we are not - we might believe in our self-concept or identify with a particular emotional state. But we are not that. Its not that we have to create our spiritual nature - it is what we are. So our faith in it is not artificial but just a kind of remembering (if you see what i mean). So there is always a spark or a feeling that it is possible to be more than we seem to be. OK some people fall deeply into depressed states where this feeling seems inaccessible - so it's difficult - but mostly there is a chink of light in there somewhere. So the foundation of faith is that our nature is spirit and not some kind conditioned, limited, thing. This is the alpha and omega thing of non-dualism.

 

On the other hand, once moved to do something about ourselves by the call of that spirit, confidence is built as I described by challenging bit by bit that which opposes us.

Really wonderful words of deep insight, A7.

 

Grateful for taking something so profound and making it quite comprehensible. Indeed.

 

_/\_

[C T]

.. double post ..

Edited September 30, 2010 by CowTao