What is the Ego?

[Otis]

Discussions on the ego and self are tricky, because there are not enough pronouns to handle it.

 

When I write, I write from ego. That is what formulates my language, that is the part of me which tries to figure out how someone else will read my words.

 

But then, when I talk about "my body", I am not speaking of a body that belongs to my ego; quite the opposite. I see the ego as being a subsection (or emergent phenomenon) of the brain, which is a subsection of the body. So "I" really belong to my body.

 

"My habits" describes the workings of the ego, but "my intuition", "my emotions", "my imagination", even "my thoughts" all describe other parts of "my" brain, which my ego is vaguely privy to, but not in charge of. The are not "me" (i.e. not part of my ego), but of course, along with my ego (and various other parts), they help make up the greater me (my body).

[Marblehead]

 

But then, when I talk about "my body", I am not speaking of a body that belongs to my ego; quite the opposite. I see the ego as being a subsection (or emergent phenomenon) of the brain, which is a subsection of the body. So "I" really belong to my body.

 

 

Nice!

[Otis]

The definition of ego that makes the most sense to me: my habits of consciousness. Ego is the conditioned wiring of my brain, which separates, tags, organizes, theorizes, and tries to control phenomena.

 

As such, the ego may be necessary to get started in life in this society, because consensus reality depends on a common language, and many shared assumptions. Education makes sure that we're all on the same delusional page.

Edited March 28, 2011 by Otis

[Otis]

Ego may sometimes make the "right" decisions, but it'll always make them for delusional reasons. This is because it is model-based, concept-based, and therefore is always working out its theories on imaginary realities.

 

For example: I'm trying to figure out how X person will react when I say Y. So I run my simulation program for X, and listen to what the fantasy in my head tells me will happen. Maybe I run the program several times, and factor in different variables, like X's mood, the environmental influences, etc., and I create something of an average of responses. Or maybe I do a little statistical analysis, say X is usually in Z mood, so therefore, I think I can count on a Z mood response.

 

Depending on how well I know X, I may actually fantasize a pretty accurate response. From that, I might start to believe in the delusion that I can read X, that I know what's actually happening in X's head (I don't know about y'all, but I have zero knowledge of what's happening in someone else's head). The more certainty I have in "knowing" X, the more likely I am to indulge in delusional decision-making. There may even be a point in which I ask X what he is thinking, only to have my theory disproved by his response. And yet I may choose to believe my theory anyway, and disbelieve what X has told me. X must be lying or fooling himself, because my certainty is so strong.

 

In this way, knowing and certainty increase the power of my ego, increase my delusion, decrease my willingness to listen, and create further levels of separation between me and reality. The simulations are remembered the same way as the experiences, so in my head, X becomes a mash-up of what I've witnessed, and what I've imagined. The only way that I can see X as a full, real human being, is to stop running my simulations of him, to stop reducing him to a fantasy in my head.

Edited March 28, 2011 by Otis

[Marblehead]

Education makes sure that we're all on the same delusional page.

 

I'm off your page buddy. Hehehe. I'm not even coloring in the book anymore; I'm all over the walls.

[Otis]

The public radio show On the Media just did a series on whether NPR was politically biased. They invited on a listener, who claimed that he heard bias, and he gave a couple examples. His examples, however, were not about content or word choice. Instead, they were describing the announcer's tone of voice as he read the news. The listener was sure that the announcer must be biased, because he seemed "happy" about a certain outcome.

 

This kind of bias, of course, is near impossible to prove, but it doesn't stop the listener from making a global assumption (NPR is biased) from very minute evidence (someone's supposed tone of voice). And, of course, the more sure the listener is that the bias is real, the more likely he is going to hear that tone of voice, which supports his bias.

 

This is the process by which the ego makes itself important, not always by telling stories about himself, but by telling stories about the world, in which his perceptions are always the right ones.

[Marblehead]

The only way that I can see X as a full, real human being, is to stop running my simulations of him, to stop reducing him to a fantasy in my head.

 

That goes for girl-friends, boy-friends, husbands, wifes, etc. as well.

[Otis]

That goes for girl-friends, boy-friends, husbands, wifes, etc. as well.

Yes, yes! And sons and daughters!

[Aaron]

Hey Aaron. Great points; I'm in much agreement.

 

A question about this:

 

 

My question is: if the ego obscures the actual us, does that suggest that the ego is something separate from the actual us?

 

Hello Otis,

 

No, the ego is not separate from the actual us. It is a part of us that has evolved for a purpose and it serves that purpose well.

 

Or is the "actual" self the ego self + all the other parts of self that I don't usually think of as "self"? If it is the latter, then what distinguishes the "actual self" from what there is right now, which is the sum total of all parts? Another way of asking this is: where does the ego go, when you perceive your "actual self"?

 

Yes, the actual self is the ego and everything else. I think what I should say as well is that I don't believe that we are born without an identity, that we are born part of a cosmic conscious, thinking of ourselves as everyone else, but rather we are born connected to everything else, we are molecules that make up that ocean. Even though we are molecules and in a sense separate, we are still the ocean, a very essential part of the ocean, and any drop that is absent diminishes that ocean. When I comment on this in other threads, I can see where this can get dicey, but it's best to think of it as a molecule that touches all other molecules, and although it is separate, it isn't, nor does it have to be.

 

Feel free to deconstruct!

 

When I talk about deconstructing, I'm not talking about banishing the ego, or destroying it. I don't believe that the ego is entirely narcissistic, in fact some aspects of the ego are very humble and pure in motive. When I speak of deconstructing I'm talking about understanding what you truly are, understanding the nature of yourself, your connection to this universe and by doing so, reconciling your ego. When you can reconcile with your ego, then it isn't who you are anymore, but what you thought you were. You will still have your ego, but your ego will not be what spurs you to action, rather your action will come from your true self. Like the small child happy with the taste of chocolate, you will offer your candy to your brother gladly, so he can share the experience.

 

I hope that makes sense.

 

Aaron

Edited March 29, 2011 by Twinner

[xenolith]

Ego = the sum of the deviation from one's self induced by one's conditioning as a human being.

 

One is born without ego, but gains it rapidly and progressively as a result of living in society; most die with with more ego than they can shed when the Bardo presents...they enter as what society says they are; and traverse the Samsaric desert exposed as a characature of their self...and lost.

 

Choose not this course...subjugate your ego in Life.

 

Choose forgiveness, humility, heart-thinking and Love...choose Bodhisattvaness.

 

IOW, choose as if your next Life depends on it.

 

Be well upon your paths friends,

 

Love,

 

xeno

Edited March 29, 2011 by xenolith

[Adishakti]

A friend once told me that Enlightenment does not mean you are free of Ego forever. It requires daily cleaning. Much like cleaning the house everyday.

 

Can we also that it's Ego that keep us on Planet Earth? Maybe an essential prerequisite to be able to stay on this Planet? (Unless of course we are highly evolved and are clear that we are here to help others).

 

Does this make sense?

[Otis]

No, the ego is not separate from the actual us. It is a part of us that has evolved for a purpose and it serves that purpose well.

 

Yes, the actual self is the ego and everything else.

That's how I feel, as well. So what makes "actual self" different from "everyday self", since they are both "the ego and everything else?"

 

When I talk about deconstructing, I'm not talking about banishing the ego, or destroying it. I don't believe that the ego is entirely narcissistic, in fact some aspects of the ego are very humble and pure in motive. When I speak of deconstructing I'm talking about understanding what you truly are, understanding the nature of yourself, your connection to this universe and by doing so, reconciling your ego. When you can reconcile with your ego, then it isn't who you are anymore, but what you thought you were. You will still have your ego, but your ego will not be what spurs you to action, rather your action will come from your true self. Like the small child happy with the taste of chocolate, you will offer your candy to your brother gladly, so he can share the experience.

I thought you meant deconstruction as in: breaking down your observation of ego, examining it in its minute detail. If so, please do.

[Aaron]

I thought you meant deconstruction as in: breaking down your observation of ego, examining it in its minute detail. If so, please do.

 

Hehehe... are you asking me to deconstruct my ego?

 

Aaron