|
Author
|
Topic: What is meant by "The Ego"?
|
Heart--Shaped Cross
Knowflake Posts: 6082
From: 11/6/78 11:38am Boston, MA
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted December 01, 2006 05:13 PM
 
A human being is part of a whole, called by us the ‘Universe,’ a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.ALBERT EINSTEIN
http://www.meaningoflife.i12.com/ego.htm
There are some good thoughts on the other side of that link, but I wanted to say something, which I believe is often misunderstood, about the nature of what is called "the ego". I am not qualified to speak "as one with authority", but perhaps I can arouse some discussion amongst or within those of us here.
"Ego" is often taken to signify some sense or concept of a differentiated self. Although this is clearly the most talked about aspect of the ego, I think it is a mere fraction, or reflection, of what the idea was intended to signify by the seers who first spoke of it. I think the ego is a term applied to a supposed "seat of consciousness". Wherever consciousness seems to reside is ego. By itself, the "I" is not ego. But, the "I", allied to some aggregate of qualities, or characteristics, from which it appears to take its form, and upon which it depends for its being, is the ego. Have "I" had thoughts? That thoughts seem to have been, and seem now to be, is evident (I dare say, "SELF-evident", for their appearance is only evident to the mind before which they appear... to appear). But are they my thoughts? True, there is a certain consciousness of having them, and of having had them, but, are they mine? Do they belong to me? Or did they, do they, merely appear (to appear)? And, if they merely appear, do they appear to me? Or, are they just thoughts, and what is called "me" is nothing but a supposed consciousness to which those (and other) thoughts appear. And what is that consciousness? Is it distinct from the thoughts, that it may "have" them? Does it choose those thoughts, from amidst other thoughts, which it does not "have"? (That would be difficult to conceive, indeed.) Is its existence confined to the thoughts it has or has had (or may have)? Can its nature be deduced from those thoughts? Does it have a nature? Is its nature merely to perceive, or can it create? Is perception creation, perhaps?....... Is all consciousness a great river? And what I call myself, and the thoughts I call my own, - is this but a small eddy, where the waters pool and swirl, for a moment or two, before being drawn back into the indeterminate flood? Am I that space? Am I those living waters? And what of the ones that pour in after them? Am I those, too? I confess.
I am not wearied of these games.
I am content to play this part.
Somehow,
I find enough to wonder at in the questions, without being avaricious for answers. No doubt, you, who read this from the outside
(or seem to), will spot the proverbial flaw in my musings. You will produce, like a golden key, the missing link to this intellectual edifice. "Vwalla!" you will exclaim, with a competitive gleam in your eye. Together, we may even unlock a Pandora's Box, brimming with missing locks and keys (and pandora's boxes!).  It is a methodical madness, is it not?! And when will you weary of it? Sooner or later. It doesn't matter. You've grown weary before, and had your enthusiasm fired and refired countless times. It is written,
"If you become enlightened,
do not expect that you will know it." hsc
hschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschsc hschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschsc hschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschsc hschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschschsc IP: Logged |
lotusheartone
unregistered
|
posted December 01, 2006 05:21 PM
You see
the Paradox
is out of
Pandora's Boxwe opened it long ago
a forbbidden Act
Acted upon
due to Ego greed and wanting more
the material..breeds
wanting more material
and pleasure..it is
endless..
needs needs needs what was the question?  IP: Logged |
Heart--Shaped Cross
Knowflake Posts: 6082
From: 11/6/78 11:38am Boston, MA
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted December 01, 2006 05:28 PM
Indeed,
it is a Paradox,
to imagine Ego
already out of the box,
and in a position to unlock it,
and let itself out.
IP: Logged |
lotusheartone
unregistered
|
posted December 01, 2006 05:31 PM
the key
to the heartunlocks the Secret
it be Sweet. ...
and Sacred... . hehe IP: Logged |
lotusheartone
unregistered
|
posted December 01, 2006 05:38 PM
X and Y chromsomesmale and female
we all contain each
within Ego is male..hehe IP: Logged |
lotusheartone
unregistered
|
posted December 01, 2006 05:39 PM
X marks the spot, lolIP: Logged |
Heart--Shaped Cross
Knowflake Posts: 6082
From: 11/6/78 11:38am Boston, MA
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted December 01, 2006 05:47 PM
Our revels now are ended. These our actors,
As I foretold you, were all spirits and
Are melted into air, into thin air:
And, like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud-capp'd towers, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
As dreams are made on, and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep.
-- William Shakespeare
IP: Logged |
lotusheartone
unregistered
|
posted December 01, 2006 05:49 PM
a deep deep sleep
Awaken
Hark, hear thine angel's voice
Rejoice
in the Truth of your
Beloved
for you and Her
Have always been
ONEIP: Logged |
BlueRoamer
Knowflake Posts: 3475
From: Calm Blue Ocean, Calm Blue Ocean
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted December 02, 2006 03:35 PM
Very awesome HSC.It's funny how people post these things right when I need to read them. Do you ever feel like Boston sucks your soul dry? I do. IP: Logged |
artlovesdawn
Knowflake Posts: 1177
From:
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted December 03, 2006 08:55 AM
..IP: Logged |
Heart--Shaped Cross
Knowflake Posts: 6082
From: 11/6/78 11:38am Boston, MA
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted December 03, 2006 10:58 AM
BlueRoamer,Thanks. 
Synchronicity is funny.
Boston can suck.
artlovesdawn,
You are welcome.
I dont know why it posted that way. Aside from the Einstein quote,
what I posted was original.
I just posted the link because
I thought people might find it
interesting as well. Don't know much about Gurdjieff,
but there is a good chapter about
him and Ouspensky in Colin Wilson's classic book, "The Occult".
A lot of good info in that.
I remember, in Sophie Burnham's "A Book of Angels"
she talks about that cass consciousness phenomenon.
After her first book,
where she touched on this theme,
a producer in the theater contacted her,
and told her that, it is remarkable how,
every few months he will receive a bunch of plays
all about Grandmothers,
and the next month,
a bunch of plays about pirates, or something.
Like all the playwrites are sharing notes.
Very weird. Very cool. take care,
HSC ------------------
'Would you know your Lord's meaning in this thing? Know it well. Love was his meaning. Who showed it to you? Love. What did he show you? Love. Why did he show it? For love. Keep yourself therein and you shall know and understand more in the same. But you shall never know nor understand any other thing, forever.'
- Julian of Norwich http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f309/Alem7/chart1.gif http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f309/Alem7/steve5.jpg IP: Logged |
Heart--Shaped Cross
Knowflake Posts: 6082
From: 11/6/78 11:38am Boston, MA
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted December 03, 2006 11:01 AM
A close friend of mine had this to say:
During his student days Jung had a dream ...
On a dark and foggy night, when there was a high wind blowing and he struggled to protect his Light from the wind Jung perceived a black shadow following him - he recognized it as his own shadow cast by his light. "Light" and "Shadow" where Jung's Number One and Number Two personalities which he later recast as the archetypal figures of Ego and Shadow. He saw the Ego as fragile, the precious light of consciousness that had to be guarded, protected and cultivated. The Ego is a person's sense of purpose and identity. A healthy Ego {ie, a well functioning 'Soul'} balances the conscious and unconscious elements of the psyche. A weakened Ego leaves an individual "in the dark", in danger of being swamped by chaotic unconscious images. The Shadow, the dark side, is not wholly bad, but it is primitive and unadapted. It vitalizes life. We must face it honestly. Infact one of the first steps in counseling is to make the patient aware of the "Ego-Shadow" relationship. The Ego and Shadow are personified by Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, the classic "good and bad" split in all of us. Mr Hyde becomes a real danger to the psychic health when the Ego itself screws up. I think it is interesting to look at this in terms of people with no "I" or "ego", for example people with dissociative identity disorder. not only must they wrestle with ideas of "one-ness" with the universe but also with a lack of internal "one-ness". while some might thing that this would make things easier, not to have to worry about having an internal "one-ness", and therefore being able to accept a universal "one-ness" with ease, i doubt that would be much consolation.
i think i mentioned to you before that, while it used to be accepted that those with DID had a "host" part (the "real" person or "ego") and that the alters other than the "self" were just that, it is now believed that there is no true or actual "self" in those with DID. somehow, these people hold many
alter(native) selves, each one generally representing an archetype. there is no "person", there are only possibilities. this is both an internal experience for the person with DID and the experience of those who interact with her. after 5 years, it is still hard for me to wrap my mind around the idea that there really is no "real" person/ego, no "real" host, perhaps with the person's given name, that the fact is there can be hundreds of "I's" in each of these people, each one feeling entirely different when present/forward.
so, is this a real disorder? as you know, many psychologists and psychiatrists say "DID is not a real disorder". what they mean is that these patients are faking; that DID itself does not exist. obviously, this is wrong. i have seen it, and i KNOW it exists. what i do not know, however, is whether (like many "mental illnesses"), it should really be called a "disorder". so, in this manner, i do not know if dissociative identity DISORDER exists. why would this different way of mind/ego/spiritual organization be considered a disorder? because there is, nor has there ever been, an ego present? or so many "egos", that the existance of an ego becomes moot? because this is hard to fathom for those of us of "one mind"? so, they have a "disorder"? the fact that some of them are very high functioning individuals who navigate their lives quite well and who have no desire to integrate makes me think that they do not necessarily have a disorder. and for those that do integrate--does this mean they are "cured"? because they have an "ego"?
patients who have DID and have chosen to integrate actually give this decision mixed reviews. while many are proponents of integration, describing the amazing inner connection that is felt with "one-ness", the overwhelming spirituality that they experience by finally creating an "I" and living a life as a person with an integrated sense of self or "ego", some say that they wouldn't have gone this route if they would have known the new problems that have since arisen for them, such as difficulties with depth perception and "missing" alters who have "dissolved" or "merged" into the "self". the major problem, however, that they have described to me is that, after integration, rather than going from many alter (native) selves to one self, they feel like they actually have gone from many alter(native)s to no self. after integration they have no more of an idea of themselves as a differentiated person than a newborn would. they have no idea of their interests, beliefs, etc., and, the concept of thoughts arising from the ether and not originating in the "mind" is especially poignant for them.
IP: Logged |
Heart--Shaped Cross
Knowflake Posts: 6082
From: 11/6/78 11:38am Boston, MA
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted December 03, 2006 11:04 AM
For the record,
although Freud coined the term,
and Jung made use of it,
I am speaking of "ego"
primarily in the sense that
it is used in the modern translations
of ancient mystical texts.IP: Logged |
lotusheartone
unregistered
|
posted December 03, 2006 11:09 AM
To Our dark and Light Side
for we contain bothwalking the line
keeping balance
Universally, Internally, eternally to the disorder DID
oh my, re-order their order
free wi11 choice we chose the life we would have
here on Earth, before coming
and being born. ... IP: Logged | |
Lindaland
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
