Ok, I apologize if any of the following comes across as ignorant, self-indulgent, or overly semantic. Also as a preface, I think it's safe to say that when we here discuss the 'ego', we each probably have a slightly different conceptualization of it. Also, it is different from Ego in the Freudian sense. I know that he is the one who coined the term originally, but that's a bit beside the point. In some ways, the concept has evolved in circles like these to refer to something which he may have considered to be a facet of the subconscious (so it is really contrary to his beliefs, even though we borrow his terminology).
Furthermore this kind of discussion becomes quite complicated, because we are essentially pulling apart different aspects from within the abstract realm of the mind. The mind seems to be the source of it all, and unless one has done some 'inner work' (meditation, careful introspection, etc), it is impossible to make such distinctions.
One common theme I've noticed from many members here when discussing 'inner work', is the recognition that there seems to be a foreign influence. At the very least, a 'brand' of thought patterns which are not constructive to the individual but often destructive. These are what I have come to regard as the Ego. Like Finefeather said, it agrees with the bad judgements of the self, to bring one down, while simultaneously agreeing with the good so as to aggrandize and inflate the self to unhealthy proportion.
Thus, I have regarded the ego as, essentially, the enemy. I have not felt as though I am tearing myself down in doing so, but rather working to a greater purity of thought and mind, and in essence improving myself and my intentions. The good aspects of ego that TraineeHuman described (#540), I have always associated with 'the observer'. To me, it is quite separate from the ego, but rather what I basically define as 'me'.
Please correct me if I'm wrong on this (these are my current truths but I would not be so bold as to assert them as ultimate truths), but what I end up having then, is a model of the mind which has three separate sources of thought. Ego, Observer, and Higher Self. Now, I would certainly accept if I was wrong about the HS, because I don't consider myself to have a concrete connection with it (if any at all). To me, HS represents true inspiration and intuition. When I sense danger, without having reason to suspect it. When I have a gut feeling to do something different, which ends up working out splendidly. When I reach out to a loved one, without even knowing that they are in a time of need. Is this somewhat accurate? Does anyone here have interactions with 'HS' that go beyond intuition/inspiration?
teradactyl's post reminds me of the time in my life leading up to the realization that my ego was my master. I was inexplicably angry, almost all of the time. I would come up with rationalizations for it, to justify and explain away my anger. And yes, smashing things was one of my go-to therapies. For what it's worth, however, such remedies were not ultimately effective.
The key for me was first, reflection and introspection. I did this until I was able to identify the ego thoughts as different from what was inherently me. They were not true to my identity, and they were ruining the good things in my life. The second step, then, was to BE the observer (and not the ego).
She may have been a controversial figure here, but this is (in my mind) what 9eagle9 was shooting for with her topics on 'Their Mind'. It is like a counterfeit mind, a seemingly foreign source of thoughts, dressed in heavy camouflage. It feeds off of emotional responses... primarily those which paint you in your own mind as the victim of any given situation or circumstance. It goes so far as to draw out anger or envy or fear in scenarios which aren't even about you personally. It makes things personal.
Become the observer... then you are able to identify and overcome this destructive influence.
Am I wrong in considering this influence the ego? I suppose there is something to be gained from establishing a consensus on these terms and concepts, though it seems to me the most important thing is to employ conceptualizations which make sense to us each personally and allow us to work with them internally.




Reply With Quote