Perspectives on the Ego

In other threads, particularly “There's Something About Andrew,” several of us have mentioned wanting to start or contribute to a thread on ego.  I would like to open that door to that discussion…

There are obviously a number of different perspectives on the nature, purpose, and value of the ego.  According to some perspectives, such as Object Relations theory and Self Psychology, the ego serves a vital, dynamic function which actually allows us to enter into stable relationships with others, to recognize self-other boundaries and transcend primitive narcissistic perspectives, and so on.  When transpersonal theorists claim that we first must form a healthy ego before we can transcend it, I believe they are using a conception of ego related to this one.  Others, however, consider the ego to be the false self – a superfluous constellation of images and identifications which are primarily defensive and which obscure our true nature or true self.  From this perspective, ego is an illusion which must be destroyed or abandoned; it is the small self to which we must die.  And there are other perspectives as well – some which may involve a combination of the above perspectives, some of which may differ considerably.

I am keeping this first post fairly open and general because I would like to invite an inquiry here – not just a statement of our various positions on ego, but an opportunity to inquire together into its many dimensions and its role in human development.  Is it an abiding aspect of human nature at all stages of growth and spiritual realization?  Is it a structure which serves a limited developmental purpose, and which must be abandoned at some point in our spiritual growth?  Is it a “wrong turn” altogether, a cancerous growth which must be rooted out or blasted into oblivion?

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: Perspectives on the Ego

Seeing yourself clearly reveals your behaviour.
Some is so conditioned that we react without having time to think.
To have spiritual friends or a teacher that serve as mirrors will help you to locate blind spots.
Once you've seen your true self, free from time, you will be able to distinguish egoic behaviour more fully.
Ego in its negative sense is only you acting not in sync with the circumstances you find yourself in.
Learning about this is a lifelong endavor. But by searching with a heartfelt intention will lead you to a breakthrough insight that will reveal the fundamental non-existence of your personal self and will break the hold that your ideas have on your mind.
Then, there will be a humble understanding that reveals that behaviour is everything.

Re: Perspectives on the Ego

From what I understood in the Andrew thread most people (everyone?) agreed that killing the ego isn't possible, only killing attachment to ego is doable - unless you want to live out the rest of your days as a psychotic. In 3D reality ego is the self-organizing entity of every human being and without it we are left with nothing but chaos and despair.

I believe that healthy ego development is something good, true and beautiful and that it is a core task for all of us. As we heal the ego as well as allow it to develop vertically, we become less and less egotistical and loosen our attachment to a lot of worldly things.

Ego transcendence (horizontal development) is also a good thing and allows us to step by step start self-identifying more with the soul instead of the ego. The ego will still remain the gateway into 3D reality, so we need it to be whole and functional. If not, our transcending it will do the world very little good, even if we experience liberation ourselves.

It is quite possible to seek ego transcendence for egotistical reasons.

Re: Perspectives on the Ego

Balder,

In the spirit of exploration, I will use your questions to help me avoid a flame state about my convictions regarding the ego.  In general, I favor what might be called by some, a pre-rational “understanding” of the ego phenomenon.

Your questions:

”
Is it an abiding aspect of human nature at all stages of growth and spiritual realization?  Is it a structure which serves a limited developmental purpose, and which must be abandoned at some point in our spiritual growth?  Is it a “wrong turn” altogether, a cancerous growth which must be rooted out or blasted into oblivion?”

As to question one:  “Is it an abiding aspect of human nature at all stages of growth and spiritual realization?” Well, it can be, I think.  It certainly abides, of that there is no doubt.  And, if the seeker, ascendant, or integrationalist, should choose consciously or by default through ignorance, to encourage or allow the ego to “tag along,” then along it will come and there it will be at every stage of expanding awareness.  (I prefer the term “expandsion” to “ascension.”)  However, I do think that along with expansion of awareness, comes an ever more acute sense of the presence of the ego and its mind-dominating role.  Over and over again as we expand, the question will return (perhaps at the insistence of the Observer, or the I-in-the-Eye) “What's this ego doing here?”  Expansion tends to lead one to a diminution of the relative importance of the “self” and an increasing awareness of the “we” - a sense of identification with “other.”  This is not the ego's natural territory, and, given the ego's inherent mission to maintain the individual's world view and sense of self as independent, it will work to slow, or thwart progress in expansion by rationalizing the dangers of losing self-identity.

At this point, the expander who has ignored or minimized the ego's organizational dominance, will likely lose forward progress and either give up expansion, or sidetrack at their current level into expertise and the acquisition of siddhis.  Of course, they may also back off, defeated, or back off and reconsider this blocking influence.

There are those, too, who will make the conscious decision to pursue expansion with their ego's intact.  There are such.  That choice, willfully taken, is demonic. (Perhaps a pre-rational descriptor, but applicable nonetheless.)

As to question two:  “Is it a structure which serves a limited developmental purpose, and which must be abandoned at some point in our spiritual growth?“  Generally, my sense of this is yes.  Specifically, I don't think of the ego as structure.  Structure would be more the mind holograph whereas the ego would be more a state of beingness, a conscious, agenda-oriented manifestation masquerading as the self.  The meta-state of the mind, which can be approached through meditation and other practices, can be relatively evacuated of ego beingness by ritual-nonattachment to thought forms offered by the restless ego-being which inherently despises the diminution of its organizing role.

I doubt it can be abandoned, per se, as no force of will can evict it.  Its job is to manage the conflicts in our personal stories, and the conflicts we see in our worldviews, so that we can continue to “look good, sound good, feel good” despite the vexation within.  We pay a heavy price for this relationship as it calls for us to compromise our values over and over again.  This price is attachment to ego as our ever-willing savior. 

In the interest of spiritual progress, the ego can, however, be reduced to a right-sized state where its duties are limited to true, immediate, survival crises, like lifting the car off the baby, or going back into the fire to save the cat.  As we grow more and more defensive in life, our standards as to what are legitimate crises, slip lower and lower til virtually every challenge is viewed as critical. Thus the ego's job, at our allowance, grows to dominate the workings of the mind holograph. (much, much more here on this process, but later is better)

As to question three:  ”Is it a “wrong turn” altogether, a cancerous growth which must be rooted out or blasted into oblivion?”  It is not so much a “wrong turn” as a condition of our present multi-dimensional beingness.  What must be rooted out are the lies and false assumptions that poison our personal stories and worldviews.  Once purged of these lies, our stories will shine with Truth.  As Truth is Self-evident, it requires no management, no compensation, no ignorance, and no denial.  Thus the ego, as beast, can finally rest while maintaining a certain alertness to genuine crisis where its galvanizing powers can orchestrate an instant response.

Best,

Re: Perspectives on the Ego

Balder, Two main mistakes exist in the discussion of ego and human potential generally.

Mistake 1 is our conscious or subconscious conclusion that we are bad (which comes from seeing the evidence of our hurtful and destructive past behaviour such as war etc) and that we can become good. So our efforts become wasteful deluded attempts at moral heroism and maintaining the drama of good vs evil. In reality, the issue to focus on is illusion vs reality; or we can say the issue is the lack of information (or the presence of incorrect information) vs high quality information. Mistake 1 leads to Mistake 2…

Mistake 2 is the idea that we have to fix ourselves and even fix the world. In reality, we only need to continue growing. In principle, we need to look forward, not backward. Instead of fixing, we should be learning and progressing.

If we think ego or egoism is bad, then it implies we think God made a mistake with us. She didn't. Reality is one and so it cannot be bad. The idea that something is wrong with life is an anti-life attitude, and that could be seen as egoic!

Then we are left with the question of how to interpret war etc. We can see our past hurtful behaviour as the growth pains of life establishing itself here in human form. It is a stage of life. The seed violently breaks through the soil and competes with others until it flowers and bears fruit. Then we see that the pain we went through was worth it.

Bjorn wrote, “behaviour is everything”. This is a very limited view of who we are and of our potential. We are not here on Earth to be good boys and girls. If you think we are so faulty that we must focus on our behaviour, then perhaps you could question your (non-“humble”?) assumptions.

Pelle, you were on the money when you wrote, “It is quite possible to seek ego transcendence for egotistical reasons.” Indeed it is inevitable.

Michael wrote, “In the interest of spiritual progress, the ego can, however, be reduced to a right-sized state where its duties are limited to true, immediate, survival crises, like lifting the car off the baby, or going back into the fire to save the cat… As we grow more and more defensive in life, our standards as to what are legitimate crises, slip lower and lower til virtually every challenge is viewed as critical… What must be rooted out are the lies and false assumptions that poison our personal stories and worldviews.”

Yes, the ego's duty is to protect life. Ego is good.

Why would we grow “more and more defensive”? The reason is that we are stuck in the protection of life mode rather than moving onto the happiness mode, which requires the protection and happiness of all beings.

Instead of using the words “lies and false assumptions” it might be more useful to use the phrase “illusions”. Once we have better information, we will move on to the next stage of happiness without having to “root out” anything. The problem is that we don't know how to progress because we lack information. Lies and false assumptions are merely symptoms of lack of good information. We only need to grow, not fix.

(BTW, I said in the “There's Something About Andrew” thread that was going to start an “Ego Is Good” thread but it's getting too big. I'll have to make it into a chapter of my book.)

Martin Gifford.

Re: Perspectives on the Ego

Martin,

You said, “Yes, the ego's duty is to protect life. Ego is good.”

I would agree with “good” as long as the good guard dog does not run amuck terrorizing the barnyard.  That's a baaad dog.

You said, “Why would we grow “more and more defensive”? The reason is that we are stuck in the protection of life mode rather than moving onto the happiness mode, which requires the protection and happiness of all beings.”

Again, I would agree with the exception of the word ”requires.”  I would suggest that “supports” is more suitable.

You said, “Instead of using the words “lies and false assumptions” it might be more useful to use the phrase “illusions”. Once we have better information, we will move on to the next stage of happiness without having to “root out” anything. The problem is that we don't know how to progress because we lack information. Lies and false assumptions are merely symptoms of lack of good information. We only need to grow, not fix.”

Hmmm … “Illusions”  Hmmm.  I tried that on for a while and it worked a bit for me, but a question remains:  Is there a difference between an illusion, say “sunrise” which is a misnomer as the sun isn't “rising” so much as that our spot on the Earth is rolling eastward to reveal the sun, and “I had nothing to do with that accident.” when, in fact, I had caused it?  I repeat my assertion over and over again, knowing that I am lying (in the classic sense) and poof, after enough repetition, I “believe” it myself.  My story is full of that kind of shit.  Since accountability is at stake, are you saying that it is ok for me to just move forward without taking responsibility for all the lies, the damage I have caused, the amends I have not made?  How would one do that?  Move on, I mean, even with terrific new information?  Do I just blow off those that I have hurt, myself and my shadow's included?  Perhaps I misunderstand.  I am open to new information, that is for sure.

Best,

Michael

Re: Perspectives on the Ego

Behaviour, or action, only reflects what you are. If you have realized anything or understood something and integrated that in your living it will be manifest through your very word and act. 
Therefore action is a good measure of our understanding. And that is what people will judge you by anyway, not what you think or believe. No need to “try” to be a good boy or girl. You must have misunderstood me, no?

As my words reflect who I am, so does your words reveal you. You can claim that you are this beautiful essence but if it doesn't show on the outside what good is it?

Re: Perspectives on the Ego

Michael, A dog that is running amuck is either under threat or it doesn't know of the better options available. But if it comes down to your dog or his dog, then it's goodbye to his dog.

There's a difference between avoiding responsibility and understanding. If you have good information then you know that avoiding responsibility won't bring happiness to yourself or others. Avoiding responsibility is fear of discomfort and fearing discomfort just maintains painful fear. You would only need to make amends if you think it will be the best thing for the happiness of all. However, the best amends would be to help everyone understand how life works so that we can all be happier.

If people understand that hurtful actions come from being in the competitive survival mentality, and that moving onto the cooperative happiness mentality is better, then people will just move on. Everybody has hurt someone, and there's no end to the number of people we could apologise too. I think growing is more productive than fixing, but fixing may sometimes be necessary.

Bjorn, Behaviour or action reflects only a tiny part of our potential.

In reality, action is a manifestation of three things: our potential, our current understanding, and the situation. What if you understood that life is complex? What if you saw more darkness than others do? You might look depressed, even though you are fundamentally optimistic. You might look self-absorbed when in fact you are trying to understand more deeply. It's hard to judge from appearances. There are a lot of sweet-talking fools out there. Ghandi is revered as a saint, but the partition of India caused the slaughter of over 200,000 people.

Your words do not reflect who you are. You even said action reflects understanding, so you have to get this clear. Does action reflect who you are or does action reflect your understanding?

People who say they are “beautiful essence” are deluded. They do not need to prove they are beautiful essence by changing their actions. They only have to remove the need to think, and say, they are beautiful essence. Then they can move on to understanding how life works for the benefit of all.

Martin Gifford.

Re: Perspectives on the Ego

Your words do not reflect who you are. You even said action reflects understanding, so you have to get this clear. Does action reflect who you are or does action reflect your understanding?

Our actions and words reveals our understanding of who we are really. Because it is only what translates into actual life that has any value. My potential is on the other hand infinte. But what you display now is how far you have come translating your understanding to real living.
This is not difficult to understand Martin, do you like to twist words just to keep a conversation going?

Fake smiles and the like reveals that: fake smiles. Wise words without action backing it up rings hollow.etc etc.

Re: Perspectives on the Ego

Bjorn, I'm not twisting words. It seems to me that I have just stopped you twisting words…

Now you are saying that action reflects understanding. That's true. So I hope you will stop spreading the illusion that action reflects who you are. And I hope you will be correcting others who spread the illusion that action reflects who you are. Will you inform Andrew Cohen about this latest development in cutting edge evolutionary enlightenment?

The motivation behind saying, “You are what you do” is to make people take responsibility for their actions, which is a good goal. But since the idea “You are what you do” is untrue, you will have to find a better way for making people take responsibility for their actions. The best way is to spread good information (e.g. “action reflects understanding”) rather than to spread illusions (e.g. “action reflects who you are”). If your potential is infinite, how can a few actions reflect who you are?

In order of importance, action reflects 1. the situation, 2. the quality of information available, 3. a tiny part of our potential. If the situation is bad, and the information we have is bad, then our actions will be bad. This does not imply that we are bad. We cannot judge the seedling on its violence in forcing its way through the soil. We should judge the seed by its potential to bear many flowers and fruits.

Martin Gifford.

Re: Perspectives on the Ego

Well it's not about judging as much as seeing things as they are. No need to say good or bad, your action and their result will be self-evident. It's not about being “good” or “bad” but to learn how we affect our situation. Then everything we do will comprise our understanding and our actions will reflect our humanity, meaning sometimes we will mess it up. Yes we can always say we are infinte potential and Absolute Self and it is very true but really that we ALL are to equal amount. Even to the point that we are One Being, non-separate One Mind and One Body. Now that is all well and fine but that's not how your mother sees you. Infinte potential sounds great in our integral enlightened ears but your mom knows who you really are. Ok, you might have moved on a bit, but the point is that what only really matters when appreciating who we are, is through our lives example. That's why I say our action reveals our understanding which reveals who we really are. That's a bit humbling isn't it? So you mean I can't identify with my infinite potential? Correct, because that's all it is; potential, not real (yet).


And by the way, I do not speak on behalf of Andrew. I'm not his student any more.

Re: Perspectives on the Ego

If nothing else, ego does fuel interesting debate. Keep it coming.

All the best,
Guest.

Re: Perspectives on the Ego

More on the subject of the ego:

Hi dee ho,

Martin, I appreciate your gentlemanly willingness to go into the lists with Bjorn.

Bjorn, I find it difficult to follow you.  I find your oft-repeated assertion that behavior, that action, follows understanding, to not be a reflection of my state of being.  I find your habit of making an answer out of a question such as “Perhaps you misunderstand me.  No?”  (to me in an earlier post) and more recently to Martin, “This is not difficult to understand Martin, do you like to twist words just to keep a conversation going? to be vexatious and annoying.  Its not that I misunderstand you Bjorn, its that I find you difficult to understand and the few times that I have, I find that I actually disagree with you.

To wit:  allow me to present my current, warts-and-all, state of beingness.

The image that I have used for some time (I know there is weakness here) to describe my beingness, is that of a bubble.  On the outside is the best-I-can-do  “look good” persona in any given moment.  Just like the skin of a soap bubble, it is shiny with viscid little rainbow swirls of mysterious beauty that hide the goods within.  Within the bubble is the universe of me, the “real” story of my life and modus operandi.  On one hand, I have powerful and resplendent intimations that this whole construct is an illusion, and on the other, my long-standing habit of being distracted by the illusion, has manifest a veritable rat's nest of character defects to which I remain bound to varying degrees.  Sometimes, my behavior is influenced by these character defects despite my intimations of perfection.

There are many of these little buggers.  Following is a list of 20 to name a few:  self pity, self importance, self condemnation, criticizing, negative thinking, vulgar immoral thoughts, insensitivity, procrastination, dishonesty, impatience, resentment, hate, enviousness, jealousy, laziness, lying, gossiping, selfishness, and fear.  (well, fear is really and emotion, self-centered fear then)

As I am provoked by action or conditions in the outside or inside world, first, always, a thought comes to mind.  I am at the defining juncture between evolution and devolution.  Always, the thought sponsors an emotion to rise.  Not so long ago, and before I had a clue, I always reacted (at the urging of my ego voice) to enjoy the certain safety of one or more of these character defects rather than spend one split second writhing in emotion.  Here's an example:

My thought:  Its been weeks since I called my father.  A fleeting shadow of guilt, shame, powerlessness, abandonment, less than, worthlessness, loneliness, and grief would just begin to rise before I reacted by slamming the door shut upon the emotions and grabbing for my little turd of the resentment character defect.  Ah, salvation! (This all in literally a split second.  So fast that the emotion had no time to register.) 

As I began to get-a-clue, one of the first insights was that these crap factors were in there in the first place.  Once realized, I could practice hanging on to the emotional state long enough to delay the character defect-oriented reaction.  This has improved to the point that I am now able to linger with the thought and the emotional state long enough to contemplate a RESPONSE rather than automatically grab for reaction.  For me, the state of reaction is tied to character defect.

As a defensive, ego-dependent victim/martyr survivor, my youth as well as most of my middle age had been characterized by the pure reactionary mode.  EVERTHING was life or death to me, inside.  I was clutched to my habits as if in the grip of a very powerful snake.  That is what led me to think that I might be suffering from the disease of egotism.  I felt like deep, suicidal shit on the inside, and handsome, competent, witty, and productive on the outside.  I realized that I was utterly powerless over this and my life had become totally unmanageable by me.  Something had to change or this snake was going to suffocate and swallow me.  I had always had a nascent sense of  “higherness” within though I had no relationship with this sense except to feel ashamed whenever it came to mind.  You can imagine what my habit might have been around the emotion of shame.

So, in the spirit of change, I came to believe that this higherness could restore me to sanity (for, I knew surely that my habit of doing the same thing over and over again while EXPECTING different results qualified me for the insane asylum) I decided to turn my will and my life over to this higherness.  In so doing, I have learned that acceptance is the key, that rigorous honesty can be practiced, that I can forgive myself for being such a schlub for so long, that I can forgive others for their trespasses, that I can fearlessly edit the lies and misrepresentations (nee illusions and bad info, Martin) out of my story and return to the fullness of faith thereby.

In conclusion, though my current potential for behavior and action is far better informed by more intimate contact with “higherness,” I am still inclined (as I have not been fully restored to sanity) to grab for one of my little turdlings when tempted to reaction

So, if you have followed thus far, thank you for your attention.  By the way, I am far more interested in how life is for you than in what you think of how life is for me.

In reverence,

Re: Perspectives on the Ego

I posted this over at the Water Cooler on the “loneliness of the 2nd tier” thread in response to a very interesting dialogue there.  I thought that it belonged here as well so here it is.

 

Rick

I deeply appreciate all that you have said and would love to just stray off-topic into the murky world of the differences between Hinduism and Bhuddism even though I have no great expertise in either.  That would be a dis-service to this thread.  Also, I would like to apologize to both you and Patrick for the misattribution regarding the archaic/mythic quote.  One of my character defects is carelessness, inattention to a certain kind of detail.

As to the issue of “separateness” between my humanity/beingness and the Source - God if you will:  the academic, student, sanyasin part of me has been educated (and backed up by significant personal experience) to accept that there is no functional difference.  It is just that, within the “fullness” there is a part of me (a big part) that is dominated by the illusion of separateness.  This, for me is that part of “mind” or “fullness” that seems to be located in the cerebral cortex and governed by the ego.

I have, perhaps, an over-simplified vision of the ego.  First, regarding the mythic/archaic roots of the ego:  I used to dismiss the Adam and Eve story as Mythic/Archaic babble - a take-this-on-faith (or else) rationale for Original Sin.  As a young, rebellious, resentful, attention/resentment-freak altar boy,  It all seemed preposterous to me.  Who, ME?  Original Sin!  No way!  I granted that there was a certain mystery there, but I just knew tghat the nightmare of institutional Catholicism had twisted it in some self-serving way.  And off I went, into my life, with a sense of having been poisoned by this hypocrisy.  My attitude became one of ”That, I know is wrong.”  I am going to have to figure this shit out for myself.”  My little boy ego must have been jumping up and down with glee.  I was totally in its hands from that moment on.

Ironically, after years of study and contemplation, I have learned how to drop my preconceptions on occasion, and return to reconsideration of my “founding” principles.  The going got pretty rough.  The Adam and Eve story is a cornerstone of western mythology.  What's funny is that, though my founding principle was that the A&E story was bunk, my intuition that the myth, the murky myth, might somehow reflect abiding reality.  It seemed apocryphal, substitutional, but also defensible at the same time.  It was as if some ancient wisdom, some unbroken thread from deep time, from deep space, from dimensions now no longer apparent, had been reduced to Gods and Goddesses, Archetypes, and their abundantly complicated interrelationships.  In my fullness, I just couldn't dismiss the possibility.

Take the whole phenomenon of UFO's for instance.  Either they are all part of this fantastically incomprehensible illusion under which all there is, is nothing, or there is a “something” a “thusness,” as you say, to it.  In my fullness, I sense the latter, that there is a “something” to it.  Admitting this possibility leads one immediately to the vastness.  200B suns in our galaxy.  We are so not alone.  We are a variously protected and exploited laboratory for genetic experiment and God knows what else.  There is no telling what fantastic things might have come and gone since the earth, a jot in the cosmos, first congealed 3-4 billion years ago.

So, do I believe that the Mytho/Archaic contains some crap?  Yes I do.  Do I believe that the Mytho/Archaic contains some threads to deep experience?  Yes I do.  I do not know the arena well enough to distinguish what is and what is not still relevant, but I suspect somehow, that the power and persistence of the A&E story, may be somehow authentic.

Its roots are in the meta-mythic (if you will allow that phrase.)  To me, as a contemplation, the meta-mythic may have been a time during the expansion of the universe when there was no grit, no hard reality.  No stars, no planets, no stuff - just energy cascading, expanding forward into nothingness.  Inside this energetic explosion, which began in sound (the Word) and, almost instantaneously evolved the light component, was the core intention of the Source.  One of my operating conclusions is that this core intention was Phi, the Golden Mean.

As this fantastically swift and percolating quantum field of profound and brilliant disorder spread forth the fractal Phi influenced the field with its message and vibration began to manifest.  Vibration is a marvelous beast.  It tends to order, to replicate, to complicate, and repeat itself.  A pattern, an evolving pattern, was established under the regime of Phi.  Now, assuming that this whole regime was really an expression of the unfathomable Source, then all that followed were, and have been, permutations of this Source.  I propose that the first vestiges of the myth of Heaven, were light beings, who explicated out of this developing structure of patterns.  These were the angels of the myth. Archangels were the first to appear, followed by tiers of evolving complexity explicating sub-orders of other angels. Imbedded in their pattern was an awareness of the Source. 

Who knows when this might have actually occurred?  It may have taken billions of years, or more, or less.  Yet, back to the meta-mythic, and the story that persists about this time in “heaven:” all was bliss, for a while.  As the complexity of evolution wore on, the angels may have come to wonder, what their purpose was.  What were they about?  How could they better reflect the glory of the Source and execute His will?  This basic question included in the fractal Phi:  to seek and emulate beauty is a possibility.  But how?  That answer was not immediately forthcoming.  So a fantastic debate ensued.  Angel against angel.  There was already a holoarchy in the pattern with the earlier emergence of the Archangels, so in the end, the angels turned to the Archangels for solution.  At that time, the Archangel Lucifer, shone with the most brilliance.  He became the mediator and solved the problem by suggesting that the angels return to pure bliss, that if there was ever to be a purpose, it would be shown to them in time.

This settled the debate and all would have been just fine except that Lucifer became corrupted by the adulation of the angels who revered him for solving the debate.  This, initiation of Lucifer's individuation was the moment, I propose, when the fractal Pi explicated from the quantum field.  Pi, 3.1416 is the organizing principle that leads to roundness, sphericity, and individuation - the egoic principle.

At this point perhaps, there was grit in the universe.  Sub-atomic particles with mass that had explicated out of the quantum field in the bath of ever-sophisticating vibrations.  Without the organizing principle of Pi, there would be no pattern of rotational energy, no traction for accumulation of mass, no organizing tool for gravity to exploit.  (gravity is a bitch.  No one knows how it operates.  It is thought that the conjectured Higgs-boson sub-atomic particle somehow carries “gravity” with it.  But no one has ever seen one.  It only theoretically exists.  There is a new super-collider about to come on line in Europe that is supposed to be powerful enough to generate one of these Higgs-Bosons, but we have to wait for that.)

So, back to roundness, individuation, the egoic and the birth of stars and galaxies:  at first, perhaps, it was just gravity, the infinitesimally weak, but apparent attraction of one particle for another.  A common center in a cloud of sub-atomics was established and slowly, movement towards the center began.  Over time the star was born, lived, generated new materials within, exploded, recycled, exploded again and again and again, generating more and more of the stuff of matter.  With the organizing principle of Pi, and the engine of gravity, rotation evolved and the galaxies began to form. 

In the center of the most common (by far) type of galaxy there are unseen, but highly evidenced black holes.  This is quintessential contraction.  Contraction is an inescapable characteristic of the ego.  Within my “fullness” I experience periods of this contraction.  In the old days, fully identified with the ego, and unable to see anything else, I would spiral into the black hole of egoic contraction and be consumed in the torrent there.  On the other side, unaware of any other possible outcome, I would reassemble myself in the exact fashion (sphericity) as before and go through the process again.  This is the insanity of addiction to ego - a luciferic dilemma.

I have grown to include in my fullness, a consideration that I must learn to cooperate with the ego when on the event horizon of a contraction.  I must remind myself to not fight the contraction, to not fight the spherical ego, but to cooperate with the contraction, to remind myself that cooperation is far more important to evolution (mine) and to allow myself to be drawn within, to the source again, allowing myself to be transformed by the journey.  Surrendering to an egoic contraction can only be conducted safely if I keep in mind this cooperation.  Spheres do not cooperate well under stress.  Contraction is stressful.  Another shape must be envisioned and identified with - a shape that is designed to cooperate and actually comes to its apotheosis under such conditions as the black hole of an egoic contraction.

An explanation of this shape, and how it operates in the personal and universal sense is on topic here as it refers to ego, but it is a necessarily long-winded story.  I have already taken up enough time on the stage for now, and before I go, I want to thank my readers from the bottom of my heart for your sustained attention.  I cherish this attention.  It is the engine whereby I can, for the first time in my life, put this all together in one essay. 

Thank you again, for allowing me this opportunity.  In particular, I want to thank the leaders, the stewards, and the wits of this Pod for their dedication and good cheer.  I prostrate myself before you.

Namaste,

Michael

Re: Perspectives on the Ego

Hi Michael,
Bjorn, I find it difficult to follow you.  I find your oft-repeated assertion that behavior, that action, follows understanding, to not be a reflection of my state of being. 

I will try to elucidate. When I use the word understanding I try to convey our fullest range of where we have evolved to. All that we have learned and integrated in our lives. All “good” things as well as all “bad” ego habits/reactions. People who “know” you will be able to see your change and progress or lack thereof. To the extent we have penetrated, integrated, become free from, understood, our life, we will manifest in words, actions and life choices.
So for me, understanding is just a measure how far we've come. Not understanding this or that particular thing, but a understanding that covers your whole existence.

Maybe it's a bit simplistic but that's how I like to keep it. It makes it straight forward to me.
Still I do appreciate your exploration and I do that to some extent too but when I sum up I try to be as simple as possible. But that's just me.

I apologize for being stroppy at times.

Re: Perspectives on the Ego

I would like to tell you of some interesting experiences I recently had regarding ego (the spiritual definition, not the organizing principle that psychologists refer to). Recently I started taking my meditation practice more seriously; instead of always believing the subtle or not so subtle assumption that I could have done better that particular hour, I stopped making any distinctions and radically held off on any judgment regarding my experience or attainment.

I found that very enlightening, I started to see thought for what it is; thought, and as a result began to see the ego in myself as the belief in though or in a thought. It doesn't sound like much, but I felt blasted because the creative care that emerges every time I simply face my attachment to, or belief in thoughts and feelings, is nothing short of a miracle, I find. I noticed that one can know all there is to know about ego in the theoretical sense and still be completely imprisoned by it. But since we interpret our experience through the ego's perspective it doesn't seem so bad, I found it is only after seeing beyond this that spending time in this two dimensional, compulsive relationship to thought becomes unbearable, and that the suffering we cause to others from that place is experienced as our own suffering.

Arjan

Re: Perspectives on the Ego

Bjorn,

I agree that we should be learning how we affect our situation. I agree that the way we live our lives is what really matters to us as humans here on Earth.

I do not say I am “Absolute Self”. I say, “I am my infinite (in number; not size) potential.” That is irrefutable. I do not know about “Absolute Self” which sounds like a grandiose interpretation of experience.

I do not care about how my mother sees me. Unfortunately, she lacks understanding. How my mother sees me says everything about her lack of understanding and nothing about me. No, my mum does not know who I am. (BTW, does Andrew Cohen's mum know who he really is? ;))

Oh no, you've changed your mind again! Now you are saying our understanding reaveals who we are. That is untrue. Our understanding reveals only the information that is readily available to us. What is readily available to us depends on the situation and our current ability to absorb the information in that form.

What is this point about “humbling” that you keep referring to? The idea that our understanding reveals who we are does is not humbling for me, because untruth is not humbling. I don't care about being humbled or not. I'm only interested in the truth.

Our understanding and our illusion allow only a tiny part of who we are (our potential) to be revealed.

I do not identify with my infinite potential. I'm not a new age flake who thinks he's wonderful because he has infinite potential. It's just that if you ask me “Who are you?” I answer with true information. If you don't ask me, then I forget about it.

Martin Gifford.