Your interpretation of the purpose of the ego?

[Simon Zackrisson]

In short: The title is enough information needed to respond (+ We're talking here about a model in which the ego has legitimate existence, and is not used in order to explain opposite through negation)

 

-

 

I was dabbling in some analytical thought, and found myself struck with confusion at the oddness that the ego should be regarded as "false". It seems so god damn obvious that "I" exist. This is probably rather cliché of course, which means that we can most likely expect people to have a lot of different takes. Which could be interesting.

I'm aware that this perspective might turn out to be kind of a logical slippery slope. That is, because the more I try to wrap my head around it, the more my desired understanding seems to go out of the window. There are a lot of objections as to why this model should be accurate. The perception of what one calls "ego" could simply just be illusory dogma. But if we examine this model, I'm curious of what could be carved out through discussion.

Obviously, the one and only answer is that consciousness grew tired of being in enlightened freeform constantly. So, lets play a psychotic game with oneself of hide and seek.

Simple. 
Nah.
This is awfully confusing.

 

Anyway, I do hope I succeeded in making this subtle initial feeling I had decently manageable to understand.  If I failed miserably, let me know. (Preferably with suggestions of improvement). I invite clarifications of where my logical line failed warmly.

 

So. 

What are your thoughts about the purpose of ego?

Edited February 5, 2016 by Simon Zackrisson
Grammar.

[Ayla]

Define Ego ?

[Simon Zackrisson]

1 minute ago, MaydayB4 said:

Define Ego ?

Was kinda thinking the "standard" definition? 
I like Leo's clear way of putting it: Who is it that is nodding their head now? 

[Guest]

where i'm at now i just view it as a point of reference to relate to the phenomena of the world, i think. I really dont know for sure lol 

[Ayla]

The confusion comes from your attempt to cut the knife with the same knife

Your "heart" (the enlightenment) will clearly let you see and understand that "Ego" is an illusion. This is exactly what Leo tries to explain in his enlightenment videos and is clearly stating that this is something that needs to be personally experienced. Now illusions do appear and disappear (as does human body and mind) but what is real and true does not.

If you are asking why we appear within this particular form, why does consciousness do this? The best way I can describe it from my own enlightenment experience, is that IT needs mirrors to see aspects and facets of itself. If you think of consciousness as being a pair of eyes, it chooses to sprout different kinds of mirrors as to know, understand, play, experiment..

That is only my own mirror  

[nbolt]

I just view it as a biological mechanism developed by evolution that is necessary for us to survive the first few years of our life, and becomes so ingrained that it just sticks with us.

[Simon Zackrisson]

1 minute ago, MaydayB4 said:

The confusion comes from your attempt to cut the knife with the same knife

Your "heart" (the enlightenment) will clearly let you see and understand that "Ego" is an illusion. This is exactly what Leo tries to explain in his enlightenment videos and is clearly stating that this is something that needs to be personally experienced. Now illusions do appear and disappear (as does human body and mind) but what is real and true does not.

If you are asking why we appear within this particular form, why does consciousness do this? The best way I can describe it from my own enlightenment experience, is that IT needs mirrors to see aspects and facets of itself. If you think of consciousness as being a pair of eyes, it chooses to sprout different kinds of mirrors as to know, understand, play, experiment..

That is only my own mirror  

Just read it through fast, instant intuition: Beautiful.

Now, on with the analysing of what you said.

[Simon Zackrisson]

6 minutes ago, Neill Bolton said:

I just view it as a biological mechanism developed by evolution that is necessary for us to survive the first few years of our life, and becomes so ingrained that it just sticks with us.

Cool.
Would you say that you identify more as a human-being, or as the universe experiencing itself as a human-being?
I'll be honest and say that at the moment, I feel like a human-being trying to understand something.
Although I'd be lying if I didn't say I feel a little something in the background ..

Edited February 5, 2016 by Simon Zackrisson
Typo

[nbolt]

I feel like the former trying to understand the latter

[Ayla]

That something in the background, THAT ONE needs to be identified. Unfortunately, IT cannot be studied, described, quantified through "human" logic, words, images. That is one of the traps of New-Age movement. Pushing / pulling at a truth that does not abide by human rules.

I only identify with practical things for the moment so that I can properly function on earth. (cutting bread, typing on keyboard...). I don't have any more "existential" questions lately, because anything that one thinks can be reversed by another, thus, cannot be real. I just simply AM 

[Simon Zackrisson]

Just now, MaydayB4 said:

That something in the background, THAT ONE needs to be identified. Unfortunately, IT cannot be studied, described, quantified through "human" logic, words, images. That is one of the traps of New-Age movement. Pushing / pulling at a truth that does not abide by human rules.

I only identify with practical things for the moment so that I can properly function on earth. (cutting bread, typing on keyboard...). I don't have any more "existential" questions lately, because anything that one thinks can be reversed by another, thus, cannot be real. I just simply AM 

Namaste. (I don't feel pretentious at the moment actually.)

Although, I'm sure my critical thinking will kick in again and again in this field for me.

I wonder if there is such a thing as enlightenment, with a side of balanced critical thinking.

[Lord God]

My interpretation of the Ego would be as follows.

If you read through P.D. Ouspensky's "The Psychology of Man's Possible Evolution" he proposes a distinction between essence and personality. Essence being what you are actually made of and the personality being your flavor at the moment or the current "I" that you refer to as yourself. The problem with the ego/personality and where it is important to recognize it's illusory state is that the ego is masquerading as the essence, and one cannot know their essence when they believe falsely that the personality is the essence.

The reason the personality illusion is so persistent it it has drawn lines from one moment to another, or one "I" to the next creating this tapestry of a self that doesn't really exist. You can get in touch with this in a number of ways, certainly you are aware that your personality has been shaped by cultural or deep emotional moments in your life? Well if you consider that any intellectually compelling, or emotionally intense moment can leave an impression on the personality, the personality can be considered a summation of these moments. That being said the "I" who is good at math, and the "I" who is functioning on a date with my girlfriend are actually not the same "I" at all. It is the memory of both of these "I"s in this moment gives the impression that they are a strung together set all describing the personality or ego "me". What if I had never learned mathematics in the first place? Or never had an intense break up? Surely "me" as "I" am now would be a completely different being? If you can follow that then you can see personality is temporary and morphic, and that which is temporary is not truly the essence of one's self.

So what use does "me" have if it doesn't truly exist, and is not the truth of one's being? For that I turn to Ford's book "Becoming God" in which he uses the Freudian model of Ego, Id, and Superconciousness to lavishly explain how one can alter life at an instant if they so choose. I will change the model a bit and go with Leo's proposed model of conceptualization which I believe is in Spritual Enlightenment Pt.2. If the superconciousness can be taken as the numinal thing, and the ID as perceptions, then the ego would certainly be concepts. The purpose of being a concept is to ask the question "How does this relate to me?", and thereby move the wheel forward flowing information from Numina to perception to conceptualizing it and learning more about one's own nature, about what one can become, and what one finds pleasant or wishes to avoid.

The ego or personality is a very important part of any life, it simply isn't the permanent "I" that we believe it is. In it's correct position and understanding of it's nature the ego allows us to experience a very beautiful fairy tale which in turn teaches us more about ourselves and what we wish to become.

I would go further but I feel this is already an overwhelming amount of information, hope it helps someone get an insight.

Truly

Z

(Bear in mind I have paraphrased things from books, and added "my" own take on them. Don't take any of the opinions or text as the author's intended information. I simply like to source where certain insights came from.)
 

 

[Avi]

11 minutes ago, Zotikos said:

That being said the "I" who is good at math, and the "I" who is functioning on a date with my girlfriend are actually not the same "I" at all. It is the memory of both of these "I"s in this moment gives the impression that they are a strung together set all describing the personality or ego "me". What if I had never learned mathematics in the first place? Or never had an intense break up? Surely "me" as "I" am now would be a completely different being? If you can follow that then you can see personality is temporary and morphic, and that which is temporary is not truly the essence of one's self.

 

This is a great way of putting it. I want to add on to this. Every second that passes by we change. Obviously you can't tell, but over time you can see. We are not the same person and we will not be the same person in the future. But it's not about change in ourselves. We can't define ourselves by our actions, thoughts, and beliefs because those are all external and/or conceptual to us. The real being lies underneath all of that. Key point: Our society tells us that our actions, thoughts, and beliefs = who I am. Not true because our society isn't real either. It's all  made up.

Definition of ego: All your past actions, thoughts, and beliefs pilled into one's mind so that the mind can go back and say "hey, this is me!"   

[Leo Gura]

From an evolutionary perspective, think about this: how can one piece of reality sustain itself and replicate itself within the larger reality if it doesn't make a distinction between itself and another? How can it last or survive without giving itself preferential treatment at the cost of the environment? Not possible!

Fundamentally ego is a distinction. It's the self/other distinction. As soon as a being says, "I am this and not that" at least some primitive form of ego arises. The mind has partitioned reality like the diskspace on your harddrive. In reality, the entire harddrive is one giant unified diskspace. But software can "partition" it by adding labels and calling one part Drive C, another part Drive E, another part Drive Y. But all of that is ultimately a mind game.

[Simon Zackrisson]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

From an evolutionary perspective, think about this: how can one piece of reality sustain itself and replicate itself within the larger reality if it doesn't make a distinction between itself and other? How can it last or survive without giving itself preferential treatment at the cost of the environment? Not possible!

Fundamentally ego is a distinction. It's the self/other distinction. As soon as a being says, "I am this and not that." At least some primitive form of ego arises. The mind has partitioned reality like the diskspace on your harddrive. In reality, the entire harddrive is one giant unified diskspace. But software can "partition" it by adding labels and calling one part Drive C, another part Drive E, another part Drive Y. But all of that is ultimately a mind game.

Is the calm feeling one gets from considering this possibility a lie, not the goal, not helpful?
Mental masturbation.

Meditation high.

[Simon Zackrisson]

3 minutes ago, Simon Zackrisson said:

Is the calm feeling one gets from considering this possibility a lie, not the goal, not helpful?
Mental masturbation.

Meditation high.

To make it clear: It's not that I'm thinking actively about this and feel good about it.

More like a silence of bliss that follows when giving this perspective a chance.

[Leo Gura]

Calm feelings will come and go. They are not ultimate Truth. Don't pay too much attention to them. If your goal is enlightenment, the goal is what's true, not feelings or ideas.

Always bring your focus back to the inquiry: Who is feeling calm? Who is asking questions? Who is confused?

[Simon Zackrisson]

12 hours ago, Zotikos said:

If you can follow that then you can see personality is temporary and morphic, and that which is temporary is not truly the essence of one's self.

Beautiful. 

Interesting thoughts, I'm not sure I've spent enough brainpower on deeply understanding the separation of Ego, Id, and Superconsciousness.

 

12 hours ago, Avi said:

Every second that passes by we change. Obviously you can't tell, but over time you can see. We are not the same person and we will not be the same person in the future.

Makes me think of a computer reading a disk.

It seems like consciousness, and where the true self resides, is in the force that is reading, and not what is being read.

[Juan Cruz Giusto]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

ICalm feelings will come and go. They are not ultimate Truth. Don't pay too much attention to them. If your goal is enlightenment, the goal is what's true, not feelings or ideas.

Always bring your focus back to the inquiry: Who is feeling calm? Who is asking questions? Who is confused?

It's impressive how, even enlightenment is the same phenomenon for everyone, people feel it differently. "What is enlightenment, no, I mean really, like what is it? by Steven Norquist" show enlightenment and truth very nihilistic (just like Jed McKenna). I wonder why people like Tolle or Wilber show a different type of feeling regarding enlightnement.

[Ayla]

I actually don't think enlightenment is felt differently but because it is the only thing that cannot be expressed in human terms (it being all BUT that) - each "master" is expressing it through his/her own lens in order to manage to convey to others the actual feeling of it. 

Another facet of it that I felt deeply the last few months, is that there's quite the marketing campaign surrounding last century's "masters". So might just be that a single truth...but one that needs to sell...must be expressed differently. Otherwise we'd have the same book published by 100 different authors