Simplified Defintion of Ego

[Ryan Rudolph]

I read a fairly decent simplified definition of ego as simply “identification with form - the interconnected web of physical, cognitive and emotional forms.

Any thoughts?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And here’s some spiritual humor as a bonus -

Two souls are standing in line waiting to be thrust into earth through the bodies of infants (I don’t actually believe this, but bare with me) when one suddenly says to the other…

Soul1: you know, this whole sentience thing isn’t what it’s cracked up to be…

Soul2: what do you mean?

Soul1: well, there’s a rumor going around that we are going to enter this planet earth irrational from the outset, meaning we will be born with an emotional ego that is driven to identify with different finite forms. And this madness will follow us for most of our lives, and most of us will die without ever resolving the suffering and confusion that goes along with having an ego that is attached to form.

Soul2: (he looks horrified for a second, but then quickly recovers, he steps out of the line) umm, then why don’t you go first friend?

[maestro]

I read a fairly decent simplified definition of ego as simply “identification with form - the interconnected web of physical, cognitive and emotional forms.
Any thoughts?

But it (implicitly) posits as if there were a central entity that identifies.

My definition

Ego: Belief in a central controller of the body/mind.

This does not posit a central entity that believes, belief is taken as a state of the mind/body complex.

I also think that your definition can be refined as follows:

Perpetual attachment to the interconnected web of physical, cognitive and emotional forms.

Upon closer inspection though attachment is sustained through feedback. A more precise definition is:

Strong feedback loops in the interconnected web of physical, cognitive and emotional forms.

But this is an effect of the belief (ego), and not the ego itself.

[Carl G]

And here’s some spiritual humor as a bonus -

Two souls are standing in line waiting to be thrust into earth through the bodies of infants (I don’t actually believe this, but bare with me)

Bare with you, funny! I get it, bare our souls! Good one!

[Ryan Rudolph]

Maestro,

Ego: Belief in a central controller of the body/mind.

But I’m not sure if belief is the right word, as I’m not sure people believe in an “I” directly, they more buy into all the thought structures that give the impression of the “I” They are like dreamers who do not know they are dreaming, but believe the dream is real, dream being involuntary thought patterns rooted in a strong outside identification with certain forms, whether it be people, places, ideas or other things.

Carl,

Bare with you, funny! I get it, bare our souls! Good one!

How about 'I" bareback your wife Carl, and then ejaculate inside her in one unconscious power thrust, while fantasizing about allowing you to raise the kid as your own? There’s a good one! Oops, how crass and cheeky of me, how unenlightened…

[Loki]

Ryan, I like how you oscillated from very light-dry humor to very...shall we say...dark-wet.

Do you do this because you are a Sage, or because you are not yet a Sage?

[Ryan Rudolph]

Loki,

Do you do this because you are a Sage, or because you are not yet a Sage?

I enjoy exposing some of the darker aspects of the human experience, and I think to be a open philosopher, one should explore areas of thinking and expression that maybe considered off limits, or just plain vulgar to people. Cultured people generally believe that to express vulgar thoughts and ideas is always of a lower order, but it depends on how it is done. Vulgarity can be expressed as a lesson to the reader, as exposing the darker parts of the human mind.

A sage has awareness, and a sage uses that awareness to expose the unconscious parts of his thinking because his thinking is mankind's thinking. He can do it in a variety of ways, which in turn can be interpreted in a variety of ways.

[Sapius]

Ryan: I read a fairly decent simplified definition of ego as simply “identification with form - the interconnected web of physical, cognitive and emotional forms.

Couldn’t it simply mean a ‘sense of “I” (as in a felt sense of “self’)? BTW, which seems absolutely necessary, way before any cognitive identification with form takes place. What exactly is an ‘emotional form’ though?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I read a fairly decent simplified definition of ego as simply “identification with form - the interconnected web of physical, cognitive and emotional forms.

Any thoughts?

It's not bad at all.

But why would Maestro think "identification" would imply an identifier but a 'belief' would not imply a believer even more strongly?

Ego as belief in some loosely centralized identity doesn't seem to describe the whole picture in terms of possible functionality. But I do like "strong feedback loops in the interconnected web of physical, cognitive and emotional forms". This feedback could also be described as 'self-image', a form-thought that is a low form thought-visualization, a conceptual unit that serves as model for the sum of all our interactions.

In control theory the description of how dynamic systems, or sensors, need feedback loops to be able to be become balanced or tuned can give some insight on a basic level without the need to delve too deep into consciousness studies or AI research right now.

The moment the awareness is there that decisions are being made - taken, after evaluation, no matter if by many subconscious distributed centers or not, there can be value in reaffirming or acknowledging this power to evaluate: there's trust assigned, status given to this ability to respond through mental deliberation. The way to assign sufficient internal status might be to create some self-image, a mini-me that although illusive can like a carrot lead the donkey to more deliberation.

Following this reasoning the self serves purely as belief and this belief changes our behavior. Like a primitive being fears a God in the Sky will punish him. A more modern but similar belief is that we have 'selves' that can will. It's just another trick to develop proper orientation to kick-start behavioral changes, to enhance the capacity for introspection basically.

This is not yet touching the topic of how ego, or a belief in it, can become a major problem for our reasoning as well or why many spiritual teachings suggest we should overcome it without loosing our ability to think and focus.

[maestro]

But why would Maestro think "identification" would imply an identifier but a 'belief' would not imply a believer even more strongly?

Identification with something seems to me to imply an identity, while belief (or knowledge) is an overlay on reality by the mind. It is simply the way it (mind) functions, no believer need be implied.

Ego as belief in some loosely centralized identity doesn't seem to describe the whole picture in terms of possible functionality.

But I’m not sure if belief is the right word, as I’m not sure people believe in an “I” directly

I am puzzled by these statements. From what I see, belief in the self is very strong, and it is not even hidden, everyone believes that the self exists as a decision making agent and as the driver of the body/mind.

[skipair]

I see the ego as attachments - the ideas we linger on, rocking us back and forth between heaven and hell, and which make up our false self. I suppose the real self wouldn't be localized. It would just be everything.

Recently I've been trying to use my imagination to make corrections in my thinking as I move along. For instance, I might find myself moving down a thought-path that I know is ridiculous, useless, or false. So I'll imagine what my Dad would look like when I know he's doing the same thing. Then it's easier to see it in myself and stop. Then it's onto the next thought!

The question is, what do I know that allows me to make corrections at all? I've burrowed to some level of understanding, but there are still unanswered questions. I wonder how well I will be able to make corrections with only a partial understanding. Probably partially well. Work to do!

[Ryan Rudolph]

Maestro,

From what I see, belief in the self is very strong, and it is not even hidden, everyone believes that the self exists as a decision making agent and as the driver of the body/mind.

it seems to me that the word belief implies a little bit of thought, even if it is emotionally driven. For example: A Christian can give many emotionally driven reasons for their belief in god, which illustrates they attempted to reason through it in some limited capacity. Yet, these same thinkers never question the nature of the ego, the ego is an unchallenged assumption that is never thought about, how can we call that a belief?

[Pye]

Here is your simplified definition of ego: one's sense of self. Even the most conscious amongst us knows this does not "go away." It becomes . . . adjusted. Perhaps even compressed, as has been said - from the interfering opacity of black coal to the transparent clarity of diamond - one can see through its workings at all times. But one never gets rid of its sense of self, even if it shall seek to disperse itself into all. It simply becomes all, then.

What you want to work on here is a definition of ego that has the pejorative association/value judgment built-in. Well alright. But it won't be "simple." You want to name a kind of ego, a type, a state, but one errs entirely in thinking they can get rid of it overall.

[maestro]

Here is your simplified definition of ego: one's sense of self. Even the most conscious amongst us knows this does not "go away." It becomes . . . adjusted.

Perhaps a better definition is "The sense of self". One's sense of self is kind of problematic due to the
'one'.

[David Quinn]

Some good responses. Egotism can be summed up as a lack of objectivity in one's thoughts and actions, or a lack of awareness of the largest possible perspective. This is even more fundamental than having or not having a sense of self.

Identifying with particular forms and becoming attached to them is a natural consequence of this lack of objectivity.

-

[Ryan Rudolph]

To add to what David has said, one knows the ego is present in thought and action if there is any degree of emotional pain, emotional pain caused by falsely identifying and becoming addicted to any type of form.

[skipair]

A poison has entered my life, and I feel weak. The spotlight shines and my face contorts, no longer being able to take pleasure in what are now lies. People know I disgust them, but I pretend in vain to love them like a normal person would.

I hate myself for my weakness and lies. I hate my fake smile, my false stride, my shallow breath, and the vision of myself through the judgmental eyes of another. Where is my real self?

An old man and woman walk down the street toward me. Poison shoots from my eyes and drenches their souls, and they look at me with hatred. A pretty girl walks behind them, and I'm reminded that I must be the one who doesn't need her attention. But I do, and so I hate my weakness.

And if there is one thing I hate more than anything, it can be summed up as compromise. I fucking HATE compromise. So, please, heavenly father who art in heaven, give me the strength I need to conquer my fear, to throw off this shadow, to be naked before the world. Because I'm starting to get really sick of this shit.

Amen.

[David Quinn]

Are you still in Australia?

-

[skipair]

Yeah, I'm in Innisfail working banana farms. Going on a road trip with some Frenchies and in a few weeks will be in Brisbane. I'll drop you a note then and stop by for a chat if you're around.

[Shahrazad]

Don't forget to drop Dan a note when in Brisbane.

[David Quinn]

Yeah, I'm in Innisfail working banana farms. Going on a road trip with some Frenchies and in a few weeks will be in Brisbane. I'll drop you a note then and stop by for a chat if you're around.

No problem.

-

[Sapius]

David: Egotism can be summed up as a lack of objectivity in one's thoughts and actions, or a lack of awareness of the largest possible perspective. This is even more fundamental than having or not having a sense of self.

Quite reasonable, but I think that describes a self-based lack of understanding or realization. Even in denying the sense of self, one necessary requires a sense of self. As far as I can see, any perspective, largest possible or the least, requires a sense of self to begin with.

Identifying with particular forms and becoming attached to them is a natural consequence of this lack of objectivity.

I would call that a false sense of self, say false-ego, but a sense of self remains however.

[David Quinn]

David: Egotism can be summed up as a lack of objectivity in one's thoughts and actions, or a lack of awareness of the largest possible perspective. This is even more fundamental than having or not having a sense of self.

Quite reasonable, but I think that describes a self-based lack of understanding or realization. Even in denying the sense of self, one necessary requires a sense of self. As far as I can see, any perspective, largest possible or the least, requires a sense of self to begin with.

True, any properly-functioning human being will have a sense of self, regardless of whether he is a buddha or not. So that's not the issue. The issue is whether one is able to deal with one's self truthfully.

-

[Sapius]

David: Egotism can be summed up as a lack of objectivity in one's thoughts and actions, or a lack of awareness of the largest possible perspective. This is even more fundamental than having or not having a sense of self.

Quite reasonable, but I think that describes a self-based lack of understanding or realization. Even in denying the sense of self, one necessary requires a sense of self. As far as I can see, any perspective, largest possible or the least, requires a sense of self to begin with.

True, any properly-functioning human being will have a sense of self, regardless of whether he is a buddha or not. So that's not the issue. The issue is whether one is able to deal with one's self truthfully.

-

Yes, I know that is the issue that always bothers you, but I was looking at the “more fundamental” part in you statement. To become a Buddha or not is a different issue as I see it. I take it you do “function properly” regardless of being a Buddha, so Buddha or not, a sense of self seems a tiny bit more fundamental, and the sense of self is none other than that sense of "I" against all that it is not, and could not disappear even for the Buddha... does it?

[David Quinn]

True, any properly-functioning human being will have a sense of self, regardless of whether he is a buddha or not. So that's not the issue. The issue is whether one is able to deal with one's self truthfully.

Yes, I know that is the issue that always bothers you, but I was looking at the “more fundamental” part in you statement. To become a Buddha or not is a different issue as I see it. I take it you do “function properly” regardless of being a Buddha, so Buddha or not, a sense of self seems a tiny bit more fundamental, and the sense of self is none other than that sense of "I" against all that it is not, and could not disappear even for the Buddha... does it?

Not while he remains conscious. He still experiences it, but he no longer believes in it. He treats it as a tool, if you like. In this way, his functioning is no longer impeded by the kinds of fears and emotional dramas that affect everyone else.

He also becomes a "tool" in most other people's eyes as well. :)

-

[Sapius]

David: Not while he remains conscious

Heheehee.... but of course... I thought I had made that clear.