Posts by feralranger

Ethan Gomez82 said:On that point, we are living in an extraordinary era. In all of human history, there has never been a period with a lower rate of violent death. Never, and nowhere.

If one insists on looking through an extremely narrow temporal lens, someone might have made that exact same argument back in 1900—though they would have been promptly corrected by two World Wars and the eventual detonation of two atomic bombs. In reality, the 20th century was the most violent century in the entire history of mankind, and the 21st is still in its infancy... having kicked things off with Obama receiving a Nobel Peace Prize only to systematically ignite conflicts stretching from North Africa to the Middle East... so, personally, given the current global hotspots and the dubious track record of today's so-called "peacemakers," I would be exceedingly cautious about making such sweeping declarations...

Roger Kern16 said:If my memory serves me right, you argued something pretty similar regarding college education once before.

For me, personally, it’s about doing things I actually care about and find meaningful, even if it means dealing with financial instability. I won't rule out the possibility of changing my mind in a few years, but this dirty little game I keep running into is something I've never quite figured out how to handle... The Ultimate Goal isn't to conquer the world, it's just finding that sweet spot between what I love and whatever keeps the lights on. 😁

I highly doubt I ever claimed anything remotely 'similar.' Back when I was actually in a position to hire people, I found it far more vital to prioritize actual competence over a mere diploma held by someone lacking any real expertise—and believe me, those individuals are everywhere. It’s quite simple logic, really: if an individual possesses a degree but lacks the underlying knowledge, they are essentially useless in any practical context; and if they lack intelligence to boot, their future prospects are practically non-existent. You might have been aiming for a parallel there, but I fail to see the connection to this discussion.

Roger Kern16 said:If my memory serves me right, you argued something pretty similar regarding college education once before.

For me, personally, it’s about doing things I actually care about and find meaningful, even if it means dealing with financial instability. I won't rule out the possibility of changing my mind in a few years, but this dirty little game I keep running into is something I've never quite figured out how to handle... The Ultimate Goal isn't to conquer the world, it's just finding that sweet spot between what I love and whatever keeps the lights on. 😁

...well, that is perfectly acceptable...

My critique was specifically directed at that fixation on "becoming famous," which I find entirely hollow; therefore, I suspect the original poster hasn't lost anything of value by moving away from it—if she has indeed lost anything at all—but has instead gained something significant...

Harold Wilson5 said:I’m not quite sure where to begin this story.

Ever since I was a kid, I’ve always been ahead of the curve. School was honestly too easy for me—even through high school—so I would breeze through with straight A's without much effort. To keep things interesting and feed my ambition, I’d constantly push myself by entering competitions and taking on extra extracurricular activities.
Eventually, I decided to pursue a demanding university degree that would finally offer a real challenge and set the stage for a solid career path.
Back then, I had this clear vision of myself as a high-powered executive or running my own company.

Everything changed during my college years when my brother passed away suddenly. That was the turning point for me.
It was almost like a sudden realization hit me: so many things in life just aren't worth the stress. For instance, I stopped feeling guilty about postponing an exam or even failing one if I felt like it.
Even so, I managed to graduate on time and landed a great job.

At the same time, while we were always close, I found myself growing even closer to my parents. They mean the world to me, and now, I have a wonderful husband and our family life is incredibly harmonious.

Now, after five years on the job, I’m feeling something I’ve never felt before: complete burnout. Even though my job is dynamic and actually pretty cool, I feel like there just aren't enough hours in the day to enjoy my own life.
I suppose it’s a combination of
- the fact that nothing feels challenging enough anymore. I work way faster than my colleagues, so I'm left with a choice: either pull a double workload for the same pay, or spend half my shift surfing the web or reading, which eventually gets boring.
- my brother's passing and the realization that my happiest moments are spent with family and friends. Now, those eight hours at the office—plus the hour or so I spend commuting—feel like wasted time.
- the fact that my husband and I managed to get ahead of our finances early on, especially regarding our housing situation, so I don't have that crushing financial pressure forcing me to stay.
- the age gap at work; most of my colleagues are much older, so there isn't really any social buzz or grabbing drinks after work—it's just strictly showing up for eight hours and leaving.
- watching the bosses and owners grind for ten or more hours every single day, living in constant stress over monthly targets.

I caught myself thinking the other day that by my late thirties or early forties, I’d much rather work just four hours a day at a relaxed pace, maybe something remote, or even just retire early to focus on being present for my family, future children, and friends.
I honestly have no idea where that ambitious girl went—the one who wanted to be number one and a leader in her field.

I don't know what I want from this thread. Maybe I just need to vent, or perhaps I want to see if others have gone through this. Was this just a phase for you, or did it stick?

If I may venture an opinion, I would argue that you have simply evolved in a rather positive direction. This obsession with careerism is typically just a symptom of internal emptiness; someone whose primary objective is merely to "be famous" shares the exact same aim as those desperate enough to audition for some mindless Big Brother house. Though, if we are being honest, one might even suggest that the contestant on CNN is slightly more intelligent, given they actually found a functional shortcut to achieve that same hollow goal of notoriety.

Gregory Carter67 said:Honestly, it’s just semantics. Call it what you want, but little kids (more often than not) get jealous.

Newborns? I fail to see how jealousy could possibly have anything to do with them.

Small children certainly haven't developed a fully formed ego yet; rather, the ego begins to manifest at a certain stage of development... so, it’s a bit of a stretch to suggest a toddler possesses a cohesive personality... that sense of 'self,' the ego, or any actual persona, is something that takes years of growth to actually establish.

Gregory Carter67 said:Generally speaking, yeah, that's true. Though, let's be real—little kids still deal with jealousy, so you can't say they have zero ego. It's just a work in progress. They have whatever level of ego has developed for their age. Some people just get stuck at that developmental stage—usually due to how they were raised or their social environment—and end up staying jealous and codependent for life.

Infants, for instance, haven't yet developed a functional ego—meaning self-awareness or a distinct personality—much like those with severe cognitive impairments. A true ego is the province of healthy adults, whereas in children, it is a structure that assembles itself gradually over time.

The ego can be defined as:

1. In psychoanalytic terms, it is the component of the personality structure that mediates with reality, maintaining a delicate equilibrium between our primal impulses (the id) and our internalized moral standards (the super-ego); it serves as the cognitive and perceptual layer of consciousness, encompassing memory, decision-making, and more.

2. The individual as a whole entity, fully aware of their own existence and asserting their uniqueness in relation to other people, their environment, and the world around them; essentially, the self, the persona, or the core personality.

Gregory Carter67 said:I get the definitions just fine. I was specifically talking about—egoistic people. And yeah, they're obviously linked to having an—ego.

Frankly, every single person is tied to their ego, barring perhaps those with severe cognitive impairments or small children who haven't yet developed a sense of self or a distinct personality.

hollowpuma762 said:So, here's your reaction when someone points out how shallow and surface-level your attempts at defining metaphysical concepts actually are:

And then, of course, you play the victim.

Not by a long shot. If I point out that I was actually right all along—how exactly am I the "victim" in that scenario? Honestly, you’re just a victim of your own bloated ego. I can only pray that you aren't anyone's boss, because if you were, your subordinates would be the ones truly suffering under your command.

Matthew Castillo5 said:I suppose it could work that way.

I try my hardest not to be arrogant, but let's be real—I don't always pull it off. So, I usually land somewhere in those middle three categories.

Well, that is precisely the pursuit of balance I am referring to...

To lift up the underestimated and offer encouragement where it is lacking, while simultaneously bringing the boastful back down to earth to make this world just a slightly more level playing field.

Regrettably, people tend to be quite sycophantic toward those "above" them while trampling over anyone "below," and then they express genuine shock when the absolute dregs of society inevitably climb to the top of the food chain in politics and major corporations.

I am inclined to believe that one might characterize many politicians as being quite arrogant—though, in the realm of politics, such hubris tends to be rather infectious.

Even the dictionary would concur with my assessment.

arrogance
the defining trait of someone who is arrogant

Matthew Castillo5 said:Actually, no. That’s just being submissive. Humility is a completely different beast.

Humility is really just the flip side of arrogance. And let’s be honest—nobody actually likes people who are stuck-up, cocky, or full of themselves.

I find myself wondering if we can apply a sense of gradation or comparison to this spectrum.

Could one perhaps categorize individuals into tiers such as:

the most humble
somewhat humble
generally humble
those who occupy the neutral middle ground, neither humble nor arrogant
the arrogant
somewhat arrogant
the most arrogant

In your estimation, which of these categories represents the ideal state of being?
And, if you are inclined to indulge my curiosity, which group would you place yourself in?

hollowpuma762 said:Look, there’s zero disparaging going on here, and frankly, there’s no reason to belittle anyone.

When you’re using the kind of rhetoric a twelve-year-old uses—just stubbornly slamming back an argument a priori without any actual foundation—the whole point of pointing out someone's shoelaces are untied isn't to insult them. It’s so they don't trip face-first into the pavement or take someone else down with them.

The stuff being said is superficial nonsense because, well, it is. Any halfway decent deep dive into this topic would show you what we’re actually talking about. It’s easy to Google the first definition you find, parrot it back, and then philosophize against anything that doesn't fit perfectly into that narrow little definition . But grasping the actual concept and the set of principles that a definition is trying to capture? That takes *a little* more effort.

When people simply don't want to move an inch from their comfy recliner or their mindless, inertia-driven existence, any suggestion that requires actual work or effort to reach something higher just triggers instant resentment, opposition, and rejection.

Everyone wants everything handed to them on a silver platter, but nobody wants to put in the sweat equity. So, the path of least resistance is usually just attacking anyone who doesn't play by their lazy rules.

I had actually commenced my contributions to this thread well before you arrived, so this certainly wasn't a targeted strike against you; however, your latest outburst serves only to validate my original point. Through your very presence, you illustrate precisely what I meant.

Melissa Stewart6 said:In this discussion, it doesn't matter if we're talking about Omen's ego or whether someone is being egocentric. The only thing that actually matters is whether they're right or wrong.

It is perfectly obvious that his personality isn't the point; in fact, his presence here merely serves as a living illustration of the very points I was making before he even graced this thread with his presence. I am quite certain I have no idea why you felt the need to bring him up in a direct response to me.

Who lacks an ego?
1) Small, completely immature children, prior to its formation.
2) Individuals with severe cognitive impairments.
3) Patients suffering from advanced Alzheimer's disease (which is essentially the reverse process of childhood development).
etc.

Who possesses an ego?
5) Healthy adults.

Just because egocentric people and egomaniacs exist, does that make the concept of an ego inherently negative?
6) No.

Is it a bad thing that some people overindulge far beyond a healthy appetite?
7) No.

8) It is all about balance. A person with a healthy ego is capable of maintaining a healthy relationship with the "self" of others.

There you have it—eight interconnected propositions; should you happen to possess a concrete counterargument for any of them, I would be most interested to hear it...

Melissa Stewart6 said:Everyone has an ego; it’s really just a matter of how deeply you identify with it.

Of course, assuming we are discussing healthy individuals. (Though one might argue that those struggling with severe cognitive impairments, patients in the advanced stages of Alzheimer's, or even young children whose personalities haven't fully crystallized, don't quite fit that description.)

Melissa Stewart6 said:Everyone has an ego; it’s really just a matter of how deeply you identify with it.

The true distinction lies in how one perceives themselves in relation to the world and the people surrounding them. A healthy ego—or rather, a healthy sense of "self"—fosters a balanced relationship with others.

An egocentric individual or an egomaniac feels this compulsive need to suppress the ego of others simply to diminish them, though they remain blissfully unaware of their own staggering level of egocentrism.

hollowpuma762 said:Trying to have a real conversation with a twelve-year-old's level of rhetoric is basically impossible.

So, apparently, what I wrote was "nonsense."

Sounds like a real expert professional opinion right there.

If you feel a desperate need to belittle your interlocutors in such a fashion, it can only serve as a testament to your own egocentric nature; and I should clarify, quite differently from a perfectly healthy and balanced ego, egocentrism is an entirely different beast altogether.

hollowpuma762 said:Trying to have a real conversation with a twelve-year-old's level of rhetoric is basically impossible.

So, apparently, what I wrote was "nonsense."

Sounds like a real expert professional opinion right there.

It is indeed quite accurate, though I suppose your own posts act as a rather vivid confirmation of that very fact.

hollowpuma762 said:That’s pretty shallow. That "psychoanalytic sense" doesn't even touch on the concept within the context of metaphysical makeup or spiritual teachings. And let’s be real: the ego isn't what creates balance—in fact, it usually leans toward destabilization because of all those messy individual experiences, selfish interests, and egocentric projections. As for point number two? Just generalizations and banal nonsense.

"Let's just throw in everything that comes to mind that vaguely associates with the word."
It's none of those things. It isn't the "whole person," it isn't the "self," it isn't "personality," and it isn't "self-awareness." None of it. Total garbage.

Are you serious?

What's your field of study here? What kind of examples or arguments are you actually using to back up a claim like that?

In any serious school of thought, they don't talk about being "against the ego"; they talk about a state of consciousness where the ego just isn't calling the shots.

And what exactly constitutes "rubbish" in your eyes? I suspect many would find themselves nodding along if they weren't so preoccupied with tossing such heavy words around so carelessly...

As I have already stated, an ego is not possessed by the severely mentally impaired, nor by small children before their self-awareness and personality have developed, and even those suffering from Alzheimer's lose it in the later stages...

hollowpuma762 said:That’s pretty shallow. That "psychoanalytic sense" doesn't even touch on the concept within the context of metaphysical makeup or spiritual teachings. And let’s be real: the ego isn't what creates balance—in fact, it usually leans toward destabilization because of all those messy individual experiences, selfish interests, and egocentric projections. As for point number two? Just generalizations and banal nonsense.

"Let's just throw in everything that comes to mind that vaguely associates with the word."
It's none of those things. It isn't the "whole person," it isn't the "self," it isn't "personality," and it isn't "self-awareness." None of it. Total garbage.

Are you serious?

What's your field of study here? What kind of examples or arguments are you actually using to back up a claim like that?

In any serious school of thought, they don't talk about being "against the ego"; they talk about a state of consciousness where the ego just isn't calling the shots.

I am speaking from my own experience interacting with people, and since you asked, I suppose you fit the description quite perfectly.

Gregory Carter67 said:Obviously it's an obstacle. An Egoistic person is just full of themselves—you know the type. To me, that’s easily the worst spiritual state you can be in, right behind being arrogant or refusing to be humble. Egoism and pride go hand in hand; they're basically two sides of the same coin. I feel for people stuck like that, and I feel even worse for those who actually think it's a good way to live. Honestly, I just try to stay far away from people like that—it's a major character red flag for me.

I suspect you are conflating terms you haven't quite mastered, specifically because the concept of the ego is fundamentally distinct from being an egoist. It is a matter of
definition.

Any psychologically sound individual possesses an ego—think of it as one's self-awareness, personality, or that essential cognitive and perceptual layer of consciousness. Only those suffering from severe mental impairments (or perhaps very young children before their intellect and self-consciousness have properly matured) lack such a thing.

An egoist, however, is defined as: a person who prioritizes their own interests above all else, acting solely for their own benefit at the expense of others; essentially, an egotist or a selfish person.

Joseph Bailey41 said:You forgot to mention psychedelics. If you experience it once, you can carry that sensation with you and revisit it whenever you want while fully conscious. It isn't really about trying too hard; it's more about the absence of things that usually happen automatically—specifically that internal monologue centered on "me, myself, and I." Of course, I'm not suggesting everyone should go out and get high or drink themselves under the table, since you can reach similar states through various spiritual practices. Historically, people have leaned heavily on entheogens (plants) or specific sounds and rhythms, like drumming or bells. So, I wouldn't be surprised if our friend hiddenhound3 loses her ego from time to time, even if she's never gone to meditate in the Himalayas.😁

Well, I don't know... for instance, I have never once lost control to alcohol in my entire life, despite the fact that back in my high school days, I could easily win bets regarding how many drinks someone else could consume. My tolerance is quite high, yet I learned my limits early on; I had no desire to cross that line, get hammered like a pig, and make a fool out of others or myself... is that 'ego'? Most likely. But is it inherently bad?

I have had some rather peculiar experiences with rare herbal 'preparations'—they aren't even illegal, though that is beside the point—but I don't believe they fall under that category...

As for that feeling of being entirely immersed, of merging with the moment and ceasing all cognitive processing... I recognize that as a positive state only through music (primarily when playing actively) and through intimate romantic connections (something that simply cannot be achieved through mere physical mechanics).

I suppose I am quite 'unconventional' in all of this...

Ultimately, even those transcendent, "heavenly" experiences become just more memories of everything a person has lived through up to a certain point in time; they are part of the very fabric from which a person's identity is woven...

Joseph Bailey41 said:The thing is, those philosophies emerged from communities that operated quite differently than modern American society. In our culture, individualism and isolation are relatively recent developments. Honestly, living without an ego only works if everyone around you is also operating without one—otherwise, it’s nearly impossible. Even those brief moments where you lower your guard can be risky; someone will almost certainly take the opportunity to invade your space and cause chaos. People tend to act quite predatorily; they target anyone they perceive as weak, or even those who suggest there might be a different way to live.

Living without an ego is actually a very peaceful experience. Most people have felt it at least once—that moment when you lose track of yourself and the boundaries between you and your surroundings just melt away. You simply exist alongside other living things—not just people, but animals and plants too—without trying to change them, control them, or use them to satisfy your own desires. It’s like looking at wildflowers in a meadow; you don't feel the urge to pick them because you know that by doing so, they cease to be what they truly are. They are beautiful precisely because they exist right where they are, part of the landscape and part of that specific moment, requiring nothing more than your witness. That’s how love feels before jealousy and possessiveness creep in. The ego starts whispering "me, mine, myself," and the second it speaks, the magic disappears.

Frankly, I cannot name a single person who lives without an ego. The ego—that essential cocktail of self-awareness, personality, and the very memories that weave together our identity—is present in every healthy individual. It is absent in small children who haven't yet developed a sense of self, and it is absent in those with severe cognitive impairments. One also loses the ego during the advanced stages of Alzheimer's or in states of extreme intoxication... though in the earlier stages, it certainly knows how to run wild...

Furthermore, I have observed a peculiar pattern: those failed "teachers" or "preachers" who rail against the ego—which, let’s be honest, is perfectly normal and human—are often nothing more than massive egomaniacs themselves. It follows a certain twisted logic, really; in order for someone to impose their own megalomaniacal whims upon others, they find it quite convenient to dismantle the perfectly healthy egos of everyone else, thereby clearing a path to spread their own egocentrism.

Even here on the forums, many of these self-proclaimed "spiritualists" and "gurus" turn out to be blatant egomaniacs—persecutors of the ego (the normal kind, belonging to others) while remaining blissfully, perhaps even willfully, unaware of their own narcissism.

Quote : Sul The Great

Enchantress As if I haven't heard enough today, someone just had to chime in and say: Do you truly believe that the ego serves as a fundamental obstacle to one's spiritual evolution?

Quote : Sul The Great

Betty Wells16 As stated by: It appears we are once again grappling with the sheer, unadulterated weight of an Egoistic nature.

What exactly is it that keeps us at a standstill?

I find myself suspecting that within those three mere letters...It appears we have reached that inevitable, tiresome stage where the conversation inevitably circles back to the concept of the Ego. One can hardly escape it, can one? It hangs over our modern discourse like a heavy, unwanted fog, demanding attention while offering nothing but vanity in return. I find myself wondering if we aren't all just performing a rather elaborate, exhausting dance to satisfy this insatiable internal critic. Truly, it’s enough to make one want to retreat to the most remote corner of the Himalayas just to find a moment of quietude away from such relentless self-importance.Honestly, people will swallow just about anything these days.

It would be prudent to begin by examining what that specific term actually signifies within the context of our language...
The first interpretation leans heavily into the realm of psychology, whereas the second is far more general in its application.

In the realm of psychoanalysis, one might define the psyche as that intricate structural layer of personality tasked with navigating the messy reality of our existence. It acts as the essential mediator, desperately attempting to strike some semblance of balance between our primal, impulsive drives—the id—and those rigid, morally demanding ethical standards we call the super-ego. It encompasses the cognitive and perceptual facets of consciousness, including everything from memory to the often-flawed process of decision-making; essentially, it is the ego.

The concept of a whole individual—one who is truly cognizant of their own existence and actively asserts that uniqueness when interacting with others, their environment, and even inanimate objects—is essentially the study of the self. We are talking about the intricate tapestry of the ego, the core persona, the distinct personality, and that elusive sense of self-awareness that defines us as human beings.

What exactly is the problem here, and more importantly, why on earth should anyone care?

To be acutely aware of one's own existence? Honestly, why on earth would anyone consider that "cliché"?
Possessing a distinct personality? Honestly, why on earth would anyone consider that a disadvantage?

Or perhaps we should frame it in psychological terms: the constant, exhausting struggle to strike a balance between our primal, impulsive drives and our higher moral aspirations and ethical values? And if that is the case, I find myself wondering why anyone would suggest such an endeavor is inherently flawed.

Who, exactly, is devoid of an ego? If we are being honest, the only candidates would be small children who haven't quite grasped the concept of selfhood yet, or perhaps those certain adults whose intellectual and cognitive development seems to have hit a permanent standstill before they ever achieved true self-awareness.

The concept of being Egoistic is by no means inherently negative or indicative of some deep-seated character flaw; in fact, I find it hard to imagine anyone actually desiring for their child to lack an ego entirely. After all, who would want to raise a kid without any sense of self-awareness, a distinct personality, or basic cognitive function? To deny someone an ego is essentially to wish for them to be mentally incapacitated.

It seems that certain individuals, those lacking even a modicum of intellectual depth, frequently fall into the trap of conflating the concept of the "ego" with terms like "egocentric" or "egomaniac"—labels which, as any reasonable person understands, carry a decidedly negative connotation.

The distinction between possessing a healthy, functional ego and descending into full-blown egomania is quite much like the difference between enjoying a decent meal and losing all self-control to a massive binge.

Maria Parker77 said:Look, the only being I feel any sense of humility toward is God. When it comes to my friends? I don't expect them to be humble, and I don't act humble with them either. To me, being "humble" would basically mean setting aside my own thoughts and feelings just to listen to what someone else is saying—acting like I already know, in advance, that what they're telling me is somehow better for me (and everyone else), even if it doesn't feel that way in the moment.

When you speak of God, are you referring to a personal deity, or are we discussing a more abstract belief in an impersonal higher power?