Ego vs. Spirituality

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.

feralranger said: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...

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

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

feralranger said: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...

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

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."

feralranger said: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...

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

Sounds like a real expert professional opinion right there.

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.

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.

feralranger said: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.)

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.

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.

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...

For those who actually get it:

- can tell the difference between a concept and just a dictionary definition
- understand how a concept can drive you forward while a rigid definition just traps you when you're trying to grasp the metaphysical stuff
- aren't too proud to swallow new ideas when they come along
- don't spend their lives drowning in a shallow pool of their own "thoughts"
- don't just chase whatever half-baked, egocentric fantasy pops into their head first
- actually have the willpower and the mental bandwidth
- are genuinely hunting for some kind of inner growth

The wise souls from back in the day left us some pretty heavy lifting for our own personal development.

Take this, for example:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahamkara

- manifests itself by assuming authorship of all the actions of buddhi, manas, the senses and organs of action.

- It is believed to exist in the sphere of duality, in a state of identification with the physical body, its needs and desires.

- In ahaṃkāra, a state of rajas guna (agitation) predominates. This is because it identifies only with a small part of the creation (the body) and rejects everything else as "not me"; it becomes subject to a series of afflictions such as: pride, egoism, competitiveness, hate and jealousy.

http://www.swamij.com/fourfunctionsmind.htm

What we're looking at here:

- the layers of metaphysical complexity
- the specific traits of those different "layers"
- that fake sense of identity that ends up choking your potential
- the absolute necessity of tapping into that "higher" self to actually realize what you're capable of

...along with the existence of organized systems and disciplines designed to trigger that higher state—that’s a common thread through basically every major teaching out there.

Sure, the terminology and how things are categorized changes depending on the culture or the school of thought, but the core truth remains the same.

Real metaphysical progress only happens once you stop identifying with these illusory constructs, allowing the "higher" aspect of your Being to look at the world and start making actual, informed decisions.

And that, more than anything, depends on your character.
That's why students of "higher knowledge" throughout history were always being tested on their integrity and put through grueling disciplines to sharpen who they are.

Some even use symbolic gestures, like washing someone's feet, as a way to show they've actually achieved the right state of character.

feralranger said: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.

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

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.

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.

feralranger said: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.

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

feralranger said: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...

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

And then, of course, you play the victim.

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.

A textbook example of spiritual ego:

Sekhem said:You can't even talk to just anyone because most people are stuck at such a low level of soul evolution; they’re basically trapped in their third-dimensional perceptions without really understanding how the laws of this reality work. God doesn't just hand out the secrets of the universe to everyone—it's reserved only for those who have proven they're worthy.

"I'm on such a higher plane of soul evolution that I can't even hold a conversation with regular people."
"Others are limited by three-dimensional perception, but I've moved past that and actually understand the rules of this dimension unlike everyone else."
"God personally grants me access to the mysteries of the cosmos because I've earned it, unlike the rest of you."

It’s not even about ego—it’s more like my actual soul speaking. There are a million different theories out there regarding esotericism, but honestly? The simpler, the better.
I mean, how else would you even talk about someone like X? And that doesn't just apply to spiritual types, philosophers, or artists either.
It's that feeling of being totally misunderstood. Only silence, peace, and solitude really get you.
But watch—people like that tend to find each other pretty fast. They recognize one another because they're similar, even if they aren't exactly the same.

If you’re voting like an ego, walking like an ego, and swimming like an ego, then yeah, you’re probably dealing with an ego.

Take a look at the definition tucked away at the end of darkraven's second post in this thread and tell me one more time that it doesn't fit...

darkraven said:A textbook example of spiritual ego:

"I'm on such a higher plane of soul evolution that I can't even hold a conversation with regular people."
"Others are limited by three-dimensional perception, but I've moved past that and actually understand the rules of this dimension unlike everyone else."
"God personally grants me access to the mysteries of the cosmos because I've earned it, unlike the rest of you."

Exactly. It started yesterday in that thread about dimensions. Honestly, it seems like more than just ego—it feels like psychosis sometimes. You see it everywhere, not just here, how certain types of spirituality attract this mindset. They deleted our posts over there once we drifted off-topic, so I guess I'll just drop this here

feralranger said: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.

Person A: "Ego messes with judgment, stuffs bananas in a sandwich, stubbornly hammers away at the same points, projects reality onto others, and constantly pulls things toward their own interests"—all those mental aspects a/b/c/d... plus teaching examples and stuff...

Person B: ignores every single principle mentioned, gets obsessed with Person A, makes everything personal, turns the debate into an ego trip, projects Person A's traits back at them, and acts like "I KNOW exactly what Person A is thinking,"

Logic = ...

darkraven said:If you’re voting like an ego, walking like an ego, and swimming like an ego, then yeah, you’re probably dealing with an ego.

Take a look at the definition tucked away at the end of darkraven's second post in this thread and tell me one more time that it doesn't fit...

I don't think we're talking about the same kind of ego here—like, let's say Jesus's ego was basically the gold standard for what's possible.
The rest of us can actually grasp bits of that and then apply it to how we live our lives.
Eastern types talk about spirituality and their "wise ego"—they don't really care about anything external.
While a Christian might aim for that, they're still tied to their social ego.

Read it. Definition? Or description? It fits.

feralranger said: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.

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

Melissa Stewart6 said:I see the ego primarily as a construct. If you perceive it that way, you don't even have to fight it because the whole concept feels unreal to you.
Looking at this thread, it seems a few users have teamed up to wage war against the very idea of humility.
They claim humility is twisted and perverse, arguing that we should always walk with our heads held high.
But since everything in life is dialectical and moves through opposites, it's possible to be truly proud only if you are also humble... otherwise, you're just left with egoism—nothing but empty noise and shouting.

I'm with you—someone can only be proud (in the right way) if they've got some humility to back it up.