Ego vs. Spirituality

Jacob Cooper5 said:Priests have basically hijacked the concept of the ego, stripping away everything useful and turning it into this purely negative symbol. Seriously, if you bring up the word "ego" to any Priest, they immediately translate it as something inherently sinful or broken.
It’s just like when someone refuses to see anything but the flaws in another person—that classic, reductive Black and White world mentality.

In actual psychology, there's a much more nuanced and logical way to understand the ego, which is a far cry from the mindless chanting you hear in spiritual circles.
The ego is simply self-awareness. It's that internal third-person perspective on your own existence... your identity.
If you want to be able to judge what's right or wrong in your life, you first need a sense of who you actually are. That’s the ego—it's your perception of your own traits..
As an individual navigating the world, you build your beliefs about yourself and your capabilities through constant interaction with your environment. Your ego is essentially forged by the intersection of your circumstances and how you react to them.

So, when some Priest starts preaching about "liberating yourself from the ego," they either have absolutely no clue what they're talking about, or it's just a clever tactic to empty out your head... making room so they can fill it up with whatever their own minds decide you should believe.

You’re literally calling out "black-and-white" reasoning in how people interpret things while doing the exact same thing yourself.

hollowpuma762 said:You’re literally calling out "black-and-white" reasoning in how people interpret things while doing the exact same thing yourself.

Look, it all depends on how you apply that binary logic and what the situation is—if I’m staring down two choices, I’m obviously going with the one that actually makes sense to me.
The whole black-and-white thing? That's just the default setting we use to filter whether we accept information or toss it out.

A lot of priests are notorious for just shutting down new info—it’s pure laziness, honestly—so they end up narrowing their own worldview by sticking to this rigid, binary mindset where they only acknowledge what they want to see.
If I'm looking for it, it's "white"... if I'm not looking, it's "black." Simple as that...

feralranger said: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.

It develops, exactly. There’s already a slice of personality there, even then—just at whatever level they can reach. But it's not like there's "nothing" there.

Jacob Cooper5 said:Look, it all depends on how you apply that binary logic and what the situation is—if I’m staring down two choices, I’m obviously going with the one that actually makes sense to me.
The whole black-and-white thing? That's just the default setting we use to filter whether we accept information or toss it out.

A lot of priests are notorious for just shutting down new info—it’s pure laziness, honestly—so they end up narrowing their own worldview by sticking to this rigid, binary mindset where they only acknowledge what they want to see.
If I'm looking for it, it's "white"... if I'm not looking, it's "black." Simple as that...

Right... so things only move forward when they suit someone personally.
Got it. Makes total sense.

Jacob Cooper5 said:Look, it all depends on how you apply that binary logic and what the situation is—if I’m staring down two choices, I’m obviously going with the one that actually makes sense to me.
The whole black-and-white thing? That's just the default setting we use to filter whether we accept information or toss it out.

A lot of priests are notorious for just shutting down new info—it’s pure laziness, honestly—so they end up narrowing their own worldview by sticking to this rigid, binary mindset where they only acknowledge what they want to see.
If I'm looking for it, it's "white"... if I'm not looking, it's "black." Simple as that...

Prejudice, oversimplification, sweeping generalizations. Just the usual stuff.

hollowpuma762 said:Right... so things only move forward when they suit someone personally.
Got it. Makes total sense.

Prejudice, oversimplification, sweeping generalizations. Just the usual stuff.

Everything is personal. At the end of the day, your own little needs and biases dictate exactly how you're going to process any bit of information that comes your way...

hollowpuma762 said:Right... so things only move forward when they suit someone personally.
Got it. Makes total sense.

Prejudice, oversimplification, sweeping generalizations. Just the usual stuff.

It's just experience.

Jacob Cooper5 said:Everything is personal. At the end of the day, your own little needs and biases dictate exactly how you're going to process any bit of information that comes your way...

It's just experience.

That's when bias starts messing with the actual facts.

Jacob Cooper5 said:Everything is personal. At the end of the day, your own little needs and biases dictate exactly how you're going to process any bit of information that comes your way...

It's just experience.

Look, experience mixed with bias, oversimplification, sweeping generalizations, and old prejudices... it doesn't get you very far. Honestly.

There are other ways to experience things.
If a person actually chooses not to just say, "Aha, I've got it figured out."

Jacob Cooper5 said:Look, it all depends on how you apply that binary logic and what the situation is—if I’m staring down two choices, I’m obviously going with the one that actually makes sense to me.
The whole black-and-white thing? That's just the default setting we use to filter whether we accept information or toss it out.

A lot of priests are notorious for just shutting down new info—it’s pure laziness, honestly—so they end up narrowing their own worldview by sticking to this rigid, binary mindset where they only acknowledge what they want to see.
If I'm looking for it, it's "white"... if I'm not looking, it's "black." Simple as that...

Alright, you caught onto that, and there's no argument there. But don't get obsessed with those lost causes. If you stare into the abyss too long, you become the abyss.
Don't overdo it. If you think you're going to help them, you're taking a massive risk of catching some kind of psychosis—it creeps up on you the longer you stay in the game.
There are way too many good people in mental wards who tried to help people like that. Way too many.
The thoughts they have aren't even theirs; they belong to the people they were trying to help.

It’s a total phenomenon of taking on someone else's cross.

Justin Baker6 said:Alright, you caught onto that, and there's no argument there. But don't get obsessed with those lost causes. If you stare into the abyss too long, you become the abyss.
Don't overdo it. If you think you're going to help them, you're taking a massive risk of catching some kind of psychosis—it creeps up on you the longer you stay in the game.
There are way too many good people in mental wards who tried to help people like that. Way too many.
The thoughts they have aren't even theirs; they belong to the people they were trying to help.

It’s a total phenomenon of taking on someone else's cross.

Well, I've been around the block enough times to know where the lines are drawn. But sometimes... just sometimes... I cross them just for the hell of it.

Jacob Cooper5 said:Well, I've been around the block enough times to know where the lines are drawn. But sometimes... just sometimes... I cross them just for the hell of it.

And? Is it actually fun? 🍿

Joseph Bailey41 said:And? Is it actually fun? 🍿

It does the trick... whenever I'm actually in the mood for it.

There are two ways to look at this
1) Self-preservation:
In social interactions, the ego serves a positive function by preventing an individual from being trampled by someone with a stronger ego. Human society is essentially just a slightly more advanced version of a wolf pack—a strict hierarchy where everyone has to fight for their spot in the pack.
This is a common perspective among various professional psychologists and psychiatrists who focus exclusively on how the individual functions.

2) Personal growth and societal progress:
From that standpoint, the ego is mostly harmful. It causes us to process information subjectively based on whether it threatens our ego—our "integrity," or rather, our hierarchical standing within the pack. This leads people to cling to positions far longer than is justified or logical.
Furthermore, instead of focusing on merit, attention shifts toward ego-driven power plays. While that might not be terrible for emotional development, we end up with various parasites—people with highly pronounced egos who are skilled at manipulation but lack any real ability for objective intellectual reasoning. You see them all the time at the top of social hierarchies.
To prove this point—can you actually think of a decent, respectful person in a position of power over the last 20 years? Or is the top of the pack just filled with hyenas? If someone normal and well-intentioned (someone not focused solely on their own ego) wanders into those circles, the system quickly spits them out.
The same thing has been happening in science for decades; someone once noted that scientific progress moves only as fast as the frequency of its conductors. As a position grows in status, the ego usually grows with it, making it much harder to accept any new ideas.

So, looking at it systemically, for a society built on quality ideas and better outcomes, it is much better if the individual ego remains small.☕

urbanhawk28 said:There are two ways to look at this
1) Self-preservation:
In social interactions, the ego serves a positive function by preventing an individual from being trampled by someone with a stronger ego. Human society is essentially just a slightly more advanced version of a wolf pack—a strict hierarchy where everyone has to fight for their spot in the pack.
This is a common perspective among various professional psychologists and psychiatrists who focus exclusively on how the individual functions.

2) Personal growth and societal progress:
From that standpoint, the ego is mostly harmful. It causes us to process information subjectively based on whether it threatens our ego—our "integrity," or rather, our hierarchical standing within the pack. This leads people to cling to positions far longer than is justified or logical.
Furthermore, instead of focusing on merit, attention shifts toward ego-driven power plays. While that might not be terrible for emotional development, we end up with various parasites—people with highly pronounced egos who are skilled at manipulation but lack any real ability for objective intellectual reasoning. You see them all the time at the top of social hierarchies.
To prove this point—can you actually think of a decent, respectful person in a position of power over the last 20 years? Or is the top of the pack just filled with hyenas? If someone normal and well-intentioned (someone not focused solely on their own ego) wanders into those circles, the system quickly spits them out.
The same thing has been happening in science for decades; someone once noted that scientific progress moves only as fast as the frequency of its conductors. As a position grows in status, the ego usually grows with it, making it much harder to accept any new ideas.

So, looking at it systemically, for a society built on quality ideas and better outcomes, it is much better if the individual ego remains small.☕

That's some high-quality thinking right there. 👍

I don't quite agree with that final sentence, though. People with tiny egos often lack both the motivation and the sheer strength required to actually drive meaningful change in a larger environment—whether that's a political party, a city, or the entire country. They usually end up only making changes within their own little micro-circles.

I've had plenty of my own experiences with this if anyone wants to dive deeper into the details.

Matthew Castillo5 said:That's some high-quality thinking right there. 👍

I don't quite agree with that final sentence, though. People with tiny egos often lack both the motivation and the sheer strength required to actually drive meaningful change in a larger environment—whether that's a political party, a city, or the entire country. They usually end up only making changes within their own little micro-circles.

I've had plenty of my own experiences with this if anyone wants to dive deeper into the details.

History has shown us time and again that "top-down" leadership—acting from the level of a major organization, a municipality, or the federal government—can be incredibly toxic to the very people it’s supposed to serve. Now, whether the issue lies in a kind of negative selection process where positions are filled by those with oversized egos but a total lack of intelligence and principles (or something else entirely), I couldn't say for sure. 😁

Honestly, ego is actually quite necessary at a micro level, since its basic function is to ensure the survival of the individual and those they consider "their own" through protective instincts. No matter how you look at it, ego is a primary tool used when fighting over limited resources, whereas larger social systems are designed to distribute those resources within a community. But that only works up to a certain point, because the structures themselves tend to favor those whose main motivation is grabbing as many resources as possible—for themselves and their inner circle.

The mix of Western individualism and structures born out of collectivist cultures creates a pretty unstable construct that has been showing signs of decay for a long time. If we want any coherent change, we really need to address this fundamental mismatch and figure out how to dismantle it without causing massive upheaval. But that’s nearly impossible while you're sitting at the top of the pyramid—unless, of course, your ego has inflated to the size of the Hindenburg, allowing you to just float away into higher spheres while the whole house of cards comes crashing down around everyone else.

Ultimately, I believe the only right way to act is at the micro level (think globally, act locally). In that context, ego still serves a purpose, provided it's redirected toward a different function and balanced with the idea of the common good. It's a difficult, deeply personal process that everyone has to navigate individually before we can ever hope to find some sort of collective agreement. 😁

Fifty years ago, the general public wouldn't have even recognized such an inflated sense of self; it’s a modern obsession 🙂 . How does one even begin to explain "ego" to the average person? When people ask me what I mean by it, I usually just tell them it's that feeling you get when someone acts like a total know-it-all 🙂 😁 who thinks they're the smartest person in the room. Is that a sufficient explanation?

The ego essentially directs its focus outward—unlike attention centered on the self

Betty Patel172 said:Fifty years ago, the general public wouldn't have even recognized such an inflated sense of self; it’s a modern obsession 🙂 . How does one even begin to explain "ego" to the average person? When people ask me what I mean by it, I usually just tell them it's that feeling you get when someone acts like a total know-it-all 🙂 😁 who thinks they're the smartest person in the room. Is that a sufficient explanation?

Essentially, ego means "I." Freud originally introduced the term to distinguish it from those deeper, unconscious drives (the Id) and our internal moral compass (the Superego). But once you factor in all the Eastern philosophies and New Age spirituality that flooded in later—thanks largely to Jung, who opened the door to those ideas—the definition gets pretty blurry. In those circles, the "ego" is often viewed as a limited individual perspective that needs to be transcended so a person can connect with the universe and others. On the flip side, in everyday conversation, when we say someone has a "big ego" or is "egocentric," we usually just mean they're selfish or so wrapped up in their own importance that they couldn't care less about anyone else's problems.

That's why these forum discussions can get so messy; everyone is coming at the word "ego" from a different angle, using different definitions. There isn't one concrete thing we can point to so we can all stay on the same page. It reminds me of a story a guy told me about his trip to Italy. He wanted to buy some eggs but didn't know a single word of Italian. To make matters worse, the shopkeeper didn't speak any English either. So, he grabbed a frozen chicken from the freezer, pointed at its backside, drew an egg shape in the air, and held up ten fingers. The lady behind the counter died laughing, but he actually made it home with ten eggs. It was a much smoother transaction than when my programmer friend's wife told him, "Pick up some butter, and if they have eggs, grab ten."😍

Joseph Bailey41 said:Essentially, ego means "I." Freud originally introduced the term to distinguish it from those deeper, unconscious drives (the Id) and our internal moral compass (the Superego). But once you factor in all the Eastern philosophies and New Age spirituality that flooded in later—thanks largely to Jung, who opened the door to those ideas—the definition gets pretty blurry. In those circles, the "ego" is often viewed as a limited individual perspective that needs to be transcended so a person can connect with the universe and others. On the flip side, in everyday conversation, when we say someone has a "big ego" or is "egocentric," we usually just mean they're selfish or so wrapped up in their own importance that they couldn't care less about anyone else's problems.

That's why these forum discussions can get so messy; everyone is coming at the word "ego" from a different angle, using different definitions. There isn't one concrete thing we can point to so we can all stay on the same page. It reminds me of a story a guy told me about his trip to Italy. He wanted to buy some eggs but didn't know a single word of Italian. To make matters worse, the shopkeeper didn't speak any English either. So, he grabbed a frozen chicken from the freezer, pointed at its backside, drew an egg shape in the air, and held up ten fingers. The lady behind the counter died laughing, but he actually made it home with ten eggs. It was a much smoother transaction than when my programmer friend's wife told him, "Pick up some butter, and if they have eggs, grab ten."😍

A solid explanation. It seems whenever I deal with my mother, I can just tell her to stay the course; there is nothing new under the sun. 🙂

Betty Patel172 said:A solid explanation. It seems whenever I deal with my mother, I can just tell her to stay the course; there is nothing new under the sun. 🙂

The thing is, a mother is a constant presence in our lives.

You see it all the time in spiritual circles—both Eastern and Western—where everyone talks about "shedding the ego," and we all know exactly what they mean.
But then, because people are trying so hard to be "purely good" on the surface, you end up with this massive, subconscious buildup of dark forces or "shadow sides," as Yoda would put it.

I’ve always felt that consciousness should be awakened from all angles at once—or maybe it needs to be sparked from above. If there isn't that top-down push, then you aren't really doing spirituality at all.

Betty Patel172 said:A solid explanation. It seems whenever I deal with my mother, I can just tell her to stay the course; there is nothing new under the sun. 🙂

I can see where you picked up all that wisdom from now. 👍

Matthew Cruz44 said:The thing is, a mother is a constant presence in our lives.

In this world, a mother is the only thing that truly stays the same. (Walt Whitman). 🧐