What exactly is the "ego"?

Anyone here actually self-aware enough to have a sense of their own "Self"? I’d love to hear a few thoughts from you guys. Once you start digging into your "Self," this weird phenomenon happens where the "Self" starts observing "itself." We basically have to step into the shoes of the thinker—but can the thinker actually know who they are? It's kind of like asking if a knife can cut itself, right?

This whole thing actually popped up from that other thread about "being what you are." But here, I really want to figure out if we can even talk about our "Self" in any meaningful way. Are we just a collection of our thoughts—those random ideas floating through our heads? Probably not, since thoughts just drift in and out whenever they feel like it. So, are we our bodies? Nah, because our bodies are constantly shifting, cells are swapping out, and we're all just getting older. So... what the hell is the "Self" actually?

Ethan Johnson said:Anyone here actually self-aware enough to have a sense of their own "Self"? I’d love to hear a few thoughts from you guys. Once you start digging into your "Self," this weird phenomenon happens where the "Self" starts observing "itself." We basically have to step into the shoes of the thinker—but can the thinker actually know who they are? It's kind of like asking if a knife can cut itself, right?

This whole thing actually popped up from that other thread about "being what you are." But here, I really want to figure out if we can even talk about our "Self" in any meaningful way. Are we just a collection of our thoughts—those random ideas floating through our heads? Probably not, since thoughts just drift in and out whenever they feel like it. So, are we our bodies? Nah, because our bodies are constantly shifting, cells are swapping out, and we're all just getting older. So... what the hell is the "Self" actually?

Bravo. Now that's actual thinking. I'll give you an answer... just hold onto that thought for a second.

That is such a fascinating topic to dive into...
It really boils down to how we can step back and observe our own consciousness...
But then you hit that deep question: what exactly is the "I" that is doing the observing?

Ethan Johnson said:Anyone here actually self-aware enough to have a sense of their own "Self"? I’d love to hear a few thoughts from you guys. Once you start digging into your "Self," this weird phenomenon happens where the "Self" starts observing "itself." We basically have to step into the shoes of the thinker—but can the thinker actually know who they are? It's kind of like asking if a knife can cut itself, right?

This whole thing actually popped up from that other thread about "being what you are." But here, I really want to figure out if we can even talk about our "Self" in any meaningful way. Are we just a collection of our thoughts—those random ideas floating through our heads? Probably not, since thoughts just drift in and out whenever they feel like it. So, are we our bodies? Nah, because our bodies are constantly shifting, cells are swapping out, and we're all just getting older. So... what the hell is the "Self" actually?

A thinker can indeed know themselves, but not solely through thought. One must listen to the soul, observing how one feels and reacts. This holistic approach leads us to our true Self—to the essence of a complete human being.
We are a composition of thought, body, spirit, and reason. While these elements shift, is everything truly transient?

That divine spark within us—whether you call it the Spirit, God, the Force, a Being, or the Creator of all existence—is our true essence. It is the observer.
It only switches on when the mental chatter stops—when there’s no more overthinking, no endless analyzing, and none of that noise our mind produces to create this false version of ourselves.

Thoughts are pretty much useless unless they're laser-focused. It’s like trying to tackle a complex project at work but your mind keeps drifting to what you want for dinner or some random argument from three years ago; you just can't get anything done. But if you actually lock in and focus solely on the task, you succeed. So, the mind is only a tool when it's disciplined—otherwise, it's just a chaotic mess of distractions that makes us anxious and pulls us away from who we actually are.

Whenever I manage to steady that flow of thoughts and gain some control, I feel this profound sense of bliss and peace. It’s because I’m finally inhabiting that Being—I become my true self, no longer lost in an infinite loop of mental static. That’s where real contentment lives. When a thought inevitably pops up, the trick is to just watch it pass by. You observe its origin, but you have to resist the urge to start debating it or dwelling on it; once you start ruminating, you've fallen right back into the trap of the mind.

At the end of the day, the "I" isn't our thoughts, it isn't our body, and it certainly isn't anything material or tied to the physical world. The "I" is timeless and omnipresent—it’s the thing that exists within everything and everywhere, a small fragment of the Creator of all things.

The ego is just me.

The ego is indeed me—you’re spot on there. Every person possesses an ego, a sort of "small self," which is actually a necessity for navigating this material existence we find ourselves in.
Think of it as a limited consciousness—the version of us currently operating in the physical realm—and our whole life's work is essentially trying to expand that awareness. Why it works that way? Honestly, I haven't a clue.

Then there's the "Great Self"—that divine spark within us that represents who we truly are at our core, the part of us that returns home after death.

I’d argue it’s possible to tap into that "Great Self" if we can just stay present in the here and now—if we can manage to quiet the mental noise. In fact, I suspect our subconscious might actually be that "Great Self" in disguise.

I think I found the smartest take on this whole subject from Terry Pratchett:
"When people go off to look for themselves, they tend to forget who's doing the looking..." 👍

Terry Kim3 said:The ego is indeed me—you’re spot on there. Every person possesses an ego, a sort of "small self," which is actually a necessity for navigating this material existence we find ourselves in.
Think of it as a limited consciousness—the version of us currently operating in the physical realm—and our whole life's work is essentially trying to expand that awareness. Why it works that way? Honestly, I haven't a clue.

Then there's the "Great Self"—that divine spark within us that represents who we truly are at our core, the part of us that returns home after death.

I’d argue it’s possible to tap into that "Great Self" if we can just stay present in the here and now—if we can manage to quiet the mental noise. In fact, I suspect our subconscious might actually be that "Great Self" in disguise.

I'm totally sold on this part...

Terry Kim3 said:The ego is indeed me—you’re spot on there. Every person possesses an ego, a sort of "small self," which is actually a necessity for navigating this material existence we find ourselves in.
Think of it as a limited consciousness—the version of us currently operating in the physical realm—and our whole life's work is essentially trying to expand that awareness. Why it works that way? Honestly, I haven't a clue.

Then there's the "Great Self"—that divine spark within us that represents who we truly are at our core, the part of us that returns home after death.

I’d argue it’s possible to tap into that "Great Self" if we can just stay present in the here and now—if we can manage to quiet the mental noise. In fact, I suspect our subconscious might actually be that "Great Self" in disguise.

...but I'm not buying that last bit.

Patrick Wright2 said:I'm totally sold on this part...

...but I'm not buying that last bit.

What’s your take on all this?

So, I’ll say it: the subconscious isn't just some massive, inflated ego.
The subconscious is basically that whole layer of how you experience life, act, and think—all those things happening beneath the surface that you can't grab onto with your conscious memory right now.
wiki
"People usually use the term as a casual way to talk about the unconscious mind, which Freud thought was basically a storage bin for all those socially awkward ideas, suppressed desires, traumatic stuff, or painful feelings we shove away through psychological repression. But honestly, the stuff hiding in there doesn't always have to be bad news."

Here’s an example. You’re standing in line at Starbucks, chatting away with a buddy, when suddenly you hear your own name mentioned in a conversation by two people standing right behind you.
It’s not like you consciously decided to eavesdrop on them; your brain was actually tracking the whole conversation the entire time without you even realizing it, because your focus was totally locked in on your friend.
But since your brain was listening in the background, the second it caught your name, it forced your attention over to them.
That rest of their conversation stays tucked away in your subconscious for a bit, and you could technically tap into it through something like hypnosis.

My take?
Maybe there really is a divine part of the Self, some kind of original essence, but who knows? Until we have proof, I’m staying skeptical and looking for answers that actually make sense and satisfy me completely.

Yeah, you’ve got a point there—the subconscious isn't really our "ego." It's more like the ROM of the system, where everything is permanently etched in, whereas our conscious mind acts like the RAM.

So, if we're following that logic, the ego would be this collection of memory split between those RAM and ROM components, layered with all the other software—our personality, our convictions, our biases—all running on the physical hardware of our bodies.😁

In that sense, the "small self" is just the combination of hardware and software, while the "true self"—the big picture—is essentially the user operating the computer.🤔

Terry Kim3 said:Yeah, you’ve got a point there—the subconscious isn't really our "ego." It's more like the ROM of the system, where everything is permanently etched in, whereas our conscious mind acts like the RAM.

So, if we're following that logic, the ego would be this collection of memory split between those RAM and ROM components, layered with all the other software—our personality, our convictions, our biases—all running on the physical hardware of our bodies.😁

In that sense, the "small self" is just the combination of hardware and software, while the "true self"—the big picture—is essentially the user operating the computer.🤔

That’s an interesting take, but I’m just not buying it.
Our brains are totally self-sufficient powerhouses that run the whole show on their own, so we definitely don't need some higher power calling the shots for us.
I mean, maybe we could just play it like this;
Our brains are basically just computers, man—it's like some high-level software was booted up by someone out there who’s just sitting back and watching the whole show unfold.

I’ve always looked at it this way—when we’re born, the brain is essentially just an underdeveloped operating system, barely capable of handling the most basic functions. As we grow up, we start downloading all these additional programs through our upbringing—stuff that eventually hardens into our ego and our distinct personalities. It’s basically what we acquire from being raised by the world around us.

The real question, though—and it’s a heavy one—is who actually wrote the initial code, who hit the "start" button, and what exactly is their end goal for the whole system?🤷

Terry Kim3 said:I’ve always looked at it this way—when we’re born, the brain is essentially just an underdeveloped operating system, barely capable of handling the most basic functions. As we grow up, we start downloading all these additional programs through our upbringing—stuff that eventually hardens into our ego and our distinct personalities. It’s basically what we acquire from being raised by the world around us.

The real question, though—and it’s a heavy one—is who actually wrote the initial code, who hit the "start" button, and what exactly is their end goal for the whole system?🤷

It's a self-contained, self-evolving program, for sure.

But when you look at the question 🤷

Was the concept of the "self" somehow less valid before we started living through computer screens?

Morgan King77 said:That is such a fascinating topic to dive into...
It really boils down to how we can step back and observe our own consciousness...
But then you hit that deep question: what exactly is the "I" that is doing the observing?

See, that "I" which is just watching—that quiet observer—is basically just pure existence, just "being," without any actual movement or doing anything at all. But the "I" being watched? That’s the "personality," complete with all its quirks, baggage, and ego. When those two finally merge, when the watcher and the watched become one single thing... well, that’s the moment. That's it. That's the whole point.🙂

The "Self" has always existed—forever, really. It doesn't actually live within the constraints of time, because time itself is nothing more than an illusion we've been conditioned to accept.

Think of it this way: imagine the "Self" is the user operating a computer. When the hardware eventually crashes or dies, the user simply goes out and buys a new machine. In this sense, the "Self" remains constant, while the ego—that smaller, fleeting version of us—is what changes throughout a lifetime. The ego has a shelf life, sure, but its experiences don't just vanish into thin air; they get integrated back into the core "Self."

Terry Kim3 said:The "Self" has always existed—forever, really. It doesn't actually live within the constraints of time, because time itself is nothing more than an illusion we've been conditioned to accept.

Think of it this way: imagine the "Self" is the user operating a computer. When the hardware eventually crashes or dies, the user simply goes out and buys a new machine. In this sense, the "Self" remains constant, while the ego—that smaller, fleeting version of us—is what changes throughout a lifetime. The ego has a shelf life, sure, but its experiences don't just vanish into thin air; they get integrated back into the core "Self."

Look, I’m just not the type of guy who can sit here and start throwing definitions around if I don't have some actual, hard evidence to back them up.

stormycanyon11 said:Was the concept of the "self" somehow less valid before we started living through computer screens?

It really just comes down to how you define the self, man, because if you look at it as the id, ego, and superego, then we're talking about pure mental constructs cooked up by our own brains.

As for whether this "I" existed before the brain, I'm not buying it, since the brain is basically me, and once that shuts down, the whole concept of the "I" is pretty much toast.

If you're looking for those mystical or metaphysical answers that fall outside the realm of hard science, Terry Kim3 is probably your guy for that kind of talk.