Id the Ego

navedub · Nov 17, 2005

I met this guy named Id
Im not sure what he did
He did what any id would do
He served himself and never you
He has his needs
But can not view
Cuz thats what any id would do

What is the nature of our ego?
Is the ego a negative aspect of human consciousness?
Without it would we have self awareness?

If lets say, Im a selfless human being. I direct the whole of my existence towards helping others and never myself; and in doing that I gain some sense of personal satisfaction arent I really just serving that satisfaction, that prestige and recognition I get from those I serve and ultimately myself?
Does the idea of selflessness actually exist in its purist form?
If not is that necessarily a bad thing?

My conclusion was that the ego can never be annihilated and should be honestly viewed at all times so as not to be corrupted by itself. What are your thoughts?

psychedelicist · Nov 19, 2005

I do think the ego can be killed, but only temporarily. Buddhist meditations and stuff like that can, but never permanently.

But, your idea of killing the ego through 'selflessness' wouldn't be correct because, like you said, there would still be the element of selfishness. By doing absolutely nothing, and I mean nothing (no actions, no thoughts, no nothing) it may fall away by itself. This is the goal of meditation, to rid yourself of 'thought' and return to simple awareness. While I believe it's possible, like I said it's always temporary, there's no permanent 'cure' for the ego.

But this state of ego-loss is not 'selflessness' as in only thinking about other people and never yourself, it's 'selflessness' as in not thinking at all. As such, not a whole lot of anything will get done in this state, which probably makes it a good thing that ego-loss is not permanent. While it's good for sitting back and taking a breather from egotistical reality, it's also not very pragmatic, especially if you want to stay alive, or actually do anything with your life (not to say that a goalless, ambitionless life is any worse than a life with ambition and goals, it would probably be a lot simpler and have a lot less suffering involved).

Eudaimonist · Nov 20, 2005

I think we desperately need to define the word "ego" for the purpose of this discussion. I doubt that Freudians mean the same thing by the word as Buddhists and many others do.

FreezBee · Nov 20, 2005

navedub said:
Does the idea of selflessness actually exist in its purist form?
If not is that necessarily a bad thing?

You're writing in a Freudian way of seeing things - here selflessness ("egolessness") would pitch you between the id and the super-ego, not good!

Selflessness is in the end only the non-awareness of the id. If you need to do good deeds to run away from your id, then you're actually not selfless.

Just my 2 cents.

cheers

- FreezBee

Sojourner<>< · Nov 20, 2005

Clever poem Did you write it?

I like to stick to Jesus when it comes to this branch of thought.

Does the idea of selflessness actually exist in its purist form?

Just look at His sacrafice... and the martyrs. I've never been martyred but I would think that would be as pure as selflessness could get.

If not is that necessarily a bad thing?

Jesus said "it is more blessed to give than to receive" so I am inclined to say no. I think we're supposed to get a reward out of giving, but not always. However, I think if someone began to give only for the purpose of gaining prestige for himself and was not sincerely giving for the benefit of others, he wouldn't last long!

navedub · Nov 20, 2005

psychedelicist said:
I do think the ego can be killed, but only temporarily. Buddhist meditations and stuff like that can, but never permanently.

But, your idea of killing the ego through 'selflessness' wouldn't be correct because, like you said, there would still be the element of selfishness. By doing absolutely nothing, and I mean nothing (no actions, no thoughts, no nothing) it may fall away by itself. This is the goal of meditation, to rid yourself of 'thought' and return to simple awareness. While I believe it's possible, like I said it's always temporary, there's no permanent 'cure' for the ego.

But this state of ego-loss is not 'selflessness' as in only thinking about other people and never yourself, it's 'selflessness' as in not thinking at all. As such, not a whole lot of anything will get done in this state, which probably makes it a good thing that ego-loss is not permanent. While it's good for sitting back and taking a breather from egotistical reality, it's also not very pragmatic, especially if you want to stay alive, or actually do anything with your life (not to say that a goalless, ambitionless life is any worse than a life with ambition and goals, it would probably be a lot simpler and have a lot less suffering involved).

thank you for your response. i have really begun to rethink the whole nature of the ego. where it comes from, its purpose (if it really has any at all) and whether it is necessary for me to live a "productive" life, but then productivity itself can be relative to the observer, no? so long that we continue to follow basic precepts and moral principles it seems to be quite a fun exploration of as you say, awarness. though i have yet to find that the "self" the "ego" really has anything at all to do with being a moral person. infact i see it as a hinderance on truly exploring the nature of my relationship with the whole of eternity, god, awarness, whatever fits your belief system which is in itself innately good, holy, selfless, whole.

navedub · Nov 20, 2005

FreezBee said:
You're writing in a Freudian way of seeing things - here selflessness ("egolessness") would pitch you between the id and the super-ego, not good!

could you expound? i'm sure i agree with you though since my thoughts have dramatically changed since i last posted this.

Selflessness is in the end only the non-awareness of the id. If you need to do good deeds to run away from your id, then you're actually not selfless.

this has become more apparent to me since starting down this road of exploring the ego and its nature. thank you for your post.

navedub · Nov 20, 2005

Clever poem Did you write it?

yes i did and thank you.
[/b]

Just look at His sacrafice... and the martyrs. I've never been martyred but I would think that would be as pure as selflessness could get.

i agree concerning jesus sacrifice as he was a holy man. however i don't know that others wouldn't consider dying for the sake of being remembered as a martyr rather than 'purely' for the sake of serving/standing up for god, what is just, right, holy. which is really what i'm attempting to observe deeply. can the ego ever not get in the way of true selflessness? in my newest observation, no. it always does because the ego is 'self' and 'self' can never be selfless when it is retained and not let go of. can this really be experienced by human beings? not simply put into words and reflected upon but can it be lived and understood?

Jesus said "it is more blessed to give than to receive" so I am inclined to say no. I think we're supposed to get a reward out of giving, but not always. However, I think if someone began to give only for the purpose of gaining prestige for himself and was not sincerely giving for the benefit of others, he wouldn't last long!

i see, but i'd have to say this is a slippery slope. how well do we really know ourselves? ought we expect or hope for a reward or just do for the sake of doing? even if we were to recieve some sense of satisfaction, is such a thing retained and should it be retained? in the end it only really serves ourselves as some form of pleasure, an impermenant pleasure which only gratifies that which decays and rots, is not caught up in the permenance of eternity, and that thing is the ego.

navedub · Nov 20, 2005

Eudaimonist said:
I think we desperately need to define the word "ego" for the purpose of this discussion. I doubt that Freudians mean the same thing by the word as Buddhists and many others do.

by all means, multiple perspectives are always good.

psychedelicist · Nov 20, 2005

Eudaimonist said:
I think we desperately need to define the word "ego" for the purpose of this discussion. I doubt that Freudians mean the same thing by the word as Buddhists and many others do.

Good point, I guess. I'm not entirely sure what freudans mean, but I'm not entirely sure I could easily describe the buddhist concept either. It's a bit hard to define.

At it's simplest level I suppose it could be called the juxtapositions of your 'likes' with your 'dislikes', if that makes any sense. From this would stem the emotional reactions- when you are faced with something you like, you feel happiness and content,and when you are faced with what you dislike, you can feel annoyed or even angry and depressed. It's a survival instinct, since we would naturally like that which keeps us alive and hate what harms us, it would make sure (through the use of positive and negative emotions) that we constantly seek out those things that will keep us alive and happy.

While it in itself isn't a bad thing, it can have a lot of negative reactions. For instance we still think that more territory=better chances of survival, and because of that we have things like rival gangs killing each other for no apparent reason but their 'turf'. While we can't comprehend why someone would waste their time killing over land, we seem to be forgetting that other animals like wolf packs and ant colonies kill each other all the time for similar reasons.

Buddhists generally view the system of like/dislike as completely arbitrary, why 'like' or 'dislike' any one thing more than the other? Ego-loss is basically the state in which you get rid of this 'binary' system of thought. In doing so they rid themselves of all subjectivity/individuality entirely since both of these things are built off that system of like/dislike. I can see why such a thing would be an abhorrent idea to most people, but if our entire individuality is built off arbitrary perceptions I see no reason to keep being subjective, becoming an objective, thoughtless being would be just as reasonable.

Course that's just how I was taught it, and having never taken a formal psychology course, I have no way of knowing if this is a load of complete bull, it's just how I learned it.

WAB · Dec 19, 2005

navedub said:
I met this guy named Id
Im not sure what he did
He did what any id would do
He served himself and never you
He has his needs
But can not view
Cuz thats what any id would do

What is the nature of our ego?
Is the ego a negative aspect of human consciousness?
Without it would we have self awareness?

If lets say, Im a selfless human being. I direct the whole of my existence towards helping others and never myself; and in doing that I gain some sense of personal satisfaction arent I really just serving that satisfaction, that prestige and recognition I get from those I serve and ultimately myself?
Does the idea of selflessness actually exist in its purist form?
If not is that necessarily a bad thing?

My conclusion was that the ego can never be annihilated and should be honestly viewed at all times so as not to be corrupted by itself. What are your thoughts?

A few verses from the Epistle to the Philippians.... "Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself. Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others. Let (or allow) this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form ("morphe Theo: the Divine nature actually and inseparably subsisting in the Person of Christ.")
of God, did not consider it robbery (or, a thing to be grasped) to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (kur'ios: supreme in authority) to the glory of God the Father."
(Philippians 2:3-11; from the NKJV).

Of course no one can do this on his/her own. The id/ego rebels at even the thought. But if the Spirit of Christ indwells one, and that one surrenders to Him in obedience, HE is the one who enables.

Casstranquility · Dec 22, 2005

navedub said:
I met this guy named Id
Im not sure what he did
He did what any id would do
He served himself and never you
He has his needs
But can not view
Cuz thats what any id would do

Nice poem.

What is the nature of our ego?

Click to expand...

Is the ego a negative aspect of human consciousness?
Without it would we have self awareness?

I have read that our Ego helps us separate ourselves from others, and if we wish to experience separation, than it is a good thing. I mostly agree with what I read. That is all that our ego is, an illusion of separation.
No, not negative, but necessary for the journey of the spirit. Without it we could not experience ourselves as separate entities. (I'm not saying that I personally like the ego, but I know that it exists for a reason.)
Yes, we would still have self awareness-but it would be an awareness of our Oneness with all-which is the awareness of our true Self.

If lets say, Im a selfless human being. I direct the whole of my existence towards helping others and never myself; and in doing that I gain some sense of personal satisfaction arent I really just serving that satisfaction, that prestige and recognition I get from those I serve and ultimately myself?

Click to expand...

No, unless you are. You always serve yourself, whether you think you are being selfless or not, because you cannot be selfless, your Self is all others. You can be egoless, and in that case, when you got satisfaction from serving others, you'd only be satisfied because your Self was benefited.

Does the idea of selflessness actually exist in its purist form?

Click to expand...

If not is that necessarily a bad thing?

Yes, I think there are some who never think of themselves as separate from all others.

My conclusion was that the ego can never be annihilated and should be honestly viewed at all times so as not to be corrupted by itself. What are your thoughts?

Click to expand...

No, the ego can't be annihilated, but it disappears when one decides that they no longer wish to see themselves as separate.

Id the Ego

navedub

Active Member

More options

psychedelicist

aka the Akhashic Record Player

More options

Eudaimonist

I believe in life before death!

More options

FreezBee

Veteran

More options

Sojourner<><

Incoherent Freedom Fighter

More options

navedub

Active Member

More options

navedub

Active Member

More options

navedub

Active Member

More options

navedub

Active Member

More options

psychedelicist

aka the Akhashic Record Player

More options

WAB

Well-Known Member

More options

Casstranquility

Potato, pineapple, pickle.

More options

Similar threads

Id the Ego

Active Member

aka the Akhashic Record Player

I believe in life before death!

Veteran

Incoherent Freedom Fighter

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

aka the Akhashic Record Player

Well-Known Member

Potato, pineapple, pickle.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency