The Ego
By
James Harvey Stout (deceased). This material is now in the public
domain. The complete collection of Mr. Stout's writing is now at
http://stout.mybravenet.com/public_html/h/
>
Jump to the following topics:
- What is the ego?
- What are the benefits
of a healthy ego?
- We can develop our ego.
- The ego is
only one "self."
- The ego has a
limited function.
- The
ego and soul can have a "partnership."
- We can
"transcend the ego."
- We might
experience pseudo-transcendence.
- Religions
generally do not value the ego.
- Perhaps
the ego has been misunderstood by religion.
- We can be
both immanent and transcendent.
What is the ego? It has been defined
in many ways. In the following definitions, we are examining the ego
as our identity in the human realm; later we will explore our other
"identities" -- the Self, the soul, and our archetypal fields --
for which many of these definitions would also apply.
- The ego is our identity. It is who we believe ourselves to be.
It is our reference point, and our "home" in the world.
- The ego is individuality. As our identity, it sets us apart
from our people's identities. To provide our sense of being
separate from other people and from the world in general, the ego
creates "ego boundaries"; in that separateness, our ego
distinguishes itself as being unique.
- The ego is a center of consciousness. It is an "eye" from
which we look at the world.
- The ego is an executive. It makes decisions. It implements our
will.
- The ego is an organizer. It makes a distinction between the
inner world and the outer world, and it notes our perceptions from
both. Then, by conceptualizing, labeling, and organizing those
perceptions, it tries to make sense of them, and it files them in
various contexts, where we can make considerations regarding their
"value," potential threat or benefit, etc.
- The ego is an interface. Just as our physical body is an
interface with the physical world, the ego is an interface
primarily with the human world of society and individuals. The
interface has both an inflow and an outflow:
- Outflow. The ego is a transformer and interpreter,
transmitting ideas from soul into the world of people, in a
form which is understandable and appropriate to those people.
- Inflow. The ego translates incoming information from the
human world such that our daily experiences are comprehensible
and meaningful and educational to the Self or soul.
- The ego is a mediator.
- It mediates in our inner world. It strives to resolve
conflicts among the other parts of the psyche, including the
unconscious mind, subpersonalities, and so on. (In Freudian
psychology, it is the arbitrator between the id and the
superego.)
- It mediates between this inner world and the outer world of
people and circumstances.
- The ego is a symbol. It is a collection of images and thoughts
and conceptual models that represents us to ourselves. As a
symbol, the ego associates itself with other symbols, such as
those of prestige, success, power, and pride; for example, if we
value prosperity, we might acquire an expensive car not because we
need it but because it represents prosperity. (However, in this
example, the desire results from a damaged self-esteem which is
trying to compensate for its lack of sense of internal richness by
collecting costly possessions; the ego requires only a functional
vehicle for utilitarian purposes.) The ego seeks fulfillment in
the symbolic goods that it acquires, and it seeks immortality
through the symbolic goods that it produces. The ego does
not experience anything directly; it is in a sterile world of
concepts and symbols, and it can only interpret the experiences
and input from such sources as the body, the senses, the feelings,
the Self or soul, and so on.
- The ego is a pattern. It is our continuity; the ego says, "I
am this type of person." This continuity gives the ego a sense of
security and stability, but it is an ungrounded sense, because
there is actually constant change. The continuity is sustained
through various means:
- Our memories (which are somewhat constant, because they
refer to events which are frozen in history, and because we are
unconsciously selective in remembering occurrences which
support our concepts about ourselves). However, "reality"
actually exists in the constantly changing world of present
events.
- Our self-image (which is relatively stable, because it is
based on static ideas rather than on our ever-changing feelings
and thoughts). However, "reality" actually exists in our
constantly changing world of thoughts and feelings and other
personal events.
- Our habits (which suggest, through their repetitiveness,
that we are indeed a particular kind of person). However,
"reality" actually exists in our constantly changing world of
our current actions.
- The ego is a sentry. It analyzes situations as threatening or
beneficial, largely on the basis of the possible impact to its
images of us, but also to the resources which allow it to operate
in the human world. Thus it reacts to insults, damage to its
symbols, and challenges to its circumstances and habits (physical
or mental). Contrarily, threats to the body are managed
largely by instinct, such as the fight-or-flight impulse; for
example, if we are being mugged by an armed robber who wants our
money, the ego needs to be monitored because its archetypal field
might contain elements which would cause us to be less concerned
with the body's well-being than with the indignity which is being
inflicted, and thus those elements could lead us to lash out with
words or actions which would antagonize the robber and cause him
or her to hurt us instead of simply taking our money.
- The ego is an archetypal constellation. I don't believe that
it is an archetype; instead, I believe that it is a constellation
which is composed of particular elements from within every
archetype. For example, we might identify ourselves as a husband
and a computer programmer; thus, the ego includes elements from
what we might call our Spouse archetype and our Servant (i.e.,
employee) archetype.
What are the benefits
of a healthy ego? For many people who are receiving psychotherapy,
the task is to strengthen the ego -- to develop a sense of
individuality, independence, self-esteem, self-respect, personal
boundaries, assertiveness, presence, values, separation from parents,
conviction of opinions and perspectives, specific tastes and
preferences -- and freedom from contrary inner psychological forces
which would dominate the ego. When we have these qualities, we have
an ego which can be termed well-developed, well-defined, or "strong."
A well-developed ego is beneficial in many ways:
- We can approach people from a position of strength and
abundance and vigor, rather than from neediness and emptiness. We
can build relationships between two whole people, rather than
trying to manipulate the other person into filling our voids; for
example, if we have a weak ego, we need people to say that we are
worthwhile or interesting (or possessing whatever other trait we
cherish); to gain that assurance, we betray our own identity
(trying to be the type of person who would receive approval) and
we manipulate other people (because we are "fishing for a
compliment" instead of engaging in honest conversation). We can be
open and sensitive because our strong ego boundaries protect us
against the everyday insults and injustices from other people (and
from the self-condemnation which would be inflicted by
ourselves if we had dysfunctional elements in the ego's archetypal
field).
- We can be unpretentious. Half of humility is knowing what we
are not; the other half is knowing what we are. Humility is based
on an accurate perception of ourselves -- neither inflated nor
degraded. A well-defined ego is fulfilling and comfortable; a weak
ego uses conceit, arrogance, and pomposity to try to compensate
for its lack of fulfillment and comfort.
- We can be relatively consistent, stable, and trustworthy in
our behavior. Our ego is in charge, with its steady repertoire of
particular traits. As long as we manage the ego's archetypal field
properly, we do not develop constellations of conflicting elements
which will need to be expressed. We are likewise protected from
external influences; we know ourselves, so we are not
easily swayed by people who try to persuade us with their
opinions.
- We can endure input from the other parts of the psyche, and
from other people. While we are not overcome by the internal and
external influences which were mentioned in the previous section,
we can accept the valid input from them. A weak ego necessarily
closes itself off, to protect itself. But a fully formed ego stays
intact when it considers the antithetical perspectives of the
shadow, the soul, etc., and the opposing ideas which are presented
other people. Because an undeveloped ego has "empty spaces" --
e.g., a poorly defined relationship with our parents -- the other
parts of the psyche rush in to fill the spaces; for example, the
shadow (or the inner child) might fill that void with some
repressed anger from our childhood.
- We can create effective personas. Because we have a clear
sense of who we are, our persona (which presents who we are
to the world) can be crisp and definitive and genuine. A vague ego
can create only a vague persona, which lacks energy,
attractiveness, and distinct attributes with which people can
interact.
- Even our appearance is improved, with a relaxed grace of
movement, eyes which are bright and alert -- and, very likely, a
smiling face.
- We can endure "transcendence" of the ego. This is the goal of
many people who seek psychological or spiritual fulfillment. As
Jack Engler, Harvard psychologist and Buddhist teacher said, "You
have to be somebody before you can be nobody"; i.e., you need a
strong ego before you can properly transcend the ego (as explained
later). With transcendence comes peace of mind, broader
perspectives on life, a type of spiritual consummation, and a
calming of the ego's storms (which resulted from our
misunderstanding and misapplication of the function and range of
the ego).
We can develop our ego. In
Western cultures, many psychological problems are related to the ego,
specifically deficiencies in self-esteem and identity. To create a
healthy ego, we enhance the following qualities:
- Independence. We establish our own income and housing and
other foundations of adult life. Also, we are emotionally
independent (feeling free to love and to seek sources of love
in our own way) and intellectually independent (in
developing our own viewpoints). However, we realize that we do
need people in order to be a complete person, so we find a balance
between independence and interdependence.
- Self-esteem. We believe that we have innate value and that we
have a right to be alive.
- Personal boundaries. We are not codependent, so we can "draw
the line" to distinguish our own interests, feelings, and
responsibilities. We create a private, secure inner world in which
we can be whatever we want to be -- free to think, to imagine, to
love, and to feel. Well-defined boundaries not only help to define
that which is ours to defend, but they also indicate to us what is
not ours (so that we are not wasting time and energy in
confrontations over issues which are "none of our business").
However, our boundaries can be adjusted to allow friends to be
close to us. Ideally, we have had parents and friends who have
respected our boundaries and helped us to define and defend them;
contrarily, our boundaries might have been damaged if we have
experienced shame, abuse (emotional, sexual, or physical) -- or a
lack of discipline, privacy, or self-esteem.
- Assertiveness. We practice the means of expressing ourselves,
and also the means of protecting ourselves against other people's
assertiveness. We are in this world for a reason, and we know that
our perspectives and actions are important in the overall pattern
of life, so we we need to assert ourselves in order to share what
is ours to be shared.
- Presence. When we are where we are supposed to be, we have a
sense of belonging here, and of having a right to be here, instead
of indulging excessive shyness and uncertainty. Even when we are
not talking or doing anything, people notice us, because our sheer
willingness to be a part of it all grants a degree of charisma.
- Values. We discover what is important to us, and we work to
achieve goals that are aligned to those values.
- Conviction of opinions and perspectives. In the issues of our
personal life and of society, we know what we believe, and why we
believe it. However, we are not defensive or combative in
defending our opinions, because we realize that other people are
equally entitled to their positions, and we enjoy learning from
our debates and our differences.
- Specific tastes and preferences. Using our feelings as a
guide, we realize that we like French food, red roses, white wine,
jazz music, Picasso's art, fast cars, professional baseball games,
hiking in the woods, trout fishing, etc. In every new situation,
we refer to our feelings to lead us toward one choice or another;
from these choices, we create a rich assortment of likes and
dislikes. We are fun to be around, because we have enthusiasm for
a diverse variety of activities.
- Freedom from overwhelming complexes and subpersonalities. We
learn to accept input from complexes and subpersonalities without
being overpowered by them; they all have something to contribute.
Because we honor them, and manage them well, we are not repressing
their power and then being subjected to their eruptions.
- Individuality. We have relationships with people and with
humanity in general, but we do not lose our sense of distinction
in an oceanic blur. While we in a relationship, we have a sense of
"we," but we also have a strong sense of "I." We do not abandon
our own individuation process for the relationship. We create our
individuality -- and the ego itself -- through processes by which
we separate ourselves:
- We separate ourselves from other people. Some psychologists
believe that an infant lives in a world in which everything is
experienced as a part of itself; the infant and its mother (and
everything else) are in a state of "oneness." There is no
substantial ego, so the infant's responses are instinctive, not
ego-driven. Instead of having a strong ego, the infant is said
to reside within its Self, which has only begun to divide
itself into the components of the psyche (such as ego, shadow,
etc.). The ego truly starts to develop when the infant
recognizes its mother as something separate from itself; this
separateness becomes apparent whenever the mother does not
respond to the infant's will. (A few writers have equated this
differentiation of wills to the clash between God and Adam and
Eve; the result was the awakening of human consciousness.) We
spend the rest of our lives refining our sense of self and
other, learning that those other people are not extensions of
ourselves and our will. We learn through our increasing
understanding of individuation, boundaries, assertiveness,
tolerance of other people's assertiveness, general
socialization, and other areas in which our ego stands in
contrast to another person's ego.
- We separate ourselves from our parents. We claim our
adulthood by assuming the responsibilities that once
belonged to our parents -- the responsibilities for our
protection, health, financial well-being, sense of worth,
etc. Our parents' "will" can no longer trigger our fear or
rebellion or submission. We can relate to our parents in an
adult-to-adult relationship.
- We separate the ego by from other parts of the psyche. As
explained in the chapter on the shadow, our ego is developed as
we discover or decide (consciously or unconsciously) what type
of person we are -- our likes and dislikes, our habits, our
outlooks, our personal tastes and style, and so on. The
contrary traits are rejected into the shadow. In addition to
separating itself from the shadow, the ego distinguishes itself
also from the other elements of the psyche -- such as the
subpersonalities -- and it claims a central position among
them.
The ego is only one
"self." Traditional psychotherapy views the ego as our identity; the
goal is to adapt this ego to function well within ourselves and
within society. In other schools of psychology, and in religion, the
aim is to discover a self-identity beyond the ego; Jung called this
larger identity the "Self"; religions have called it the "soul"
(which differs from Jung's use of the word "soul" as a part of the
psyche, although he allowed that there is also a separate, spiritual
essence). The confusion regarding the words self and Self and soul
can be more than semantic; in our experience of these "higher"
selves, we can (as explained in the chapter on the Self) believe that
we have simply discovered a larger ego, because the ego, the Self,
and the soul all seem to be "me." For the remainder of this chapter
(and throughout the book), I describe ego's relationship with soul,
not with the Self; I avoid references to the Self because:
- I have not personally experienced the Self (and I have no
intuitive perception of it), so I would not be comfortable in
writing about it. (The Self is explored in a chapter of its own,
based on the work of Jung and other people.)
- Although the soul and Self are not identical, I assume that
most of the dynamics in the ego-Self relationship are the same as
the dynamics in the ego-soul relationship; therefore, much of the
following information would be applicable for people who want to
know about the ego's interaction with the Self.
The ego has a
limited function. When we believe that the ego is our only identity,
we naturally assign all administrative functions to it, including our
small choices (e.g., deciding how to react to an indignity) and our
big choices (such as our direction in life, including career,
relationships, etc.). Throughout our life, much of our frustration
and failure occur because the ego has accepted duties for which it is
unqualified (and for which it has no authority, hence the conflicts
when the ego tries to impose its will); the ego lacks the
information, perspective, and power that are available to the soul.
There is no reason to criticize the ego for these limitations (as
many religious teachers have done); on the contrary, the ego performs
splendidly in its role as the center for our human identity. The
problems occur when we expect the ego to be, or to do, something
which it is not designed to be or do; when we believe that the ego is
our ultimate self, we expect it to have the knowledge and power which
only the soul possesses -- and then we unfairly condemn the ego for
not being able to meet our impossible expectations. Our so-called
"ego problems" -- lack of ego development, or an unbalanced ego, or
an "inflated" ego, or the terrible qualities which are assigned to
the ego in general -- are never the fault of the ego itself; they are
due to our misunderstanding and misapplication of this instrument.
The ego
and soul can have a "partnership." The ego that causes problems is
the one which runs without direction; to blame the ego for our
dilemmas is like blaming our car if we do not drive well -- as though
the accidents' injuries and expenses prove that the car is bad rather
than that we are bad drivers. When there is a proper relationship
between ego and soul, our intuition directs us to turn our attention
toward a particular facet of life (such as our finances or
relationships), and then it tells us what to do, and how to do it,
and when to do it, and how much to do it, and when to stop. Then the
ego does not operate haphazardly, generating irrelevant goals, and
pursuing them to a size that is grotesque and self-destructive. From
the perspective of soul, the ego is a vital interface into the human
world; it is used as a cherished, finely tuned instrument like a
telescope, a translator, and a tool of expression toward aspects of
our human life so that we can eventually realize that those aspects
are facets of spirit. When we discover the soul (or when we learn to
use our intuition, which is the means of communication from soul to
ego), the ego can delegate some of these responsibilities to it;
instead of trying to solve problems from the limited viewpoint and
strength of the ego, we can "seek inner guidance" from "our higher
self" -- the soul. Because this guidance comes from the soul (which
has a larger overview), our efforts will tend to be successful and
satisfying for all parties involved -- the other elements of the
psyche, and the people around us. Although the delegating is often
colored with religious terminology, such as "surrendering to God (or
to our higher self)" or "humility," we can view it simply as a
pragmatic strategy: the ego says to the soul, "You are better at
these things than I am, so I want you to do them from now on" even if
it means that the ego must assume a subservient role. The ego can
accept this lesser role if it knows that its needs will be fulfilled
more effectively when this greater entity is at the helm; the
willingness to submit to greater principles is exemplified daily by
all of us in phenomena such as delayed gratification, and the
suppression of immediate impulses for the sake of social protocol.
We can "transcend the
ego." When we expand our sense of identity to the soul, while
maintaining the integrity of the ego, we rightly "transcend" the ego.
From this viewpoint, we re-unite with the elements which we split off
during our ego-building stage -- but this reunion is with distinct,
developed entities rather than a plunge back into the oceanic state.
Transcendence is not only for people who have attained the heights of
psychological or spiritual development; to a degree, we transcend the
ego whenever we express love, or we act altruistically, or we extend
our identity into an association with our family or nation or another
group, or when we experience midlife. In transcendence, our ego is
still there, with its boundaries, but now we are as though in an
airplane, seeing the fences surrounding our home, but not being
limited by them. The ego remains necessary to perform its
psychological functions (as listed previously, e.g., the maintenance
of boundaries, assertiveness, presence, and general personhood); we
are still individuals in a world of people and confrontations. We
know that the ego is one type of self -- legitimate and important
within its own realm -- but we can also identify ourselves with other
types of self, to benefit from their perspectives; i.e., "Yes, I am a
person (an ego); I am also a soul" -- each identity being appropriate
and functionally "real" in its own world. In addition to
simultaneously identifying and disidentifying with this personal
ego, we can also identify and disidentify with our personal thoughts
and emotions and actions; we are doing them but they also seem to be
doing themselves while we are mere observers.
We might
experience pseudo-transcendence. This can occur in two ways --
through inflation or through regression. Whether the ego expands or
regresses, we foul the relationships between the ego and the elements
of our inner and outer world -- and we disrupt the individuation
process, which is a defining of our inner elements (as a precursor to
the establishment of productive relationships among them), not a
blending of them back into their undifferentiated condition. In the
blended, oceanic state, we do not confront the important problems of
psychological growth, because we no longer recognize the distinct
elements which are the players in that growth (and, externally, we no
longer discern other people as separate individuals with whom to
interact, because we have broken down our boundaries to attain a
sense of "oneness" with those people). The incompleteness of the ego
-- and thus our unreadiness for its transcendence -- is indicated by
the ego's "empty spaces" and its lack of definition; instead of solid
ground, we have a swamp of unresolved fundamental psychological
issues, and vague ideas about our identity and our relationships to
the people and circumstances in our life. If we transcend from this
unfinished condition, we will discover that we are no longer in the
arena where these issues are confronted; metaphorically, we are
gliding above that ground or that swamp, so therefore the issues will
remain and fester -- and they will continually call us back down to
earth. We can define inflation and regression in the following ways:
- Inflation. This can happen when we encounter the soul or
something else which seems to be "spiritual" within us but we do
not understand that this other identity is an additional center of
selfhood and not a mere expansion of the ego self. If we
erroneously associate the ego with the splendor of the soul, the
ego inflates its concept of itself into that of being god-like;
this can cause psychological and social problems as we try to act
out our delusion of divinity in our relations with people, and as
we deny the seemingly ungodly parts of ourselves such as the
shadow.
- Regression. In this situation -- the "pre-trans fallacy" -- we
have not contacted an expanded self at all, although we do discern
some type of expansion. Instead, we have reverted to the infant's
preegoic, oceanic state of oneness, in which our boundaries
disintegrate, and we no longer have a sense of separate identity.
Religions
generally do not value the ego. Usually the ego is viewed as a block
to enlightenment, or even as a conscious, conniving entity which is
attempting to ensnare us with its relentless desires. Rarely, if
ever, is the ego depicted as a positive element. Religions view it as
an enemy to be destroyed, or as an illusion which does not exist at
all.
- The ego as "enemy." We find this idea in Eastern religions
(with their asceticism and their phrases such as "the annihilation
of the ego"), and in Western religions (with their hairshirts and
their degrading beliefs regarding meekness and original sin).
Throughout history, these concepts (or at least the common
interpretation of them) have been devastating to human endeavor,
psychological health, and spiritual advancement; to some extent,
we have all been crippled by the notion that the ego is somehow
evil or shameful or inferior -- and we either submit to these
notions at the expense of our vitality and presence (and we make
virtues of weakness and poverty), or we rebel angrily (in the
manner of Friedrich Nietzsche, or the Church of Satan's Anton
LaVey) and we spurn much of religion because we are rightly
offended by the doctrines of self-hatred and self-denial.
(Ironically, religion's determination to minimize the ego actually
directs an inordinate amount of attention toward it.) When we
experience the soul, and we then review the anti-self literature,
we see that there is indeed a type of destruction -- but, rather
than a destruction of the ego, it is a destruction of our illusion
that the ego is our ultimate identity. In transcendental states,
the ego does seem to disappear -- but it is still there,
functioning far away, and waiting to welcome us home when we
descend from the mountaintop (unless, to our detriment, we return
with the erroneous idea that we have forever gone "beyond ego,"
and we thus engage in religious role-playing, and repression of
the ego's expression, and discarding of our vital human
growth-process). If we read between the lines of the literature
regarding enlightenment, and we grant much latitude in
consideration of the peoples' euphoria and lack of precise
vocabulary for describing transcendental states, we can see their
point -- but we can also conclude that the accounts of
ego-destroying enlightenment were the consequence of wild "waxing
poetic" and severely inaccurate journalism.
- The ego as "illusion." Buddhists believe that there is no
self. There have been various interpretations of this Buddhist
concept of anatta.
- The ego is not real. This viewpoint allows the possibility
that a permanent soul exists apart from the ego. (The Buddha
might not have agreed with this statement, but it is presented
by some contemporary Buddhist authors.) We need to clarify this
issue by exploring the definition of "ego":
- In Western psychology, the word "ego" refers to a part
of the psyche. Although the word is just a label, there is
something underlying the label which is "real," definable,
continual, and dynamic.
- In Eastern religions, "ego" refers to something entirely
different: it is only the label which we put onto ourselves.
- Individuality is not real; there is no individual self at
all. We are nothing but a collection of components with nobody
behind them; there are merely impersonal, temporal thoughts,
feelings, emotions, etc. For example, we do not "hate"; it is
hatred which hates. In the final state of enlightenment,
individuality is totally extinguished, like a candle flame
which has been snuffed, or like a raindrop which has fallen
into the sea. However, for some of us, this nihilistic concept
that the individual does not exist (like the idea that the
world itself does not exist) strips us of our sense of personal
meaning; instead, perhaps only for our sanity, we believe that
the universe exists for some reason other than to be discarded
as hallucination -- and we cannot motivate ourselves to pursue
a path which ends not in eternal life but in what we can
conceive only as absolute death.
- "Personhood" is based upon the archetypes; the ego is a
constellation within those archetypes. The label -- "person"
-- is only for the purposes of general identification; the
mind creates this generalization because it recognizes the
isolated "package" (i.e., the physical body, and the mental and
behavior habits ) as an individual unit. However, upon further
examination, we can discern people as a collection of
impersonal forces -- energies (including emotional
energies), archetypal-field elements, the organized matter of
the physical body, etc. In our interactions, we never interact
with a "person"; instead, the interaction is on the archetypal
level -- between one soul's archetypes and another soul's
reciprocal archetypes, as those archetypal interplays trigger
thoughts, actions, imagery, and the release of energies. (We
can understand this idea that "we never interact with a person"
by realizing that, in each interaction, we are focused on only
one particular archetypal aspect of the individual; at any
moment, the person is either a Man or Husband or Parent
or Employee, for example -- although all other archetypes are
simultaneously present and are participating in the
background). The mind colors and fills in the details in these
raw interactions such that we perceive a complete person and an
entire world. Thus, personhood is both "unreal" (in the sense
that it is only a "graphical user interface" for the underlying
dynamics of spirit) and "real" (in the sense that it is
something to taken seriously as a mode in which we learn about
spirit in this "dimension," where the ego is "real" in relation
to the rest of the world). While these particles of personhood
obviously do constitute not a permanent self, Buddhism stops at
that point, and says that there is no individuality at all;
some of us go beyond that point, to discern a permanent soul
which grants an eternal, transcendental individuality.
Perhaps
the ego has been misunderstood by religion. In religion, the ego is
criticized because it supposedly distracts us from "spiritual"
pursuits by its constant cravings, its insatiable lust for worldly
goods, and its attachments. But this perspective might be based on
fallacies:
- Is the ego a "distraction" from spirituality? Surely there is
a conflict if our notion of spirituality requires us to think and
act in a manner which is, by definition, ego-less as exemplified
by religious practices which are self-denying and self-punishing
and self-destructive. But other people are able to have a
spiritually meaningful life while maintaining a dynamic ego. The
ego cannot conform to religious ideals; it can only be an ego, and
to try to make it more or less than that is merely to darken the
shadow and to create the tragic poles of religious fanaticism and
atheism (both of which are the result of failure to forge a proper
relationship between ego and soul). We can let the ego be what it
is, and allow it to play out its innate nature (trusting that that
nature is constructive or at least innocent, but not demonic),
while we observe and facilitate its psychological activities from
the transcendental overview of the soul.
- Is the ego insatiable? If the answer is affirmative, we are
justified in regarding the ego as a truly unmanageable
distraction, to be assaulted with austerities that would simply
exterminate the ego along with its unquenchable desires. The ego
does seem to generate one request after another, but perhaps the
appearance of insatiability is due to our incompetence in giving
the ego that which would satisfy those requests. For
example, if a boy asks his mother for breakfast, but she gives him
a book, he will still be hungry; and if she gives him a shoe,
again his hunger remains, so the mother might conclude that the
boy cannot be satisfied. But the ego is not insatiable any more
than is our stomach which needs an occasional meal. We "feed" the
ego within a general psychological framework of self-esteem and
self-respect whereby we acknowledge our value, and the ego's value
as our means of expression into the human world; we give
nourishment specifically in the form of expansive thoughts of hope
and confidence, and actions which assert the ego into its rightful
place in the world, and some space in which the ego can display
its peacock feathers occasionally (via harmless and even
productive acts such as creative arts, extravagant fantasies,
humor, a flamboyant personality, competition in sports and games,
outrageous tastes in fashion and music and opinion, etc.).
Allowing for the occasional rumbles of hunger, we have a content
ego, which trusts us to respect its instincts (which lead us
toward psychological health and human fulfillment), and also
trusts us to willfully act in ways which will answer its requests
(which are reasonable in a healthy ego).
- Is the ego selfish, greedy, "evil"? As the center of our human
existence, the ego's task is to acquire necessary goods and
services, and to protect its (our) interests. In performing this
duty, we encounter conflicts when other people want those same
goods and services, or if their interests conflict with ours in
some other way. But a healthy ego requires only the basic
resources for its survival and growth; generally, there is "enough
to go around," and we can satisfy many of those psychological
needs internally through our relationship with the ego
(e.g., granting esteem to ourselves instead of seeking it from
other people). It is the unhealthy ego which generates
outrageous demands:
- It lacks secure, well-defined personal boundaries, so it
aggressively and inaccurately extends its boundaries into the
lives of other people.
- We have not given it self-respect, so it seeks an
inordinate amount of "respect" externally through people's
admiration or fear.
- It does not feel comfortable in its beliefs (and perhaps in
its basic right to possess those beliefs) -- religious,
moral, political, etc. To bolster itself through external
support, it demands that other people have the same beliefs.
- It does not have natural "presence," so it tries to
compensate through mere notoriety via social
positioning, media attention, and bizarre, exhibitionistic,
rebellious behavior.
- It does not sense the meaningfulness which is imparted by
a healthy ego's relationship to the soul, so it lacks an
attitude of awe and reverence toward life (including its own).
- It does not have a sense of self-worth, so it compensates
through the acquisition of opulent symbols of worth
instead of simply gathering the materials that it needs for its
own projects. The ego can experience a degree of satisfaction
with mere "adequacy"; for example, it requires an "adequate"
home (i.e., one which provides safety from marauders, and
shelter from weather), but this need is fulfilled equally by a
low-rent apartment or a mansion, as if it requires only the
archetypal embodiment of "home" rather than any particular
quality of home. The call for a grander lifestyle is not
from the ego; it might due to other factors:
- Archetypal elements. We "desire" a home which matches
the thoughts, images, and energy tone of our Home archetypal
field.
- Pragmatic requirements. For example, we might need a
large home because we have a large family, many visitors,
and space-consuming hobbies.
- Image. Image might be based on vanity (as in "keeping up
with the Joneses"), but sometimes it is a necessary
consideration (as in ownership of the type of home which is
expected of an executive, such that a low-class residence
would harm our career).
- Our personal energy. For example, some people are
uncomfortable in a large home -- not because shoddy
self-esteem won't allow it but because they don't have
enough energy to fill it.
- Other personal reasons. For example, we might want a
large home because we enjoy doing remodeling as a hobby.
We can be
both immanent and transcendent. Even when the ego seems to keep us
involved with mundane matters when we might rather be flying in
transcendence, let us consider that involvement and transcendence can
be experienced simultaneously. If we do not seem to be in a
transcendent state at any given moment, this is not because the ego
is restricting us but rather it is probably because we are knee-deep
in our meddling with the ego's battles (with our attempt to inflict
religious, moral, or logical concepts upon the ego), instead of
releasing the ego to solve problems with its own instincts and with
the gladly-accepted intuitional input from the ever-present
transcendent soul.