Ergo, the Ego….

Ergo, the ego…or; therefore, the ego.

For this reason, for that reason, consequently and so on….

There always appears to be a reason or a driving force behind the application, experience or takeover of one’s ego. Almost as if it were blameless, over powering, and seemingly beyond our ability to control, or even to comprehend. Some may say that we are even identified by our ego, or that the ego is us as the “Self”, or our “False Self”.

According to Sigmund Freud the human personality was structured into three parts; the id, the ego, and the super ego, which all developed at different stages of our lives. These parts were also not material but conceptual of key, theoretical mental functions.

Freud believed the id to be a primitive and instinctual part of the mind that is responsible for sexual and aggressive desires and hidden memories, and the super-ego as the part which acts as our moral conscience, with the ego connecting both parts and being grounded in reality. Freud believed that the interaction of the id and super-ego results in inner conflict, which must be mediated and controlled by the ego. For example, if the super-ego makes a person feels guilty for particular action or thought, then the ego can use various coping mechanisms to prevent or limit anxiety.

Elliot Aronson, another 20th century psychologist broadly described the ego as the “I” that is often associated with the self and making decisions. And, finally, the idea of being self-centered or egotistical is often related to the Greek myth of Narcissus, who fell in love with his own reflection.

Based on the above it may be inferred that the ego may allow for self-reflection or awareness of self, and the justification of actions. However, behind this, and as with all actions there is a driving or motivating force (i.e. ‘why’ we do ‘what’ we do), which in the most immature state may refer to our ability to rationalize our actions, by re-framing an event to maintain a more positive or favorable image or perception, as opposed to being honest or accountable with oneself. If we apply this to Freud’s teachings then the ego may (or reality) may present a skewed perception of reality as a defense mechanism, or as a form of self-justification.

Further to this, Carl Jung presented the ego as a more positive and necessary requirement that may be represented as the centre of consciousness, which is influenced by outside forces, personas, social and cultural norms, as well as those hidden or sub-conscious beliefs and conditioning. However, according to Jung the ego has the ability to be developed, which may be interpreted as developing the ability to distinguish between our authentic selves, external opinions and beliefs, unconscious biases and pre-disposed actions or thoughts.

If we examine the ego according to Helena Blavatsky the famous occultist, the ego refers to the “Self” (Higher Self), or the consciousnesses in a person, the “I am I” (or “I am”), teaching the existence of two egos; the personal (or mortal) and the higher (or Divine). The difference being that the former refers to personality and the latter refers to individuality; whereby the personality speaks of that which is part of the “Self”, but is not the “Self” and is therefore subject to change. Whereas the individually speaks of the true “Self”, that which is immortal, immutable and unchangeable.

Additionally, Theosophy a spiritual and philosophical movement popularized in the 20th century refers to the true ego as our “Higher Self” or Divine Triad (or perhaps, Holy Trinity), which constitutes the Manas (Mind), Atmas (Spirit), and Buddhi (Soul). Within this Divine Triad the ego can be disaggregated even further into the higher ego (associated with the Manas), and the spiritual ego (Buddhi). Overall, the ego can be expressed in three forms; in its lower form (via the Kama-Manas), associated with self-centeredness, in its impersonal form (i.e. apart from personality via the Manas), or as the divine or Higher Self/ego (via the Buddhi). These concepts will be more comprehensively explained in a separate blog, but for the purposes of this blog post, these descriptions provide an overall framework for which we may attempt to understand the ego within the context of the “Self”, which is illustrated below.

Based on the above, I presently understand and experience the ego not as the “I” (i.e. my “Self”), but as a part of my lower self (based on the most modern and conventional interpretation of the word) that is used to translate my “Higher” desires and individuality down into my lower self and bodies, just as ideas from ‘above’ are made manifest ‘below’, or from ‘Heaven’ to ‘Earth’.

This however does not mean that I perceive the ego (lower ego) to be negative as nothing on its own is created to be negative, rather I believe that the lower ego is a tool for everyday application, use, and protection; which is especially important for our survival as physical human beings in the ‘real’ or material world where we are confronted with varying beliefs, opinions, and environments where personalities or ‘masks’ are required for different circumstances.

I do not believe there to be anything nothing wrong with this as I believe that there is a practical use and need for this; however, as with all tools it is what we use the tool for and it can often be easy to confuse our lower ego for our true “Self”, ego, or identity. The problem being that this may often skew our reality or the truth within any given life situation, which may limit our ability to perceive reality, or the true motivations behind our actions, if not controlled by our true ego or “Self”. For the sake of defending or protecting a persona that acts as our “False Self”.

Based on the above and according to my present beliefs, it may be time we stop saying “ergo, the ego” and start saying “I own the ego”, and “I claim the ego for myself”, in order to claim its true power and intended use.