Ego = Exclusivism

Premise: Exclusiveness is a projection of ego. In the defining of that which I am, I define that which I am not. The ego creates a separateness, an externalization of ‘I, or me’ from the rest of the natural world. This externalization allow’s me to create and assign meaning to that which is ‘otherness’. Such constructions may be benign or malignant, or both. It follows, that social constructs and institutions would mirror both externalization and otherness - ie- exclusiveness.

How then, having abstracted myself from the natural world, do I form a perspective of all that is around me, of a concept of “God”, that can be anything but exclusive? Having said “I”, is there any way to be other than exclusive?

Comments?

JT

Good topic.

Is there a way? Some would proclaim a difference between one’s ego self and one’s true self. The true self is there…somewhere. Our job is to find it.

I think you have to be exclusive [i]in the moment[/i]. That is, you can only function by saying "Today I believe this and not that."  People change though, and with that recognition comes the recognition that beliefs can change.  So, one can have sympathy or understanding for people outside of their exclusive nature because they see in themselves how they used to be that way, or how they could end up that way if they followed a different path. 
So, we're trapped in an exclusive state, that can change over time. It always remains exclusive- even as we change, we still say "This and not that" when we compare our present to our past. 
 Certain prejudices (the only alternative to dogma) can come the closest to true inclusiveness, but that has it's own problems.

Hi JT,

I disagree with your premise, since Ego (the self) makes the individual (necessarily) distinct from the world and other selves but distinction isn’t exclusion. By merely saying “I” I exclude the rest of the world from nothing other than my self (being I) – which is quite appropriate.

“Egocentrism” holds the view that the ego is the “centre, object, and norm of all experience”, confining everything “in attitude or interest” to its own needs or affairs. In doing this, other selves are excluded from attitudes or interests.

The next step would be to say “we”, which is inclusive by nature, but is often used exclusively. This is where Religion becomes exclusive towards those who do not or are not seen to share the philosophy or world view of the group. These “constructions may be benign or malignant, or both”, agreed. It is an asocial attitude, comparable to egocentrism.

But do I say “I” in respect to God? Or do I refer to an experience or idea that I associate with the idea of God. To say “I have experienced” can be quite correct and appropriate. To add “God” is anything from an assumption to a certitude, but may be wrong. I can’t see an inherent exclusiveness, but rather a proposition that my experience (not the experience of another) was of God.

Shalom
Bob

JT

We live with a corrupt ego. Does it have to remain that way? I don’t believe so but it is how we are so any God concepts will be exclusive but only imaginary. The corrupt ego denies the reality of exclusion. Consider how Meister Eckhart puts it and how the developing soul gradually frees herself from the created things and the imagination that is not part of God. They are excluded as not part of “I am.” Unity and individuality exist simultaneously.

I don’t think our ego is our “self” our ego is our selfish premises, our gods, our non-gods, and keeps us from:

accepting other peoples ideas.

keeps us from fulling accepting empathy.

Does lowering our ego down a few notches lessen god? only if your god is controlled by your ego. What it will mainly do is force you to think outside of yourself and more towards the “flock of humanity”.

Really it’s connecting to the “flock” through empathy that one can realize what god is. It doesn’t mean giving up yourself, it means that yourself becomes integrated with everyone else. Everyone still has their own identity, and that identity would be a piece of all our individual identities

What is ego? It is a sense, the 7th sense (there appear to be at least 8 senses but let’s not confuse the issue). It seems to be the sense of self. This sense has a function like the other senses and like the other senses there is a ‘right’ way to use it. Without ego, I would not recognise my inherent ability to know when to act, to know when to act is to know the role that I must play in this dance of life. In other words to know who I am. It is only when we do not walk hand in hand with Truth that the ego runs wild, like the mind without a director. To walk hand in hand with Truth means that we do not need to concern ourselves with such things as ego because the ego is subdued.

This “I” is the misguided ego. It is a constant battle between doing what we ‘know’ we should do and doing what the ego wants us to do. It is a matter of conscience. In other words, taking our cues from the inside rather from the outside.

A

Tentative,

There is something dangerous in saying that a person’s ego is a source of trouble. It is kind of like saying that your skull is causing your problems. The skull is a normal, natural and essential part of us. It only give us problems with it is broken or wounded.

I think it is the same with the ego. That we have an ego is not a cause of problems. The ego is a natural, normal and essential part of our being. The ego can be a source of trouble when it is broken or wounded.

Everyone is walking around with an ego that is broken or wounded to some degree. This wounding is the source of trouble in their lives. Ideally we are given direction and help to move us towards having a whole, sound, and healthy ego.

The ego is just a space. The borders of that space can be open to different degrees. The person who has the ego that is wounded to the highest degree will have borders that are closed to the highest degree. No man is an island, and even those who are closed to the greatest degree are still vulnerable. They may guard the boarders to their land but they can never put a wall high enough to keep everyone and everything out.

The alchemy of mutual transformation is stronger than any attempt to be closed. A malicious action can still sting and a kind action can still bring bliss.

The most wounded ego seeks to shut out any future harm. It does this with weapons like anger and apathy. The wounded ego will do anything to increase the distance between his space and your space. All of this is done out of a desire to experience safety.

A healthy ego enjoys the experience of connection with other people. The walls are diminished as much as possible. Spaces blend together into a greater unity. You are not alone. No one is alone.

Hello to all,

Thanks to each and everyone. My broad sweeping generalizations have brought out the very best from each of you.

It would seem that all of us recognize that ego is a necessary part or function within each of us, and that there is both ‘good’ and ‘bad’ form and function in I/me. Moreover, there appear’s to be agreement that our ego is processual, always in an evolving state of becoming something new and different from what was before. With just a small nudge, there would seem to be tacit agreement that this process of ego is created and creates out of interaction with other processual egos and the larger processes of nature. This would give us a perspective of both exclusiveness and inclusiveness simultaneously - I think.

Help me out here, what is it that allows the ego to forgo its’ inclusive nature, and focus only on its’ exclusiveness?

Another generalization: The evil that we do, our original sin made manifest, stems from ignoring the understanding that we’re ‘all in the soup’ together. We do have ‘distinctiveness’, but when we externalize and make static our I/me, our troubles begin.

JT

Hi Tentative - everyone.

Easy - Sex and laziness. (I’ll see if I can get God in their somewhere too)

*All children start out fairly undifferentiated, a big bawling bundle of needs.

*They grow - but remain fairly simular psychologically - they haven’t aquired enough experience to make reliable value judgements. At best they vaguely echo the identities/exclusive traits of their parents.

*First split, around the age of 5-6-7 perhaps…? Boy/girl - mainly because of different games, or if you, like skill learning groups.

(Note - If there are ample resources it makes sense survival-wise to be fairly homogenous before puberty - there’s no point sticking your neck out above the herd before doing so will reap you any reward.)

*Puberty. Here begins the ego’s transformation to exclusivity. Go up to a teenager - ask him/her what they want to do/be - “Dunno”… They don’t know what they want to be, but they do know what they don’t want to be. ie: what they regard as excluded from themselves. Why…? Because they are in a difficult process - to attract the opposite sex, they must differentiate themselves from the herd. However this conflicts with the neotenous need to be included in a group. They still don’t have enough experience to make confident value judgements, so need the moral support of others who look and think like them. Hence the music - hence the clothes - hence the haircut. Teenagers still don’t have a completely mature exclusive ego - they echo the traits of others - the superteenagers known as Popstars… They begin to approach exclusivity, not by pushing things away, but in absorbing disparate ideas/group identities and combining them in a unique way. Using selective inclusivity to produce a whole that is exclusive in nature - The teenager wants the best of both worlds - to be able to say “I may resemble them, but I am more/different/better”

(Note: - Religion, this is where you first pick it up for real, or put it down, if its relevant in your social circle.)

Anyway - here things get grey… A number of things that effect inclusiveness/exclusiveness in maturity:

To become absorbed into a new social medium (join something), or pick up a new idea/knowledge set (learn something new to believe in) is active - and takes energy. People like the path of least resistance → They are more likely to maitain their current level of included/inclusiveness or become less so as they drop out of social circles/activities.
Love - you find the woman of your dreams, you want to keep her and she you. So you both start a process of ego-pruning, trimming off the parts that you feel may offend your true love. Changing - becoming the sum of the shared traits you have in common. This (perhaps only temporary) levelling of the playing-field produces a huge boost to exclusivity. Clearing out the mental wardrobe of all your unfashionable clothes if you like.
After love, family and yet more constriction of the self, you sacrifice your ego upon the altar of your children.
friendship - for a good friendship the people involved must be relatively simular in all areas - wealth/status/etc. Because if there’s a serious imbalance in an area that is held of value to one of the friends - negative feelings arise more often than not. Children are all the same - they make and have lots of friends. As you age - it becomes harder and harder to find people in your niche… Friendships dwindle, and are lost as one goes beyond the other.
Peer pressure, you mustn’t like what the boss doesn’t like. You must not question what society fears - you must exclude it/repulse it.

(I’m depressing myself )

So anyway - maybe some people wake up around their late 30s or early 40s and think shit - I’m completely exclusive. I’m not like anyone else. I’m alone. No-one understands me. Not even the wife/husband. That’s when God can become a big buddy again. He’s sufficiently amorphus to be moulded into anyone’s idea of an ideal best friend…

Anyway - suspect I’ve probably misunderstood what you meant by ‘exclusivity’ and ‘inclusivity’ But hope you all enjoyed the ride anyway.

Hello JT

Ego manifestations can be considered “good or bad” from a secular perspective. From an esoteric perspective they are either conscious or unconscious results. I add this to bring an additional dimension to what you are saying.

First of all I do not believe that this ego is some sort of existing unity. Instead it is an organization of many learned responses for differing life situations. It is like a condition in life presses a button on your collective psych and up pops a conditioned response in reaction to deal with it. Many of these response mechanisms are completely unaware of others in ones common presence.

Naturally, such a response is very limited in its scope and it is not surprising that it should see itself as all important since it is so limited. It is not large enough to include anything else other than its self interests.

Many ancient traditions initiating with a conscious source call this attachment. Some small part of the collective unconscious ego becomes so dominant it has the power to reject what threatens its existence. When this happens we are attached to the ideals of this unconscious aspect of ourselves.

We don’t have any understanding to ignore. We may appreciate it intellectually and during times of psychological escapism but we surely don’t understand it. If we did understand it, we wouldn’t ignore it since it is too important to what is uniquely human in ourselves.

We cannot understand and instead become attached to the trivial because we lack the consciousness of self that could allow for the experience necessary to reach understanding.

To understand what it means to be “in the soup together” requires consciousness of self, not to be confused with being self conscious. But we see it for two minutes and than begin arguing politics or something similar and are once again emotionally attached to justifying ourselves in the context of our preconceptions of “good and bad.” The emotional impartiality that would be necessary to maintain the conscious experience of life, the quality of the moment itself, is lost to a small part of our collective unconscious habitual reactions of self justification.

Our inability to automatically remain conscious of ourselves, the efforts required to do so or even appreciate its value in acquiring human perspective, assures that its benefits are only for a concerned minority. It is just too self satisfying to argue over differing concepts of good and bad and rationalize the obvious contradictions to express anymore than lip service to the reality and importance of consciousness as it relates to the big picture