Ego is seen and understood differently by many schools of thought. It was thought by Freud to be the Ich, thus 'I'; and many people think of their ego as being the Self. But let's take a different look at 'ego' or the Self.
Thinking about thinking
If you think about yourself, what do you define as 'yourself'? What makes you 'you'? Most of us see our bodies and brain as Self (reductionists thinking that 'this is it', nothing more to it). Concepts like 'mind' and 'spirit' are words given to ideas that arose from some thinkers who dared cross the 'normal' threshold of 'thinking'; thinking about thinking and wondering about wondering. Try it now: try to trace back your thoughts from their origin. Each and everyone, going 'back' and 'back' into a non-existent place, that simultaneously feels never ending. Thinking deeper about this concept of thought, you will also realize that thoughts are not 'separate'; they are not packets of separate things, but 'phases' of something (or nothing) that flow into one another from nowhere and everywhere simultaneously. Think about this for about one minute...
Have you realized that thinking about this made you forget about 'you' for a while? 'You' were somewhere 'inside' the thing (or body) you perceive to be 'you'. Can you feel that difference?
Inside and out
There is an inside and an outside to 'you'. The inside is a mysterious place; the place where your thoughts, fantasies and dreams dwell; a place that seems to lack time and space or 'reality' for that matter - but yet, you are aware of it.The outside is what most others perceive to be 'you': how you look as a physical being, what you wear, how you keep your hair and mannerisms you have as the 'you' you know yourself to be. But, what makes you wear that particular style of clothes? What makes you listen to the music you listen to, and watch the movies that you do? What makes you the way you are now? Why does it differ from others, and is it permanent, or could it be changed?
It is interesting to see how some 'wonderful' people will turn into devils with fortune and fame (while others don't), and how some bastards will change into saints with a near death experience etc. Even in the case of profound hallucinogenic experiences (such as seen with Dr. Rick Strassman's research with DMT), have people changed their ways to such an extent that it defies logic. Does this then answer the question "could 'ego' be changed"? And what about the question "why are you the way you are"? Take a deep hard look at your past (since birth) and notice what external influences played a major part in the shaping of what you call 'yourself'. You will be surprised to see (if not in total denial) just how much parents, teachers, peers, television and music played it's part; but also how you chose to respond to these external stimuli, pre-programmed by your first impressions as a child in your particular home, town, state, country and time. All these factors coincide to shape you into what you are today; and indeed still shapes you - have you noticed looking at your pictures over the years, how your taste in hairstyles and clothing has changed? We are all completely influencable, and very unaware of this.
The reason for gullibility
We need to change our views of ourselves and the universe that we perceive to be 'real'. We are all made from atoms thus fermions, which in essence is asymmetric waveform. This makes us all forms of vibration in a larger cosmos of vibration, thus, songs in a larger symphony. If we are vibration, then we will follow the principles of resonance: falling in with surrounding vibration. It is like the phenomenon of two similar glasses standing next to one another - make the one vibrate, and the neighbour will vibrate as well; change the one's frequency by adding water, and it will stop resonating with the other. In return - being vibratory forms - we are the same. We resonate with our surroundings; from the family home, to school and society in general: the French tend to share cultural qualities which is different from Americans. If you would to grow up in Africa, you would be different as well. These 'resonances' - our response to 'external' stimuli in which we are vibratory dispersed in - is what shapes the so-called ego. And as we have seen earlier, is changeable.
The function of ego
Then why do we have and ego? In very basic terms, ego can be seen as a programmable operating systemhelping you interact with 'reality' as a human being: from language to mannerisms to keeping up with the social trend. It is the thing which makes you a fairly functional part of the society you find yourself in. Thus, ego is merely a part of 'you', and not you per se. It can be a 'good' thing (as operating systems go), but could equally be dysfunctional, harming yourself and others around you. Some of us have an ego 'programmed' to be 'lower' than others' and vice versa. If it is in 'lower' mode, we tend to be submissive to others and society in general, causing stagnation in life and repressed anger, breaking out as depression, certain diseases (such as certain types of cancer: see psychoneuroimmuology's linking of Type C personalities, suppression of T-Cells and cancer) or worse, campus shootings. When programmed to be 'higher', we get individuals who 'bully' others ranging from a small a scale (such as snob-ism and domination at work or home), to a more serious scale, such dictatorships and serial killings. Groups of people share a collective ego as well: from religious groups to Gothic death-metal fans and towns to nations. These collective egos can do just as much damage - look at cases such as the Waco incident, the continuing burning of churches in Norway and more severely, genocide as was seen with the holocaust.
If we can understand that ego is a mere part of our multi-dimensional selves, forming a kind of 'bridge' between our inner and outer worlds; that it helps us interact with the world around us and is changeable - then we can balance our egos, and make it interact better with others' egos.
This will lead to better relationships - from individual to international level - if applied correctly (as we will look into in a later post).
Thinking about thinking
If you think about yourself, what do you define as 'yourself'? What makes you 'you'? Most of us see our bodies and brain as Self (reductionists thinking that 'this is it', nothing more to it). Concepts like 'mind' and 'spirit' are words given to ideas that arose from some thinkers who dared cross the 'normal' threshold of 'thinking'; thinking about thinking and wondering about wondering. Try it now: try to trace back your thoughts from their origin. Each and everyone, going 'back' and 'back' into a non-existent place, that simultaneously feels never ending. Thinking deeper about this concept of thought, you will also realize that thoughts are not 'separate'; they are not packets of separate things, but 'phases' of something (or nothing) that flow into one another from nowhere and everywhere simultaneously. Think about this for about one minute...
Have you realized that thinking about this made you forget about 'you' for a while? 'You' were somewhere 'inside' the thing (or body) you perceive to be 'you'. Can you feel that difference?
Inside and out
There is an inside and an outside to 'you'. The inside is a mysterious place; the place where your thoughts, fantasies and dreams dwell; a place that seems to lack time and space or 'reality' for that matter - but yet, you are aware of it.The outside is what most others perceive to be 'you': how you look as a physical being, what you wear, how you keep your hair and mannerisms you have as the 'you' you know yourself to be. But, what makes you wear that particular style of clothes? What makes you listen to the music you listen to, and watch the movies that you do? What makes you the way you are now? Why does it differ from others, and is it permanent, or could it be changed?
It is interesting to see how some 'wonderful' people will turn into devils with fortune and fame (while others don't), and how some bastards will change into saints with a near death experience etc. Even in the case of profound hallucinogenic experiences (such as seen with Dr. Rick Strassman's research with DMT), have people changed their ways to such an extent that it defies logic. Does this then answer the question "could 'ego' be changed"? And what about the question "why are you the way you are"? Take a deep hard look at your past (since birth) and notice what external influences played a major part in the shaping of what you call 'yourself'. You will be surprised to see (if not in total denial) just how much parents, teachers, peers, television and music played it's part; but also how you chose to respond to these external stimuli, pre-programmed by your first impressions as a child in your particular home, town, state, country and time. All these factors coincide to shape you into what you are today; and indeed still shapes you - have you noticed looking at your pictures over the years, how your taste in hairstyles and clothing has changed? We are all completely influencable, and very unaware of this.
The reason for gullibility
We need to change our views of ourselves and the universe that we perceive to be 'real'. We are all made from atoms thus fermions, which in essence is asymmetric waveform. This makes us all forms of vibration in a larger cosmos of vibration, thus, songs in a larger symphony. If we are vibration, then we will follow the principles of resonance: falling in with surrounding vibration. It is like the phenomenon of two similar glasses standing next to one another - make the one vibrate, and the neighbour will vibrate as well; change the one's frequency by adding water, and it will stop resonating with the other. In return - being vibratory forms - we are the same. We resonate with our surroundings; from the family home, to school and society in general: the French tend to share cultural qualities which is different from Americans. If you would to grow up in Africa, you would be different as well. These 'resonances' - our response to 'external' stimuli in which we are vibratory dispersed in - is what shapes the so-called ego. And as we have seen earlier, is changeable.
The function of ego
Then why do we have and ego? In very basic terms, ego can be seen as a programmable operating systemhelping you interact with 'reality' as a human being: from language to mannerisms to keeping up with the social trend. It is the thing which makes you a fairly functional part of the society you find yourself in. Thus, ego is merely a part of 'you', and not you per se. It can be a 'good' thing (as operating systems go), but could equally be dysfunctional, harming yourself and others around you. Some of us have an ego 'programmed' to be 'lower' than others' and vice versa. If it is in 'lower' mode, we tend to be submissive to others and society in general, causing stagnation in life and repressed anger, breaking out as depression, certain diseases (such as certain types of cancer: see psychoneuroimmuology's linking of Type C personalities, suppression of T-Cells and cancer) or worse, campus shootings. When programmed to be 'higher', we get individuals who 'bully' others ranging from a small a scale (such as snob-ism and domination at work or home), to a more serious scale, such dictatorships and serial killings. Groups of people share a collective ego as well: from religious groups to Gothic death-metal fans and towns to nations. These collective egos can do just as much damage - look at cases such as the Waco incident, the continuing burning of churches in Norway and more severely, genocide as was seen with the holocaust.
If we can understand that ego is a mere part of our multi-dimensional selves, forming a kind of 'bridge' between our inner and outer worlds; that it helps us interact with the world around us and is changeable - then we can balance our egos, and make it interact better with others' egos.
This will lead to better relationships - from individual to international level - if applied correctly (as we will look into in a later post).
Zorrilla, E. P., Luborsky, L., McKay, J. R., Rosenthal, R., Houldin, A., Tax, A., McCorkle, R., Seligman, D. A., & Schmidt, K. (2001). The relationship of depression and stressors to immunological assays: a meta-analytic review. Brain Behavior and Immunity, 15(3), 199-226.
No comments:
Post a Comment