Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Ego vs Personality

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by StrangeBrew
 


I used to like Andrew Cohen.
Then he turned "enlightenment" into an industry.
wie
Pretty clever really.
So I still like him, but with a different "I".




posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by StrangeBrew

I agree with the OP's statement as well. I also agree with the OP's opinion of ego's negative connotations. I don't see ego and personality being synonymous either. I view ego as a type of manipulated personality that masks or blinds a person's true self. With regards to selfishness and over-consumerism, I think we have Edward Bernays (Sigmund Freud's nephew no less) to thank.


Manipulated through 'will'. As we react to the stimulus which society provides us, we 'decide' to take one way of reacting over another.

And I agree that it masks our 'true personality', even to the extent that we fool ourselves with it. We become 'disassociated' from those parts of our true identity through (imo) choice.


The four ways of interpreting reality are the four ego-functions - Sensation, Thinking, Feeling, and Intuition. These consist of two diametrically-opposed pairs. Thinking is the opposite of Feeling, and Sensation the opposite of Intuition. So, suggests Jung, if a person has the Thinking function (an analytical, "head"-type way of looking at the world) highly developed, the Feeling function (the empathetic, value-based "heart"-type way of looking at things) will be correspondingly underveloped, and in fact suppressed. The same goes for Sensation and Intuition. Sensation is orientation "outward" to physical reality, and Intuition "inward" to psychic reality.

www.kheper.net...


So, if one is to see themselves to be the 'head type', then that part of the opposite to emphatic develops. The same is true about feelings; it bears out what I said earlier in that (imo) one may decide to be either domineering or subservient.

People aren't born in any particular configuration... they are shaped by their experience and make a decision to be one way or another.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dogI used to like Andrew Cohen.
Then he turned "enlightenment" into an industry.


Thanks for that link.
I did a bit of searching and found Anrew's take on the ego;


A simple psychological definition of the ego is something like the "self-organizing principle," that all-important command center in the psyche that coordinates the different aspects of the self. And that command center must be in good working order for a human being to be able to function in the world with any reasonable degree of competency. The ego as self-organizing principle is neither positive nor negative; its function is mechanistic, and in that, it has no self nature. But there is another definition of ego, and the ego in that definition has self nature. The human face of that ego is pride; is arrogant self-importance; is narcissistic self-infatuation; is the need to see oneself as being separate at all times, in all places, through all circumstances—and that ego is the unrelenting enemy of all that is truly wholesome in the human experience. When this ego is unmasked, seen directly for what it is, finally unobscured by the other expressions of the personality, one finds oneself literally face-to-face with a demon—a demon that thrives on power, domination, control and separation, that cares only about itself and is willing to destroy anything and everything that is good and true in order to survive intact and always in control. This demon lacks any capacity for empathy, compassion, generosity or love; delights in its perfect invulnerability; and, worst of all, will never ever acknowledge that which is sacred.

www.andrewcohen.org...


Jibes pretty well with parts of the OP, doesn't it?


[So I still like him, but with a different "I".




BBcode edit

[edit on 15/9/08 by masqua]



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 10:51 PM
link   


So, suggests Jung, if a person has the Thinking function (an analytical, "head"-type way of looking at the world) highly developed, the Feeling function (the empathetic, value-based "heart"-type way of looking at things) will be correspondingly underveloped, and in fact suppressed.




So, if one is to see themselves to be the 'head type', then that part of the opposite to emphatic develops. The same is true about feelings; it bears out what I said earlier in that (imo) one may decide to be either domineering or subservient.


I guess this is the point which I don't agree. I don't believe one positive attribute has to suffer for another or these two in particular. I see no reason why someone cannot instil knowledge of awareness and the truth to grow into someone who embodies both aspects to their fullest potential.



Manipulated through 'will'. As we react to the stimulus which society provides us, we 'decide' to take one way of reacting over another.


I agree that we are manipulated through will. In a lot of instances our will is a negative reaction to the (many) negative stimuli in society. This is where I believe ego enters. Negative will,in a way, falsely obliges one to obsess over self-concern and separation.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Hello All!!

Nice thread!

BW, could you tell me who is talking here Ego or Personality?
It could be more practical instead of theoretical.

Thank's

SNC24



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
But, is the ego at birth truly without ANY personality AT ALL?


I see that my use of the term 'ego' is not the same definition that many others use. For instance, here is what your statement would sound like using the definition that I have always associated with 'ego'.

But, is the "excessive and unfounded arrogance that feels the need to belittle others to make oneself feel better" at birth truly without ANY personality AT ALL.

The context and definition are different. If I interpreted your statement with the definition that I have learned to use for a long time now, it would make no sense at all. But by using the first definition of 'ego' found at dictionary.com we then reach a common ground to where we can discuss without misinterpretation.

For the sake of easy clarity here is the first definition of 'ego' from dictionary.com.

1. the “I” or self of any person; a person as thinking, feeling, and willing, and distinguishing itself from the selves of others and from objects of its thought.

The use that I grew up with doesn't use that definition. It uses number 3 which is...

3. egotism; conceit; self-importance: Her ego becomes more unbearable each day.

The point of the thread was that I seen this disconnect and subsequent misinterpretation due to definition and context. And I wanted to clarify this so that we all may look more closely at the context the term is being used instead of automatically inserting the definition that we personally use.

The ego, from the context many people use here, I would define as the societal identity. I do not advocate dissolving or killing the societal identity because it serves a useful purpose. I advocate dissolving the unfounded arrogance, conceit, and the need to belittle others to make oneself feel better about themselves.

The ego (societal identity) I see as something to be refined not destroyed. Death will probably do a good job of destroying it when the time comes.

I'm not involving spirituality at all in the statements above. That is another level entirely and to jump between those levels only ends up confusing the reader.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 12:21 AM
link   
I think I need to apply additional clarity.

Sometimes the context used for both definition 1 and 3 will sound exactly the same. This makes the task of correct interpretation even more difficult. So it's then is up to the poster to clarify what definition they are using when making such statements.

For myself, seeing that most people I encounter use the 1st definition, I will no longer use the term to describe the 3rd definition.

But I thought it was important to bring up this example of miscommunication to show how easy it is to misconstrue what someone is saying. It may remind us to be more mindful and ask better questions instead of ending up in circular debate.

Edit to Add: I'm not trying to change the definition anyone uses. If I see gaps in communication then I feel it's up to me to bridge those myself.

[edit on 16-9-2008 by OmniVersal]



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by OmniVersal
 




The ego, from the context many people use here, I would define as the societal identity. I do not advocate dissolving or killing the societal identity because it serves a useful purpose. I advocate dissolving the unfounded arrogance, conceit, and the need to belittle others to make oneself feel better about themselves.


I agree that ego can be defined in several ways depending on the user and their intentions for the word. I still see ego as a negative aspect of oneself or at least it easily capable of being filled with negativity more readily than a notion of greater good. I don't think a "greater good" ideal and ego can co-exist (imo anyways). This is how I interpret it.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by snc24
BW, could you tell me who is talking here Ego or Personality?
It could be more practical instead of theoretical.


I suppose that depends on which definition you use. We might go so far as to call the personality that which exists before birth and the ego that which is created after birth by our interaction with society. However, some people don't believe we existed before birth so that wouldn't be an adequate for all. Hard to tell how to answer that.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by StrangeBrew
I agree that ego can be defined in several ways depending on the user and their intentions for the word. I still see ego as a negative aspect of oneself or at least it easily capable of being filled with negativity more readily than a notion of greater good. I don't think a "greater good" ideal and ego can co-exist (imo anyways). This is how I interpret it.


Someone, I believe on another thread, put it well and coincides with some of my own study. The ego (definition 1) should be subservient to the "Greater I" or whatever you want to call the self that recognizes the oneness of all. In this way, we can align our ego (societal identity) with the greater good. We can live the golden rule and still function with efficiency in our hectic world.

That is why I say that the ego (definition 1) is to be refined. I have tested it myself and know that it is possible to live with both the separate "I" and Oneness. On the surface it might seem oxymoronic. But it's been done before and Carlos Casteneda called it "controlled folly".

I don't think anyone is wrong in how they interpret it. What's important, in my opinion, is that we seek the highest path we can no matter what. When we make that our primary objective then we need not worry about semantics....

(edit) ... except when discussing it with others. = )

[edit on 16-9-2008 by OmniVersal]









 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join