It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
Originally posted by schrodingers dogI used to like Andrew Cohen.
Then he turned "enlightenment" into an industry.
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.
[So I still like him, but with a different "I".
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.
Manipulated through 'will'. As we react to the stimulus which society provides us, we 'decide' to take one way of reacting over another.
Originally posted by masqua
But, is the ego at birth truly without ANY personality AT ALL?
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.
Originally posted by snc24
BW, could you tell me who is talking here Ego or Personality?
It could be more practical instead of theoretical.
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.