EGO...hmmphf What is it good for????

Originally posted by Bluesma
dominate and put him in his place, to give him time to learn to master himself. Military is good when no one else around is able, or willing (due to their code of ethics on leaving people their freedom) to help him out.
There are beneficial and good ways the urge to dominate and assert your individual power upon another

Must be an american culture thing ?
I have no urge to dominate others. It is actually a peaceful
liberating feeling. Try it. The world would be a better place
if more people did.

reply to post by ButtUglyToad


All I have done is expressed my opinions based on observations. Where is my judgement? I have eyes that see and read and an intellect that works with my cognitive abilities to synthesize information.

The cabal/illuminati/whatever are free to live their lives as they choose.

Much Peace...

Ego is mind, it is the false self rather than the true spiritual Self. Most can not exist on the physical plane without an ego therefore we must watch it, become its observer and allow the true Self to shine through.

Ego exists in time within us, one way to transcend it is to live completely in the Now, give no thoughts to past or present.

Originally posted by ToneDeaf

Originally posted by Bluesma
dominate and put him in his place, to give him time to learn to master himself. Military is good when no one else around is able, or willing (due to their code of ethics on leaving people their freedom) to help him out.
There are beneficial and good ways the urge to dominate and assert your individual power upon another

Must be an american culture thing ?
I have no urge to dominate others. It is actually a peaceful
liberating feeling. Try it. The world would be a better place
if more people did.

edit on 9/10/11 by ToneDeaf because: (no reason given)

LOL, I can be in either role, dominant or submissive, student or teacher, depending upon what the other and I desire both! In various parts of my life, in relation to different people, I am one or the other, or as equal in power!
I illustrated the beneficial forms of leadership here because that seemed to be the particular drive that is being rejected. Power can be abused, yes, that is not to say that it cannot be used in positive and loving ways also.

Your comment suggests that you think it is possible to have a collective, a community, a society, or a family, without any organization of hierarchy? Am I mistaken?

......and yes, at this time I do suspect that it is a very big influence in the American culture! Because so many of the current adult generation there grew up in the movements of the 60's and 70's, in which parents felt it was better to "leave their child freedom" and let them learn on their own from the world. Basically that means they did not step up to the responsibility of being a leader/protector/teacher. (caught up in their rejection of authority of any kind as being "bad"). What we got was kids exposed to predatory adults, all sorts of dangers, and growing up with a conscious distrust of others- the view that no one is capable of being an effective or trustworthy leader and they can only lean on themselves and their instincts.

But subconsciously, the desire to prove themselves wrong and experience proof that they are wrong about that causes them to keep trying to give it to others and BE a trustworthy leader, or provoke someone else to be it. To gain some hope that love is not ONLY available in the flaky, passive, and irresponsible forms of expression.

Ultimately, it is the inner fire of hope in humanity and human nature, and ourselves. The hope that there is more than the choice of victim/tyrant, self -sacrificing/other -sacrificing...... that we can have loving and mutually beneficial relations in which power is carried together. When you are on a road for a long time, it is kind to carry the others burden for a while, or watch over them while they take a rest......and then switch those roles as needed.

The ego is the non-real compound body, it operates mostly on biological urges and instincts, but the mathematical, logical mind is the guiding principle and only that can lead someone away from selfishness towards oneness.

Originally posted by filosophia
The ego is the non-real compound body, it operates mostly on biological urges and instincts, but the mathematical, logical mind is the guiding principle and only that can lead someone away from selfishness towards oneness.

Biological is non-real? Did you accidently write the opposite of what you meant?

Originally posted by blazenresearcher
Absolutely nothing!

Why do the people with the biggest ego get the biggest prizes???? Why is it when one suppresses their ego for the good of all we get the short end of the stick????

I just had an experience today with a high ego elevated individual. All that being said, he wanted to ask me a lot of questions....of course, being the supportive person that I am....I answered the questions, but I felt like...dude...do the work yourself...don't ask me because you are lacking in certain areas....aaarrgh..just venting!

Is it okay to - at some point here, on this board - finally establish what the word "ego" is going to mean?

It seems as if we're all using this word as if it were "sh*t", and usable as a pronoun for whatever we want it to mean. In this post of yours, it seems as if you're employing it to mean "need for self aggrandizement", whereas in most other posts on this board, the word seems to be used to describe "the need to delineate oneself from one's surroundings, and thereby achieve identifiable existence". As you can see, these two definitions are clearly different, and not just in degree of expression of the same core principle.

Yes, I know that we've tried to nail down the term, and have failed, from time to time, but surely some of you have become exasperated with threads that attempt to address any of the variety of issues presented as ego-centric in nature, only to discover yet another version of "ego" that hadn't really crossed your mind before as being ego-related in any way whatsoever.

Freud listed the Id, the SuperEgo and pitted them in contest over the human personality with the Ego as the babysitter in the room - the sensible, balanced kid who's realistic about what it takes to be appropriate within a given situation. I actually like this definition the best, since it exists within a relative structure, and enjoys well established parameters as a result. That said, I do realize that the term was a somewhat overly inclusive shorthand reference that Freud employed in his own written overview that was further modified as described below....

The terms "id", "ego", and "super-ego" are not Freud's own. They are latinisations by his translator James Strachey. Freud himself wrote of "das Es," "das Ich," and "das Über-Ich"—respectively, "the It", "the I", and the "Over-I" (or "I above"); thus to the German reader, Freud's original terms are more or less self-explanatory. Freud borrowed the term "das Es" from Georg Groddeck, a German physician to whose unconventional ideas Freud was much attracted (Groddeck's translators render the term in English as "the It").[31] The word ego is taken directly from Latin, where it is the nominative of the first person singular personal pronoun and is translated as "I myself" to express emphasis.
en.wikipedia.org...

...still, it seems as if - at least in our language - that "ego" has been associated with Freud's work for a much longer stretch of time than any of the other usages that we've seen stumbling around this forum.

Maybe im wrong, but if we really want to get to a semblance of truth and/or reality in any of these discussions, a common glossary of terms should be part of that effort.

Okay, back to people who are total asshats and how much we disapprove of them.