Are you confused, or were you providing rhetorical questions?
If you want to clarify your use of the word "ego", maybe you should consider that "ego" is not how we look (or what our name is), but the ego is instead the traits and/or behaviors occurring in an individual who is aware of himself or herself within the boundaries of their own understanding of
(a) society, and
(b) his/her self in relation to society, in relation to other individuals of a particular group, or in relation to those close to that person.
On a different note-
Your definition of the "ego", as that which is an identity to a self, seems to be not demonstrated by the behavior of a person based on the relationship to specific individuals, but rather it seems to be demonstrable as the choice of a person's appearance, how they choose to be named(?), and what they choose to have as their occupation...maybe even how they feel about those 3 things.
Even so, what I wish to point out is that the ego may not be the clothing or name, but is instead the "identity" conceived (and conceived by whom, exactly? Who perpetuates it?) when taking into account things beyond the appearance.
The eyes can see without words but the eyes can only see one. It is the mind (thought/words) that give the impression that there is more than there is. When there is an idea that there is more than there is - therein lies the confusion. One can be confused when one is not sure if it is 'this' or 'that' - one can only be amused when it is seen to be just 'this'.
Is it amusement you seek in lieu of your confusion? Or is it that you are simply weary of being confused?
I wish to find the ego—not the idea of it, but its actuality, how the ego is acted out and its properties. Conceptions such as "identity" have no properties until it is written down or acted out.edit on 19-11-2013 by NiNjABackflip because: (no reason given)
I wish to find the ego—not the idea of it, but its actuality, how the ego is acted out and its properties. Conceptions such as "identity" have no properties until it is written down or acted out.
The ego exists in a state of unawareness. It is an automatic mechanism, like breathing. If you wish to find it or catch hold of it, then action will have to give way to what Krishnamurti called "passive awareness" - a witnessing awareness that is vigilant without desire for an outcome i.e free of prejudice. Because the ego is mechanistic in nature it is constructed of repetitive mini-processes which after taking so many revolutions give way to an associated follow up process. Before one process can give way to a follow up process though there is a space of non-activity - the equivalent of neutral in geared mechanisms. Right witnessing or attention causes these gaps to become more attractive and distinctive. The aim of meditation is to remain aware of these gaps without falling asleep. Falling asleep by watching the gaps is the ego's defence mechanism to protect against discovery. The discovery that the ego is essentially dream stuff. One little whoops and a push. The more you try to focus on the reality of the ego the more unreal it is seen to be. The ego is a ghost in a haunted house.
Seeing the ghost for what it is makes the house no longer haunted.