What is the Ego

[Bonita]

Keryn wrote:  Our ego is the ‘bridge’ and we should not build our house on it – meaning we should not consider our ego as the sum of our entire identity.  It is a transition from animal to spiritual.

I’m not understanding how the ego can be a bridge to anything.  I always thought of revelation as a bridge and the source of revelation is the Adjuster.  The Spirit of Truth translates and makes it relevant for us, and by doing so, he personally becomes the way (path, bridge) from the material level  to the spiritual level.

[Bradly]

Keryn was quoting me.  And I was trying to relate the UB to Freud’s construct wherein the ego bridges/unites the id, instinctual/animal mind with the super-ego, or spirit directed super-conscious mind which touches the soul and TA.  Semantics indeed!!

I do agree that mortal ego stays with mortal body but that selfhood and identity of individualization – me and I Am – follows into Finality itself.  The soul has or is some form of personalization of me.  It is the ego that must manage, control and transcend animal mind but it also is the seat of our material identity which must be transferred/transitioned to morontia mind – the soul while yet mortal.

There are many moving and associated parts in the circuitry of ME, including the 3 Spirits of mind ministry, not to mention cosmic mind and the Supreme.  It is not difficult to get a little tangled up.

I asserted that the ego is or is like a bridge….a simple analogy and like all analogies, immediately inaccurate when taken even one step further into meaning.  Technically, a bridge is not a device “to” anything or “from” anything but simply connects two relative positions – it is non-directional.  Freud would say the ego is thusly a bridge, but also, of course, so much more.  Apologies for a crude and simplistic presentation of concept for such a complex issue.

[Keryn]

Yes, a bridge is an illustration that can be used as an analogy in many contexts.  Jesus uses the bridge as an analogy in this context:

 

^156:2.1 In entering Sidon, Jesus and his associates passed over a bridge, the first one many of them had ever seen. As they walked over this bridge, Jesus, among other things, said: “This world is only a bridge; you may pass over it, but you should not think to build a dwelling place upon it.”

 

However, one may use bridge as an analogy in other contexts, as well, as Bradly did and as I echoed in my post.

[TUB]

I think this model has a lot of similarities with what TUB is saying. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosynthesis

[Reader]

Keryn, thank you for contemplating this problem in the spirit of the higher self.

Bradley, it is natural that an atheist like Freud would be forced to ‘load up’ his concept of ego, but I don’t think the revelators are following his usage for the simple reason that they portray a more spiritual psychology which doesn’t require a primary role for the Freudian entity. I personally would take no clues from Freud without a good argument.

And Scott, I do not follow your assumption that the word ‘ego’ as it appears in the UB may be simply swapped out for the revelator’s other word, ‘selfhood.’ By doing so you have insinuated the existence of revealed teachings which I’m not sure actually exist.

Bonita, the fact that the Adjuster does not disregard the ‘personality values of the egoistic motive’ (103.2.7) says nothing of the ego itself as ‘entity of material identity’ but only explains the realistic context of valid personal needs honored by the Adjuster in the course of its constant preference for alturistic motives over non-altruistic motives. This does not constitute an argument for the reality of the utterly transient entity of material identity. Personality, recall, has capacity to unify the identity of any living energy system (112.0.7).

I still think I could find plenty of use for a word like ego if it represented specifically all that portion of intellect which is doomed to a single existence in time and space, all the scaffolding of animal mind which is not a ‘potentially spirit phase of mortal mind’ (1.3.7).

Still thinking about this…

Reader

 

 

 

[TUB]

And Scott, I do not follow your assumption that the word ‘ego’ as it appears in the UB may be simply swapped out for the revelator’s other word, ‘selfhood.’ By doing so you have insinuated the existence of revealed teachings which I’m not sure actually exist.

I never swapped out the word selfhood with ego. I swapped out the word ego with self. Selfhood and self are two different things right. Look at the way the authors word this sentence. They use ego interchangeably with self. If you don’t believe my interpretation I advice taking this sentence to someone who is unbiased and does not read TUB. See if they read this sentence the same way.

^{1229.7) 112:2.20} The material self, the ego-entity of human identity, is dependent during the physical life on the continuing function of the material life vehicle, on the continued existence of the unbalanced equilibrium of energies and intellect which, on Urantia, has been given the name life.

Also the word ego in the English dictionary quite literally means self. So the way the authors use the word fits the English language perfectly. Obviously the authors are not using the word ego in a negative sense or else they would not say things like prayer is a great way to elevate ones ego. In this quote below the authors tell us that it is the human ego that is looking for aid from the Mystery Monitor. I think it becomes  obvious that the authors are use the word ego interchangeably with self.

997.3)^91:3.5 Aside from all that is superself in the experience of praying, it should be remembered that ethical prayer is a splendid way to elevate one’s ego and reinforce the self for better living and higher attainment. Prayer induces the human ego to look both ways for help: for material aid to the subconscious reservoir of mortal experience, for inspiration and guidance to the superconscious borders of the contact of the material with the spiritual, with the Mystery Monitor.

17 – (91:6.4) Prayer, even as a purely human practice, a dialogue with one’s alter ego, constitutes a technique of the most efficient approach to the realization of those reserve powers of human nature which are stored and conserved in the unconscious realms of the human mind.

[Reader]

Scott, this elevation of ego which you equate with reinforcement of self is clearly distinguished by our authors from all that is superself in man 91:3:5

And forget about references to the alter ego – they are one and all descriptive of a pure fiction or at best a fictitious symbol 91:3:4 which nowhere in our book is given the substance of a reality – always it is a mere makeshift in the religious life of a child and a race 91:3:1, 91:3:3

And dialogue with this fictitious alter ego is characterized as a purely human practice 91:6:4

Meanwhile even the whole early religious reality of beneficient beings conceived by humans as enhancing social values and moral ideals is qualified as superhuman and distinct from the ego 91:1:4

the ego is equated with the self only as it is conceived independently of God 103:2:10

The ego is more strongly identified not with self in any positive sense but with self-seeking of the kind which is in conflict with the indwelling spirit and an obstruction to true worship, the very opposite of the practice of the presence of God which eventuates in the emergence of the brotherhood of man 103:4:1

By contrast, the impulse to deny something to ‘the ego’ for the benefit of one’s neighbor is characterized as the very idea-ideal of doing good to others 103:5:2 which has culminated in the teachings of Jesus

The authors talk about ‘national egos’ and ‘racial egotism’ 93:9:9; in the same sense they refer to a ‘religious ego’ – which they are quick to assert was not functioning in Jesus 196:0:6 because “his spiritual exaltation was a wholly unconscious and spontaneous soul expression of his personal experience with God.”

What is more, any exaltation of the ego is characterized as an illness or spell requiring a ‘divine antidote’ 48:4:15

ego dignity causes wear and tear resulting in loss of energy 48:6:37 ‘male ego’ is a quality elevated by the exaltation of war 84:3:4

Urantian education cannot become world-wide, idealistic, self-realizing or cosmic grasping as long as it is ego exalting 71:7:3

‘vanity and ego’ are linked together as incapable of full gratification without disaster to success of marriage and home building 83:7:6

‘ego-will’ is nothing but ‘multiform contentions of the ego cravings‘ which are adverse to the budding social consciousness – and wholly apart from other-than-self-will 103:5:4

The ego is equated with no aspect of the higher self but is represented as congeries of self-desires opposed to its best interests and against all human happiness except when coordinated and reconciled by the unified will of the integrating and supervising personality 103:5:5

If anything it is no more than “the natural expansion of emotional impulses” inimical to the moral growth of unselfish urges predicated on spiritual insight — genuine religious reflection. 103:5:5

Again, the ‘ego-entity of human identity’ is explicitly called the material self 112:2:20, a thing dependent during the physical life on the continuing function of the material life vehicle of unbalanced equilibrium of energies and intellect. Meanwhile selfhood of survival value, selfhood that can transcend the experience of death is not depicted as evolved from ego but by the act of establishing “a potential transfer of the seat of the identity of the evolving personality from the transient life vehicle — the material body — to the more enduring and immortal nature of the morontia soul and on beyond to those levels whereon the soul becomes infused with, and eventually attains the status of, spirit reality. This actual transfer from material association to morontia identification is effected by the sincerity, persistence, and steadfastness of the God-seeking decisions of the human creature.”

-Reader

[Bonita]

Bradly wrote: And I was trying to relate the UB to Freud’s construct wherein the ego bridges/unites the id, instinctual/animal mind with the super-ego, or spirit directed super-conscious mind which touches the soul and TA.

I’ve always preferred the Jungian definition of ego.  Jung did not connect the conscious ego with the unconscious mind (id & superego), and I have to agree.

“Despite the unlimited extent of its bases, the ego is never more and never less than consciousness as a whole” (Jung, 1969: par. 7)

I think it’s important to separate the psychological definition of the word ego from the metaphysical definition.

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

2.Psychological:  the part of the psychic apparatus that experiences and reacts to the outside world and thus mediates between the individual needs and the demands of the social and physical environment.

[Bradly]

Thank you Reader.  Excellent presentation of both the text and, I think, its meaning.  I agree the ego is a transitory device which has an important function on the material level and is also a dangerous and devious sense of self when it remains entrenched as the seat of our identity.  I am no fan of Freud and did not intend to exalt his evolutionary and limited theory of mind structure or function.  Scott’s link to psychosynthesis is far more interesting, if also another evolutionary step that is less accurate than the presentation of mind in the UB.  But it is interesting to me how the reasoning and observation of mortal mind came to the conclusions that there is certainly a “super” or “soul” mind within that does or can transcend our ego consciousness and that ego needs such transcendence to achieve our  natural “potential”.

I think it is the ego that allows the mortal or human material mind to rise above the complacency and brutality of animal mind to, eventually, discover the value of socialization and the lowest level of the golden rule….ethics which serve self – cooperative dependence for mutual benefit – the arrival of self “control”.  And that discovers affection and becomes “infected” by love – a dilemma and conflict, no doubt, for the ego to grapple with as the mind becomes attenuated to this divine gift.  For, I think, it is love that first challenges the ego in the name of self “sacrifice”.  Now there are moral choices in-mind which require the transcendence of the ego-mind and those choices bring to bear the influences of the higher adjutants to mortal free will choice.

Now the mortal mind can begin to recognize the results/experience/benefits/fruits of better choices that are not self centered – wisdom arrives.  The Spirit within is discovered….or at least activated in new ways I think.  We begin the transfer or are now capable of transferring the seat of our identity to this spirit led mind that discerns the higher mind.  Connections are made which allow, fuel, and facilitate this natural transition and transfer of motivation and choice making.  It is not ego that is thusly found, it is spirit, and only by loosening the grip of ego on self can we complete this transition by putting the new higher self in charge and control of the ego.

An interesting issue to consider is the absolute essence of a self without an ego.  Certainly Lucifer has an ego or something very similar to ego that still allows for self exaltation and self deception.  We do not automatically, as morontia minded survivors, lose this capacity for self love.  So if ego dies with mortal body and mind, what then, in morontia mind, still allows such self love to continue?

Thanks all….interesting topic.

 

[Bradly]

Hi Bonita…we posted at the same time.  I like the concept of  device or apparatus – the ego is not me.  It is a functional vehicle for the discovery of me….or the potential me.

[Bonita]

Reader wrote:  I still think I could find plenty of use for a word like ego if it represented specifically all that portion of intellect which is doomed to a single existence in time and space, all the scaffolding of animal mind which is not a ‘potentially spirit phase of mortal mind’ (1.3.7).

Only the material ego is doomed to a single existence.  If you think that ego doesn’t exist on the morontia level, I think you might be mistaken.  Self-exaltation is a problem of the ego and we have a very clear example of self-exaltation in Lucifer.  The entire ascension career is geared toward socialization of the personality which is designed to  prevent exaltation of the self/ego.  Likewise, humor is the antidote to self-exaltation of the ego and the reversion technique of humor follows us all the way to Paradise until we can no longer entertain such erroneous concepts of self.

Relevant quotes: 48:4.15; 56:10.14; 67:1.2; 132:2.6

[Reader]

Good thoughts, Bradly and Bonita – I recognize that morontia experience might be characterized by a persistent tendency to exalt that which is false about ourselves and therefore cannot be exalted without entertaining error.

And I believe there are many fond errors we have gotten into the habit of entertaining about the reality we truly are.

But I am not convinced that the ego is any more than an ’embodiment of error’ and only in this sense is called a material entity. To say that a fallen angel of the local universes has a problem with an ego-complex is one thing. To suggest that this complex itself has eternal reality or (metaphysical) being is another.

Still thinking…

-Reader

 

[Bonita]

Reader wrote:  And forget about references to the alter ego – they are one and all descriptive of a pure fiction or at best a fictitious symbol 91:3:4 which nowhere in our book is given the substance of a reality – always it is a mere makeshift in the religious life of a child and a race 91:3:1, 91:3:3

The quote you are citing (91:3.4), describes the evolution of what was once fictitious into a “bona fide consciousness of the reality of the eternal God . . .”  The alter-ego becomes a reality in those who allow it to evolve through genuine prayer and worship.

91:3.4 The simple prayer of faith evidences a mighty evolution in human experience whereby the ancient conversations with the fictitious symbol of the alter ego of primitive religion have become exalted to the level of communion with the spirit of the Infinite and to that of a bona fide consciousness of the reality of the eternal God and Paradise Father of all intelligent creation.

Reader wrote:

And dialogue with this fictitious alter ego is characterized as a purely human practice 91:6:4

Then, in quote 91:3.7 we are told that the alter ego is the more effective and practical method for attaining enlightened prayer.  The alter ego, properly utilized in prayer, evolves from fiction to a “real and genuine divine alter ego”.  Furthermore, this effective and practical approach to the presence of the Adjuster is designed so “that man can talk face to face” with God.  Talking face to face with God is a dialogue that has evolved from fiction to reality.

91:3.7 Enlightened prayer must recognize not only an external and personal God but also an internal and impersonal Divinity, the indwelling Adjuster. It is altogether fitting that man, when he prays, should strive to grasp the concept of the Universal Father on Paradise; but the more effective technique for most practical purposes will be to revert to the concept of a near-by alter ego, just as the primitive mind was wont to do, and then to recognize that the idea of this alter ego has evolved from a mere fiction to the truth of God’s indwelling mortal man in the factual presence of the Adjuster so that man can talk face to face, as it were, with a real and genuine and divine alter ego that indwells him and is the very presence and essence of the living God, the Universal Father.

[Reader]

the ego may represent in the view of the authors nothing more than a label for every kind of tendency that obstructs the growth of the Supreme.

[Bonita]

Bradly wrote:

I agree the ego is a transitory device which has an important function on the material level and is also a dangerous and devious sense of self when it remains entrenched as the seat of our identity.  . . . It is not ego that is thusly found, it is spirit, and only by loosening the grip of ego on self can we complete this transition by putting the new higher self in charge and control of the ego.

I think people frequently conflate the ego with behavior, assigning all negative behavior to ego influence and all altruistic behavior to divine influence.  Ego=bad; divine=good.  Seems simple enough and many leave it right there.  But, ego can actually behave one way or the other; it can behave badly or righteously.  Either way, it is still ego.  Ego is merely one’s sense of self.  Personality will always have this sense of self as part of self-consciousness.  It is the character of the ego which evolves in relation to spirit. The only way to get rid of ego altogether is to become completely selfless, not just in behavior, but in all realms of being/selfhood.  I think only God does that.

[Author]

Posts