1
   

The decider is the ego

 
 
coberst
 
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2007 03:34 pm
The decider is the ego

Humans appear to be the only species of animal that has placed self-consciousness, in the form of what is called the ego, between animal instincts and animal behavior. That is, the ego interrupts the flow of instinct directly into action. The ego, the decider, says HALT, HOLD IT, to the force of instinct. Human action does not immediately follow instinct because the ego absorbs the energy of instinct.

The ego is also a decider regarding all manner of things that might cause the creature to feel anxious. As the ego learns what causes anxiety it learns what inputs from both inside and outside the creature must be controlled. The ego becomes both the decider and the defender.

In its role as defender the ego utilizes the mechanisms of denial, repression, and partialization. The latter represents the highest price that the creature pays for this defense against anxiety. The process of partialization limits the experience that the ego allows the creature to enjoy.

"The ego, the unique "psychological organ" of the higher primates, develops by skewing perceptions and by limiting action." Early in the infants life the "ego grows by a dispossession of the child's own inner world. The mechanisms of defense are, after all, par excellence techniques of self-deception."

We often lament that "I can't make him change his mind." Why is it virtually impossible to change another's mind? Often it is because the ego will not allow it. The ego recognizes that to change the mind in this matter is to lead to anxiety and thus the ego will not permit it to happen.

THEY are not necessarily too stupid to change, just as WE are not necessarily too stupid to change. It may very well be that their ego and our ego will not permit the anxiety that will result from the change.


Perhaps this is one reason for such strong anti-intellectualism and negative bias against psychology in America. The ego controls such things so as to reduce a cause for anxiety in the individual.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 645 • Replies: 8
No top replies

 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Oct, 2007 01:34 am
no, the ego is the spokesman. and it is appointed so by the rest of the selves competing for the aisle seat.
0 Replies
 
OGIONIK
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Oct, 2007 08:54 am
lately i have been realising more and more that i dont have an ego like everyone else, it is in fact probablly my worst attribute that my ego isn't "stronger".

Could it be a bad thing i recognized my ego early on and attempted to compensate for it?

Is it the ego that keeps most human beings i know from being able to accept the fact we are simply an animal like all the others with just more pronounced mental capabilities?
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Oct, 2007 04:30 pm
Quote:
lately i have been realising more and more that i dont have an ego like everyone else, it is in fact probablly my worst attribute that my ego isn't "stronger".
Quote:
Is it the ego that keeps most human beings i know from being able to accept the fact we are simply an animal like all the others with just more pronounced mental capabilities?

I doubt you'd find anyone that disagrees with that definition…though some don't like the fact that we are animals, any argument would be a matter of preferred perception of the meaning of a word (animal).

Quote:
We often lament that "I can't make him change his mind." Why is it virtually impossible to change another's mind?

Usually because neither side listens to the other… and until you know that the other person has completely heard and understood you, you aren't very inclined to listen to their story.

Quote:
Often it is because the ego will not allow it. The ego recognizes that to change the mind in this matter is to lead to anxiety and thus the ego will not permit it to happen.

It won't accept anxiety imposed by another, but it will accept anxiety from within. So if you try to change a persons mind, without first addressing and understanding why his mind is currently the way it is…you are trying to impose idea's on the other…imposing said anxiety, which the ego resists.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Oct, 2007 08:01 am
hmm... confusing use of terms here.

A strong ego is one that recognizes it's own selfishness and seeks to alter it. A weak ego is a wildfire in the hearts of those who can only want and be miserable for it.

But as for what is the decider, I do not think that this can be simply explained.


"It is the primal nature's attributes that action (deciding is action) comes from, but those who are blinded by the ego think: I am the one acting.

One who truly knows the distribution of the primal nature's attributes and actions is not bound. He thinks: Attributes work among attributes."

Bhagavadgita
0 Replies
 
coberst
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2007 06:29 am
Ego says, HOLD IT, TIME OUT!

The ego is our command center; it is the "internal gyroscope" and creator of time for the human. It controls the individual; especially it controls individual's response to the external environment. It keeps the individual independent from the environment by giving the individual time to think before acting. It is the device that other animal do not have and thus they instinctively respond immediately to the world.

The id is our animal self. It is the human without the ego control center. The id is reactive life and the ego changes that reactive life into delayed thoughtful life.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Oct, 2007 01:10 am
kuvasz's source

Quote:
One of man's important mistakes," he said, "one which must be remembered, is his illusion in regard to his I.
"Man such as we know him, the 'man machine,' the man who cannot 'do,' and with whom and through whom everything 'happens,' cannot have a permanent and single I. His I changes as quickly as his thoughts, feelings, and moods, and he makes a rpofound mistake in considering himself always one and the same person; in reality he is always a different person, not the one he was a moment ago.
"Man has no permanent and unchangeable I. Every thought, every mood, every deisre, every sensation, says 'I.' And in each case it seems to be taken for granted that this I belongs o the Whole, to the whole man, and that a thought, a desire, or an aversion is expressed by this Whole. In actual fact there is no foudnation whatever for this assumption. Man's every thought and desire appears and lives quite separately and independently of the Whole. And the Whole never expresses itself, for the simple reason that it exists, as such, only physically as a thing, and in the abstract as a concept. Man has no individual I. But there are, instead, hundreds and thousands of separate small I's, very often entirely unknown to one another, never coming into contact, or, on the contrary, hostile to each other, mutually exclusive and incompatible. Each minute, each moment, man is saying or thinking 'I.' And each time his I is different. Just now it was a thought, now it is a desire, now a sensation, now another thought, and so on, endlessly. Man is a plurality. Man's name is legion.
"The alternation of I's, their continual obvious struggle for supremacy, is controlled by accidental external influences. Warmth, sunshine, fine weather, immediately call up a whole group of I's. Cold, fog, rain, call up another group of I's, other associations, other feelings, other actions. There is nothing in man able to control this change of I's, chiefly because man does not notice, or know of it; he lives always in the last I. Some I's, of course, are stronger than others. But it is not hteir own conscious strength; they have been created by the strength of accidnets or mechanical external stimuli. Education, imitation, reading, the hypnotism of religion, caste, and traditions, or the glamour of new slogans, create very strong I's in man's personality, which dominate whole series of other, weaker, I's. But their strength is the dtrength of the 'rolls'[1] in the centers. "And all I's making up a man's personality have the same origin as these 'rolls'; they are the results of external influences; and both are set in motion and controlled by fresh external influences.
"Man has no individuality. He has no single, big I. Man is divided into a multiplicity of small I's.
"And each separate small I is able to call itself by the name of the Whole, to act in the name of the Whole, to agree or disagree, to give promises, to make decisions, with which another I or the Whole will have to deal. This explains why people so often make decisions and so seldom carry them out. A man decides to get up early beginning from the following day. One I, or a group of I's, decide this. but getting up is the business of another I who entirely disagrees with the decision and may even know absolutely nothing about it. Of course the man will again go on sleeping in the morning and in the evening he will again decide to get up early. In some cases this may assume very unpleasant consequences for a man. A small accidental I may promise something, not to itself, but to someone else at a certain moment simply out of vanity or for amusement. Then it disappears, but the man, that is, the whole combination of other I's who are quite innocent of this, may have to pay for it all his life. It is the tragedy of the human being that any small I has the right to sign checks and promissory notes and the man, that is, the Whole, has to meet them.
People's whole lives often consist in paying off the promissory notes of small accidental I's."
(Lectures of G.I.Gurdjieff)

Gurdjieff goes on to describe the possibility of attaining "higher levels of consciousness", which unlike "the norm" result in greater degrees of
freedom from "waking sleep". The first of such levels involves the passive observation of the "little I's".

I agree with the (Becker ?) analysis of the importance of language presented here in establishing a "self" concept (Though Becker is not unique in this idea). However within that idea lies the nonseparation of "I" as a "doer" or agent possibly as an epiphenomenon of the grammatical structure of any language. (Chomsky). Gurdieff points of the fallacy of this assumpton, thereby giving a possible framework for analysis of the "free will" debate.
0 Replies
 
coberst
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Oct, 2007 06:53 am
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Oct, 2007 08:22 am
coberst,

Next time you find yourself having an internal conversation, or doing the opposite of what "you" had intended, I suggest you re-read the above quote, with a view to re-assignment of the creative theoretical systems of White, Freud and Becker to the "fiction section" of your library.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The decider is the ego
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 11/13/2024 at 09:29:46