BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

"Having an ego", "self-centredness", "self-importance", and other wonderful gifts...

  
 
40%
11:47 / 03.02.04
Following on in part from the self-deprecation thread in this forum, I'd like to talk about the word 'ego', which came up in this quote from Dead Flower

There is no room for further conflict if our ego commits suicide.

I'm interested in the development of the word 'ego'. The word is originally from Latin, and simply means 'I'. It's been used by Freud to describe the part of the self which is aware of the self, if that's a fair description. But today, it is often used in a way which has connotations of selfishness or arrogance.

Take the Collins dictionary definition of 'egocentric':

1. Regarding everything only in relation to oneself; self-centred, selfish.

...And of 'egotism':

1. An inflated sense of self-importance or superiority; self-centredness.

[Constructed from I and ism - Any thoughts on the possible meaning of 'ism' in this context would be welcome.]

Each of these two definitions seems to imply a relationship between slightly different concepts. The definition of ‘egocentric’ relates self-centred and selfish very closely. The definition of ‘egotism’ relates self-centredness to superiority, and also, quite tellingly, self-importance to superiority.

Everyday usage takes it as read that ‘self-centredness’, ‘self-importance’, ‘having an ego’, being ‘egocentric’ etc. are all negative. But surely at least three of these are truisms. It is impossible not to be self-centred, or egocentric, if you think about it. I can stand in the middle of a field, or I can walk to the side, and whether I am at the centre of that field will vary. I can be in the centre of town, or on the outskirts. But physically, geographically speaking, I am always at the centre of wherever I am. That is the one factor that cannot vary.

Regarding everything in relation to oneself? Well, given the fact that I can only ‘regard’ something inasmuch as I have a ‘self’ to regard it with. I am only aware of the things my ego has seen or known, and I only see and know things because they appear somewhere in relation to myself.

You get the idea.

Of course, there is some validity to the definition in that we have the capacity to construct a philosophy about the world, and to place different things in positions of differing importance in our own minds. And to place ourselves as too high a priority in relation to other people is a problem. But even then, does the phrase ‘self-importance’ really describe this fairly? It sounds more like suggesting that to think of yourself as important is arrogant, regardless of how you consider others.

I am looking at these forms of language as a possible indication of societal attitudes.

In terms of my own experience, I find difficulty sometimes viewing myself as the subject of my experience, and other people as the objects of my experience. Which would seem to me to be quintessential to ego-awareness. Otherwise you can endlessly be concerned with other people’s needs, feelings, which you are generally powerless to do much about, and end up overlooking your own.

And yet part of me worries that to see myself as the subject of my own life story is in some way selfish. Is Alice selfish because she is willing to be the central character of her own story? Why shouldn’t the story be told from the Mad Hatter’s point of view? And what about Jack and the Beanstalk? Doesn’t Jack ever consider how the giant feels about things?

If the quality of insights is half that of the self-deprecation thread, this should be a good one…
 
 
SMS
17:20 / 03.02.04
I think we're pretty lazy when we form our words. Perhaps self-exceptionalism would be a better word. This would be one who believes himself to be an exception to rules of fairness, justness, or courtesy. Arrogance is also a better term.

But I'm not sure I understand what you mean by viewing things subjectively as opposed to viewing things in society's terms. Each of us individually is a social animal. Those who have been cut off from responsibility to their fellow human beings are more susceptible to disease and melancholy. When human beings are unavailable, we often turn to alternatives: dogs, horses, or imaginary friends. What do you mean by society's terms? Do you mean social norms? If so, then I believe it is perfectly rational for the collective people to resist significant challenges to social norms. People who try to do so are dangerous, because they undermine the glue of society. This is not to say that these dangerous people are never necessary, for they are when the glue holding us together is rotten (hatred, vengeance, oppression), but it is to say that they nonetheless pose a danger. These people, however, are rarely termed selfish or self-centred. They are called revolutionaries, radicals, and the like.
 
 
40%
10:31 / 07.02.04
I see what you mean, Matthew. What I'm really getting at is that each of us should have the right to define our own experience in our own terms, rather than feeling obliged to categorise it according to society's terms. Yes, human beings have a tendency to social behaviour and thus, to social categorisations, but should we feel that society has to give us a legitimised label for something before we feel free to do it?

Perhaps I can illuminate this with an example:

"Fuck. What you gonna do then?"
"Well, that's what I been sitting here contemplating. First, I'm gonna deliver this case to Marsellus. Then, basically, I'm just gonna walk the Earth."
"What you mean, "walk the Earth"?
"Like Caine in Kung Fu. Walk from place to place, meet people, get in adventures."
"And how long do you intend to walk the Earth?"
"'Til God puts me where He wants me to be."
"What if He don't do that?"
"If it takes forever, then I'll walk forever.
"So you decided to be a bum."
"I'll just be Jules, Vincent. No more, no less."
"No, Jules, you decided to be a bum, just like all those pieces of shit out there who beg for change, who sleep in garbage bins, eat what I throw away. They got a name for that, Jules. It's called a bum.
And without a job, a residence or legal tender, that's what you're gonna be, man. You're gonna be a fuckin' bum."

This piece of dialogue provides a sharp contrast between finding spiritual fulfilment through exploration, and closing down possibilities through reliance on social categories. Is there a trade-off between negotiating your way through life using categories which were created for the ordering of society, and negotiating your way through life based on your own intuitive experience and observation?

And if this is so, would society, in the language it uses, discourage ideas like self-centredness etc, on the basis that people who live life in this latter way could be seen as an inconvenience, causing confusion and complication in an otherwise carefully structured system. In other words, does the death of the ego make society easier to run? I'm looking at this, not as a conspiracy about "the man" keeping people down, censoring people's thoughts and desires, but more as a lowest-common-denominator effect. Society encourages us to view things in these categories because it keeps things simple.
 
 
eeoam
17:56 / 07.02.04
When people refer to the death of the Ego they are talking about going beyond the awareness of the self. That is to say no longer being exclusively identified with your self. This can only be achieved through sustained contemplative practice, that is to say you cannot 'talk' yourself to this stage.

E.M.
 
 
40%
19:12 / 07.02.04
Um...I don't know which people you're thinking of but the person I quoted about 'the ego committing suicide' was certainly not talking about that. The only other person who's used that phrase is me, and I wasn't talking about that either. If you're correcting me about using the phrase wrongly, point taken, but this discussion has nothing to do with DOTE in the Buddhist sense.

Perhaps a phrase akin to "losing touch with oneself" rather than "the death of the self" (which is also used in a Christian context) is appropriate. I'm talking about not really knowing oneself, rather than willingly sacrificing oneself to a higher cause or meaning, which is another matter. A discussion of the relationship between the two would be interesting, but that is not what I had in mind here.
 
 
grant
03:13 / 08.02.04
You might consider that the thing about Freud wasn't that he named the ego, but that he said that there were OTHER parts of the mind that the ego didn't necessarily know anything about that were responsible for a lot of our behavior.
 
 
---
11:56 / 08.02.04
Society encourages us to view things in these categories because it keeps things simple.

This is the problem though, society encourages us to do this so that it can retain stability. If people keep rejecting society then chaos would follow, but would this be good or bad in the long run?

When you say society aren't you meaning the sum total of the things we learn what and what not to do? You say it has nothing to do with ideas of 'the man' keeping us down but i think that these two things are part of each other. When you say 'society' to me i think of the education that i had that was put there by the government and then television, religious systems and philosophical systems.

The educational system to me is the main offender because it frames for us what society is as we grow up and puts the main importance on being qualified for a job rather than teaching you how to use your mind for the benefit of yourself, which if done properly would then benefit the people around you. For instance i only learnt the Christian religion in school, nothing about Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism or anything else and it seems to me that this was in order to sell that religion on me without giving me any freedom of choice in the matter. That choice was taken away from me and my life was irrepairably altered for years after that.

I'm more of a Buddhist now and i can't ever get those years back, i was in the dark and i never had the choice. Society placed fear of an all powerful, all seeing God in my mind instead of teaching me how to learn about myself. Also, society decided that psychology wasn't as important as learning how to make a metal keyring, wooden container etc in technology. This may seem 'egotistical' or 'self-centered' but when you remember that these issues are right across the country in public schools it becomes less about myself and more about the future of a whole country. Because 'society' says so.

And without a job, a residence or legal tender, that's what you're gonna be, man. You're gonna be a fuckin' bum."

This has surely been placed in Vincents head by the idea that if you don't work your a bum, well if your learning about and finding yourself this is the better option isn't it? Something that takes a lot of courage to carry out. To the government however, this man would just be a problem. Simply because he's walking the streets and isn't paying any taxes.

When society takes choices away from people then it poses a problem in my eyes. Do what you want as long as it harms none, fuck what society tells you. Society seems like the problem and not the individual. As long as you know inside that your trying to better yourself then does it really matter?
 
  
Add Your Reply