We have recently had some debate in SMP about ego and it's effects. I am interested to see what people think about this. I feel like ego really gets in the way of good learning a lot of times, but it also seems that those with ego are more motivated and driven to success. I may be wrong on both accounts but that's why I'm asking what everyone thinks.

What are your sentiments on ego as far as it's advantages and disadvantages?

The bigger the better. The bigger your ego, the less you will want to look like an idiot. One of the best ways to avoid looking like an idiot is to actually not be an idiot. That motivates an intense drive for study and learning. Most experts in any field have a ginormous ego.

I agree. It seems more prevalent in politics than anywhere that only those with massive ego's actually want it bad enough to make it. Massive ego's and the desire for power seem to trump any other form of motivation. Still, the people I have the most respect for and consider really great don't seem to be motivated by ego. They seem to be motivated other things, such as science, truth, equality, etc. Great post Bruce but when you say, "The more the better" does that mean you don't think there are any negative aspects whatsoever of having a big ego or just that the benefits outweigh the negatives by so much that you could never reach a point where more ego was bad?

You have somewhat miss applied the word ego. There are somewhat 2 definitions and you kind of melded them together. One is thinking oneself is a bigshot or above others, the other is the illusion created by 'self'.

It is ego that thinks that the ego can have pro's. Get rid of the concept of self, and you can see that its not possible.

Ego possibly having 'pro's' is an illusion brought about by the ego.

Yes ego drives one towards (our false understanding of) 'success', where success is bettering oneself compared to others (Bush). But dissipating the ego brings true success which is returning to a holistic view point (Ghandi).

a huge ego is likely good for a person (unless said person somehow finds a way of having a huge ego and not be happy/successfull). might be bad in some non subjective sense but who cares?

I believe Phil Hellmuth may be a counter example. I actually feel rather sorry for him. All that money, but he is delusional. Not worth it IMO.

Ego is just a tool to help you get from one place to another. The problem with big egos is that they create huge blind spots and warps the perception of reality in ways that are incredibly difficult to detect. As with everything, there is a sweet spot for ego. Too little and you're missing out and too much and you'll have blind spots.

I don't doubt that's true but is it the ego causing them to excel in their field or is it just a result of being at the top of their field? Can you prove causality?

Can you differentiate between what you wrote and my reply?

"Self" is a quite useful concept. Without it, you are quite lost in the world. You won't know whether to wipe your ass or mine after one of us takes a ****. Such things are important in practical and metaphysical matters.

It's ego that thinks that.

Its like catching a ball, you don't need to think about it, it just happens. You could even say thinking or having a 'self' would get in the way of this.

But there is a way of living with choiceless awareness where the 'self' doesn't interfere, but ego or self resists that movement with all its being.


Side note, I think you are showing you agree though that there is this kind of ego and a different definition where a person is really 'high' on their self. At some point there are the same thing but for most discussions the difference is important.

No. It is the brain that thinks that. If you have a brain, it is there in order to help you (specifically you) to navigate your (specifically your) life.

That has nothing to do with ego. That is just what happens when an action becomes automated through repetition. If you are advocating competence, I agree. However, let's not make it more than what it is. You will note that people who are, in your opinion, completely immersed in their own illusory ego thingamagic don't have trouble catching balls or walking or riding bikes.

Let's think about a more global understanding of the steps of "catching the ball" that Jorge Campos would have made. A big part of the catch was getting dressed in Jorge Campos' clothes and knowing that he was a goalkeeper on a specific team that day and that part of his specific job was to catch balls. Also, Pele did the same things (in a Pele-ish manner) up until the "catch balls" thing. Mostly because Pele knew who he was, which was a non-catchy sort of guy.

He also had an accent mark in his name, but I am too lazy to put it there. I doubt he would mind too much.

A simpler example is that I seldomly drive another person's car, nearly always turn to look when someone says "hey Brian!" but not when they say "hey Sam!", nearly always sleep in the correct bedroom with the correct woman, and never eat because someone else is hungry.

If it is an illusion, it is so clever as one as to be required in ordered to survive in the world.

No. All make choices. That is inevitable.

It is nice to be aware to the extent that is possible. Even that is a choice though. Calmly and dispassionately noting what is currently happening is definitely a good choice to make as long as you don't take it too seriously or do it when another choice is better.

Everything ends. Might as well pay attention to the ride and not worry much about the inevitable.

You are correct in that I agree to a point.

as long as we agree that the brain can function without ego.


Sort of. This is about the eastern style fable about the grasshopper (or whatever) asking the centipede how many feet he has, and after thinking about it for a moment the centipede can no longer walk without tripping.

. ego isn't needed for this.

I bet Pele doesn't have thoughts on Pele when he plays.

Ironically he prob wouldn't mind too much

These things can just happen naturally

You have to live without it to know that though.


No thats not true, one can live with choiceless awareness.

choosing not to choose

The idea is to get rid of physiological choice altogether forever. The forever comes simultaneously with the destruction of time which is held together by the entity that 'chooses'.

It can't. Or, at least, ego is a useless notion describing some problem that doesn't really exist.

The brain is there to make you walk and talk and such.

It happens to distinguish between you and I for very practical reasons. I should not drink because you are thirsty.

[quote]Sort of. This is about the eastern style fable about the grasshopper (or whatever) asking the centipede how many feet he has, and after thinking about it for a moment the centipede can no longer walk without tripping.[quote]

Again, that has nothing to do with ego in the negative sense. That is just inappropriate self-awareness.

It is one of those confusing things where eastern philosophy doesn't explain itself well. You should be self-aware, but not self-aware of how your feet work. They do so (in a manner) without effort if you just let them.

Explain yourself. I think it is quite necessary.

Red herring. He has a huge ego.

No. Argue otherwise.

That is still a choice. Being is an act, grasshopper.

Nah. Clocks do not chose to tick or tock, yet mark the passage of time.

It is a useless notion but its a notion that exists.

Yes but it doesn't need thoughts on itself to do that.

Inappropriate self-awareness sounds like a good name for ego.

Why does it seem to explain itself crystal clear to me? I think the western attitude is to misunderstand and then give it its own meaning. This is why we added colored belts and belt tests to martial arts. There used to be no color, everyone wore white belts, and the instructor black. Completely different philosophy in an art design to express a certain philosophy.

I think the reason to be self aware is to learn how to rid the self...whereas in the western world, we become self aware to be successful.


"Into a soul absolutely free from thought, not even a tiger can insert its fierce claws" Do you disagree with that line? or do you disagree with my interpretation of it?


I wonder if you are argue that I don't understand or if you are argue that this man is wrong http://www.scribd.com/doc/4062519/Ch...s-Krishnamurti

I am curious if you think the concept is wrong, or that I am crazy and coming up with my own theories?

Yes but its a final choice or maybe better said an unchoice. Lee says, non action as action, or non being as being....was he talking about something else or has he already studied this stuff?


If I am correct then they instill a false sense of 'time'

All i have to say is watch Revolver

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0365686/