Ego – this nauseous fraud

There is no end to the whims and idiosyncracies of the ego.

It twists and warps everything it tackles. Fragmentation is its only reality, meaning
that whatever it claims to understand, is in fact, a total misunderstanding. When it
comes to anything.

As ego is the outcome of a delusion, it is utterly unreliable and unpredictable.

What I want to highlight is the very fact that Ego hates whatever you could term as
genuine relation. It loathes contact, communion, communication. That because it is
always prone to dominate – that is, to create and reinforce distance.

It sees to always be busy, but never achieving anything for real.

It loves to have the whip hand. Remoteness turns it on.

It can only thrive in isolation. Isolated, can it play special. By blocking
and isolating the other, can it be right. Loony, but standing out.

Whatever is reminding it of togetherness is harshly discarded.

It abhors whatever is light and pleasant. It complicates things beyond recognition.
It needs conflict to survive.

Joy is its worst nightmare. Suffering its highest joy.

Look at people around you:

Do you recognize this ghoul in them?…

About julienmatei
I feel an inner urge to express what I see, to communicate and share with others all these impressions. Often the things I see are there, not yet manifest, but waiting... to be observed, talked about, and embraced. These new insights need another approach, a more vivid curiosity... Due to fear and prejudice we prefer to see only "the official" truth - but THE OFFICIAL TRUTH IS DEAD - being dead, it has nothing to give... We can continue pretending Death is fascinating or... we can take the trouble to LIVE... THE NEW has no definition yet... Again, IT requires another "perception", the courage to apprehend everything differently, from a totally new angle, with new confidence and inquisitive touch. This blog is not about interesting concepts, it is about participation... finding new solutions, inspiration, togetherness.

18 Responses to Ego – this nauseous fraud

  1. Swarn Gill says:

    You must be talking about ego in the non-Freudian sense. When Freud defined the ego, he simply meant that is the part of the brain that is simply our awareness and is really a negotiator between the superego and the id. What most people think of when think of someone who egotistical is actually someone who let’s their id control their behavior which is usually because of either a missing or defunct moral center which is contained in the super ego. The ego constantly trying to satisfy the selfish desires of the id, and the moral awareness of the supergo, and if one’s actions are self-centered this is usually because the id is winning. 🙂

    • julienmatei says:

      It´s neither the Freudian or the non-Freudian sense.

      Let´s forget all labels and look directly and impartially:

      I talk basically about this deliriously crazed entity – ego – which dreams itself to be separated from Life.

      The illusion of fragmentation.

      Ego as Fear, Conflict, False Identification, Frustration, Greed, Recklessness.

      • Swarn Gill says:

        Definitions are different than labels. Words mean what they mean. Some words take on different meanings as they get used commonly so I was simply asking what you meant by ego. I guess I just define the ego differently, or see it playing a different role based on my study of psychology. No worries, carry on.

      • julienmatei says:

        Can we analyze this with an impartial outlook?

        What is the purpose of definition? Of any definition.

        Can we linger on this for a while before giving an answer?
        Why du we need definitions? Why are we urged to define things eventually?

        Can we learn anything directly through accepting and
        taking as good what other people have termed as “real”?

        Can we understand anything at all, as long as we base our understanding and rely on someone else´s surmise? – even if this suppositions are called “science”?

        Or are we maybe afraid to understand, that is, exposing ourselves to direct and unmediated experience?

        How can words and their inherent meaning become other than “common” if we are
        to approach them through the filter of yesterday experience…?

        Can other people´s “yesterday experience” apply to who we are and what we are being confronted with just now…?

        Definitions imply that there is an all-knowing authority. I thus ascribe authority importance, as I am afraid to know, that is, to find out for myself.

        So I do ask myself – can it be so that whatever preconceived definition deprives me of my spontaneous relation to Life and the object of my inquiry?

      • Swarn Gill says:

        Words must have meaning. I have just written a sentence, if you do not know the meaning to any of the words, there is nothing to ponder. To ponder the concept of ‘ego’ one must have their own definition of what ‘ego’ is to have an opinion of it. To have a discussion with someone else they must either share the definition or if they have different definitions they explain to each other what ego means to them. This is all I was doing.

      • julienmatei says:

        That´s my question:

        Is Meaning something we ascribe based on a certain standpoint or argument? Do we understand anything according to an ubiquitous thesis after all?

        Of course I hear what you say. Freud speaks about Ego in a certain way, Jung or someone else in a different manner. Philosophically speaking, we are expected to build up a suitable consensus – a system – if we are to appropriate anything.

        That´s exactly what I am trying to avoid. That is:

        Can we be so free and unbiased as to have a discussion without taking account of definitions and explanations?

        Can we be so direct and intuitive as to take on something without any preconceived knowledge?

        What happens to a poem if we try to “explain” it? Don´t we kill the very essence of music, if we are to define what music intrinsically is?

        Can we thus be so free of any preconception to grasp a “truth” without trying to “understand” it?

      • Swarn Gill says:


        I think for some things, sure we can have different definitions and of course hold on to what we think something is more loosely based on what others have to say. This works well for certain concepts like Freedom, Art, Justice, etc. However, it does not work so well to have different definition for let’s say the liver, or a sphere. Some things have specific definitions. Whether the ego is a concept that is subjective, I guess I’m not altogether sure it is. Certainly different people have different thoughts about what the ego does. But Freud did coin the term and prescribed a specific meaning to it. He could of course be wrong, but if we are going to use his concept as he defined it shouldn’t we let that definition stand? Prove or disprove it? Say there is no such thing as ego, and come up with a different theory of mind. Providing different terminology to describe certain brain functions. And what’s interesting is that Freud’s break up of the brain into the components of Ego, Super-Ego, and Id actually seem to correspond will with the biology of the brain now that we have the ability to scan brain activity. But of course there is still a lot to learn about the brain and the definition of the ego may change. I don’t think it’s wrong to try to define things that seem to have a particular function as long as you are open to the idea that understanding evolves as we learn and so one must be willing to change their definition.

    • seeingwhatis says:

      There is no need for any moral center if you are not dysfunctional, iow identifed with your thoughts, iow have the sense of an ID. The one who follows Tao needs no moral.
      Moral is not an invention, its a phenomenal revelation. Otherwise its hippocrisy. The revelation of phenomenal moral that to all people who see that they are not separate individuals. Like Moses, Muhammed, Krishna, Buddha.

      • Swarn Gill says:

        Well according to fMRI data there is a moral center in your brain. As to what being moral is or what morality is, that’s a totally different discussion. You could be raised to think beating up gay people is moral, and a certain part of your brain will be activated when thinking about that morality, and a different part of your brain activates when you act out on what you think is moral. I agree though that morality is not an invention it is learned and discovered.

      • And we have a full adventure ahead of us into the link between abstract concepts like morality and physical findings on scientific exploration of the human brain. May I dare to say, for now at least, that both perspectives carry quite some weight and should be respected?

      • seeingwhatis says:

        Its good – that scientists are beginning to aknowledge or at least pay attention to, and not immediatly dismiss, the actuality of things, in other words – the only premiss that is valid.
        Moral is belief in how things should be. Normally. But true moral, that is actually anchored within your experience, is the opposite.
        Its acceptance of the actual state of things. It is NOT belief in that things should adjust to how I (ME) want them to be.
        When we accept everythin – then we actually see clearly – that everything is aligned with a force that is everything. And this force is good.
        We also see (then) that ALL bad things comes out of belief that things ought to change.
        This is not possible to grasp, if not experienced.
        And therefore we have some negative stuff going on in this world. People… believing… in lack of things… taking what they think they need.
        But if they just accepted how it is, they would immediately sieze to enrichen them self by exploiting their surrounding, emotionally, physically, and economically.
        This isnt rocket science – yet… rocket scientists can not see this.

      • Swarn Gill says:

        I can agree with that. But I would still argue that scientific mind is more prone to discovering the world as it is rather than believing it to be a certain way despite the evidence in front of their face. I have found however that where people disagree most is what “evidence” actually is.

      • seeingwhatis says:

        All places where paradoxes is seen, you have a door to truth.
        Science is belief in finding answers all though there are no questions. Only misunderstanding due to belief.
        Science is like language, a possibility and a possible interpretation.
        Every possibility is true as a possibility, but nothing more.
        About language: Can you “write yourself” or are you something else than language?

      • seeingwhatis says:

        And morality is learned (by someone) OR discovered (by noone).
        Its belief OR direct knowledge.
        About how the brain activates… It activates different if you are a believer or not.
        When you see the actuality of things, the state of things, without concepts (its possible) the brain rebuilds itself. All the old highways falls apart. And ther are no more highways.
        More than this, there is no ATTENTION.
        So, without attention – everything is equivalent.
        You only see, clearly – the answer to any question you may have.
        But also you see that questions is only ignorance. Only failing to see the obvious – because of our directed perception – our attention – that is only capable to see ONE thing at a time. And one thing – is alway a concept. And only a description. Never what it actually is.

      • Swarn Gill says:

        I can also agree with that. The problem is that belief and learning are not two separate things evolutionarily speaking. Especially when we are young. Belief is a favored evolutionary trait, because of its overall benefit in keeping us alive and helps us err on the side of caution. But we also have born with us the natural scientist. The one who tests and tries to discover the world for ourselves. And sometimes we get it wrong. It is this trait we must foster in children so they can grow out of what I call the more childish trait of belief based thinking and adopt a worldview of discovery and acceptance of what it actually is.

      • seeingwhatis says:

        Sounds good enogh for me. Personally I dont learn or believ anymore. I dont exist.
        I like the natural born scientist, but dont think that he can get it wrong, because then he is a believer per definition.
        I try to let my child live his own life, uncoloured by my beliefs or non beliefs.
        Acceptance of what is is essential, as you say. Whishing is dreaming.

  2. Pingback: Can we grasp anything without any preconceived knowledge? | Mirrors of Encounters

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: