I get a lot of questions about ego. I get enough questions about this that I thought I’d write about it and hopefully shed some Juicy Truth on the whole thing.

We are so often told that ego is a bad thing, but is it? To answer this we first need to start with the question of how we look at the ego. This begins by examining the lenses we look through and next making sure we even have an accurate definition and understanding of ego. Let’s start with the lenses.

The lens you look through is very much like a pair of glasses. If the glasses are pink, everything looks pink. It doesn’t mean everything is pink. But if we keep the glasses on long enough we may forget they are there and then begin to act and react as if everything actually is pink. We can develop whole philosophies based on pink. And we will begin to develop ourselves to live in a pink world. It sounds silly but stay with me.

If we are looking through a lens that sees everything in parts and pieces then we will not get a very holistic view and may reach only limited understanding. Most lenses are of this type. When someone cuts us off in traffic and we react with judgment, we are only seeing one side of that person or, more accurately, we are seeing how we judge, but we then act as if we have actually seen that person and might say they are an idiot. Now whether they actually are an idiot, who knows? But we have just seen one aspect and then engage that aspect as if it is the whole. But it is not. And we do this dozens or hundreds of times a day, don’t we?

If we look through a lens that is based on judgment, like how we should be or how we would be if only the ego were reduced or eliminated, then we cannot get to truth because we are starting out with judgment and our view will be limited to what we look for in this small world. (Judgment limits creativity and curiosity and discovery)

If we look at this question of ego through a lens based on an assumption of wholeness and that we all have many dimensions, we can make room for learning and for seeing the ego within a much larger context. Right away the ego becomes less of a problem because it becomes just one piece of a much larger system.

I think part of what makes the ego such a problem in the first place is the lens through which we look at it.

We tend to focus so much on the ego that we do not see the other aspects of self. It’s like if you look at a coffee cup up close. Pick up a cup and hold it right to your eyes. The cup appears to be huge and it’s impossible to see almost anything else. We do this with the ego just by our approach to the examination of it.

This way of looking causes a lot of problems. Take relationships for example. When we focus on one thing a person does and do not put enough energy into looking at the other aspects of that person then the one thing becomes huge, not necessarily because it is huge but because we have zoomed in on it and become unable to see the other things, or other aspects, of that person. This way of seeing necessarily obliterates context and reduces a person to a part, it flattens their dimensions.

So in approaching the question of ego we really need to understand what viewing method we are using or, even better, choose a viewing method most conducive to discovering truth.

I think most things in life would benefit from developing a more effective and accurate viewing method. I have observed that very few people actually question how they examine, and focus, instead, on what they examine. This in and of itself is a source of many, many problems.

So let’s say that the first thing when approaching the question of ego is that we first make sure we are looking through a lens that holds the greatest possibility of discovering the truth.

In this case, as in most cases, that lens should be based on the assumption of wholeness and connection and always allow for context. We must also get rid of any assumptions we carry about the ego, things such as “the ego is bad” or what we think we’d be like if we wrangled the ego into submission. Let it all go. This, I know, is easier said than done. We are a society that is addicted to judgment.

Okay, so we have a new lens. Now we are now just in a state of curiousity about the ego. What we need now is an accurate definition of ego. Accurate lens + accurate definition = greatest possibility for discovery of what the ego really is.

So, what do the experts say about the ego?

Here are a variety of definitions from dictionary.com:

e·go

~noun

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

2. Psychoanalysis. the part of the psychic apparatus that experiences and reacts to the outside world and thus mediates between the primitive drives of the id and the demands of the social and physical environment.

e·go (ē’gō, ěg’ō)  
n.   pl. e·gos

1. The self, especially as distinct from the world and other selves.
2. In psychoanalysis, the division of the psyche that is conscious, most immediately controls thought and behavior, and is most in touch with external reality.
   1. An exaggerated sense of self-importance; conceit.
   2. Appropriate pride in oneself; self-esteem.

Medical Dictionary

Main Entry: ego
Pronunciation: 'E-(")gO also 'eg-(")O
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural egos
1 : the self especially as contrasted with another self or the world
2 : the one of the three divisions of the psyche in psychoanalytic theory that serves as the organized conscious mediator between the person and reality especially by functioning both in the perception of and adaptation to reality

I don’t know about you but what I notice from these definitions is that the ego seems to serve a function as a kind of go-between between the external an internal worlds. It appears that the ego allows us to function in the world. That seems really useful.

Sigmund Freud was the first person to talk about the ego and he talked about it as a theoretical construct. I’ve emphasized theoretical construct because many people approach the ego as if it is it’s own entity. People often talk about the ego as if they have some thing inside themselves that is beyond their control and exists as a distinct entity that simply inhabits them like a parasite they want to exterminate.

So whatever the ego is, it is theoretical. It is a name given to an observation that a man made based on a specific framework of inquiry specifically geared toward understanding human psychology which is, itself, based on a set of assumptions common in the sciences of breaking things into parts and pieces, separating them out from the whole. This, then, does create the impression that the parts and pieces are, in and of themselves, whole and removes the context of their existence from the examination of said piece and takes them out of their greater context of the system in which they belong.

The history of the spleen is a great example of this way of seeing. Because doctors could not see the spleen in the context of the immune system they would remove perfectly healthy spleens during any kind of internal surgery because it was thought to be useless. They’d just cut it out! Any approach that views things not as a system but as pieces will often miss crucial aspects of the function and meaning of the thing being viewed. So it was with the spleen and so it is with the ego.

Okay, we’ve set some historical context for the ego as well as seen how a particular way of viewing can be problematic. (at least, I hope we have)

Now let’s we’ll look at the ego though the lens of wholeness, connection, and context.

To reiterate – We have first gotten an accurate definition of ego – the ego is theoretical. We also know that the ego is a type of interface between the internal and external worlds.

Nothing, so far, suggests the ego is evil or bad. There is just one thing…

We have found that the ego is what allows us to experience the self as distinct from the world and other selves. If there is a “problem” with the ego, perhaps this might be it.

In Ayurvedic medicine they say that all dis-ease begins with a sense of separation and longing for union. If the ego is what allows for this sense of separation then I can see how it might pose a hurdle to enlightenment or deeper notions of unity. But there is also great value in seeing oneself as separate, isn’t there? At the very least, it keeps us safe.

I think, though, that what the ego is blamed for is disproportionate. WE, after all, are the one’s running the show and the ego is simply one part of the self. To blame so many things on the ego is a type of abdicating our responsibility for our own experiences. It also seems a bit lazy.

There is a deeper consciousness of the self. An aspect that the ego functions within. We might call this the greater Self. Consciousness is what allows us to make choices and decide to respond to life rather than simply react. It seems we have a beef about the ego largely because the ego seems to be more about reacting than responding.

I guess the question is, what do you want? If you want consciousness and to be able to respond rather than react then it takes work.

But this kind of work is not ego obliteration. Which is quite impossible and, in my opinion, unwise. I think what is required is a more effective and efficient approach.

Cultivating consciousness appears to be a very wise alternative to ego-obliteration.

Cultivating consciousness means we place more emphasis and effort on living from the heart and the higher mind. It means living from a place of choice and greater accountability.

Much of the ego response is simply habit. With effort these habits can be changed. You can, for example, develop the habit of consciousness.

How do you want to live? What are your priorities? What do you value? Do your actions and inactions support these greater visions for your life. If not, take responsibility. Stop demonizing the ego and act as if you are powerless.

Food doesn’t jump in your mouth any more than mean words jump out. It may feel like these things are beyond your control, but they aren’t. It’s just you, after all.

I think that people want some quick fix. I also think that we humans find it easier to blame and be victims than to be proactive.

I think the ego gets a bad rap because it is used as an excuse to stay small, to be petty, and to not be accountable for the experiences we have.

Consciousness takes effort. That’s all. It takes constant chipping away at old, entrenched patterns of thinking and reacting and cultivating new responses to our lives. That’s all.

But making the ego some entity that antagonizes us serves as a convenient excuse.

Any change takes effort. Self-knowledge takes effort. But if you make any aspect of the self evil or bad you disconnect your own power and you reduce yourself to parts and pieces.

If you want to “deal” with the ego, cultivate the heart. Stop wrestling with the ego. Leave it alone. Emphasize the heart. Emphasize consciousness. As you live more and more from the heart you will find the ego is less and less of a problem. Truly.

A final note: I have simplified things for the sake of being able to tackle a very complex subject without writing a whole book on it. There are many subtleties of behavior that are not all ego based. The comment about “…food jumping into your mouth…” for example, is not a simple subject and not always a matter of will. Malabsorption may be a cause of constantly eating. And there are other causes. But by using the same approach as we take with the ego in this article we can get to the root of many of our “issues” or our wonderings. So my thanks to you for reading this article within the context it was intended.