IMPORTANT: DOCTRINE UPDATE

It is my opinion that the ego isn't the problem itself; like your appendix, it's only a problem if it gets out of control.

My opinion doesn't really count for much (still trying to peel off this n00b sticker I found on my keyboard) but...

Is this an argument about what "ego" refers to?

Until a week or so ago I used "ego" as reference to someone who was arrogant (etc). That is, having a big ego.

I've only just started reading Watts and now I have a new, wider use of the word. That is, ego represents the way humans separate themselves from the world. Ego is a (foolish?) sense of individuality when, in truth, we are all one/connected/cosmos. It is a genetically determined construct, I suppose.

So when I read "Old wrote: Humility - To have no ego." I'm seeing that as "understanding we are all one/connected/cosmos" but when I read "New wrote: Humility - To accept the ego for what it is." it reads more like "no matter what you do, there will always be a part of you that views itself as separate from the world".

Both are true enough.

Akkarin wrote: The maxim 'Humility' has been changed.

Old wrote: Humility: To have no ego.

New wrote: Humility: To accept the ego for what it is.

All of these definitions, which do not seem to have any relation to reality, seem to miss out the relational and social aspects of humility. Who is without an ego? I would really be interested to know that? Any offers? Also if my name were Adolf Hitler and I accepted the superior arian meglamaniac who I am then I am humble? Well there seems to be hope for that guy after all. After all this talk about our egos what about the other? If I were the last being on earth what further use does humility have? Strange, but I always considered humility, a kind of doing word, in light of how we interact with each other and not as a sterile definition of what we are. Humble would be more accurate, at least that is what I always thought.

I wouldnt have thought it possible to have "no" ego, but I think humility is not operating from ego.

But i could be wrong. Im not 100% i understand it myself.

If it is possible Brenna then tell me who this person is who has no ego?

Jon wrote: If it is possible Brenna then tell me who this person is who has no ego?

I said that I wouldnt think it was possible.

Apologies Brenna.

Jon wrote: Apologies Brenna.

Thats ok

Its an interesting question though. Is there such a thing as no ego. I think it was Watts (correct me if im wrong) who said that even an attempt to kill the ego is the ego in disguise... so is it possible at all? Or are those who seem egoless simply operating separate from their ego?

or perhaps they are completely indifferent?

Ego is a concept. What Watts said was something like (I'm paraphrasing) : 'trying to get rid of one's ego is the biggest ego-game there is ... and the funny thing is - the ego doesn't exist'.

That was also illustrated by the lack of 'inches' ; 'we can't do any building today, we have no 'inches'. We have wood, hammers and nails - we even have tape-measures and rulers - but because we have no 'inches', we can't build today.' (yep ... I'm paraphrasing again). The 'inches' have the same basic reality as our ego. These are the same relationships wealth to money (or these days finance as we really do have no more 'money' ), dinners to menus and so forth ...

There are many definitions of the ego. But right at the base of all of them is a feeling of being separate from the rest: an individual conscience. And for as long as that conscience feels separate from the rest, whether its actions are beneficial or noxious to itself, it will have an ego.