“Is Ego Necessary?” This was the title of an article by John Bendix that appeared on Sunday, 21st September in The Times of India (Sunday Times) under the section titled Mind over Matter (A copy of that article can be found here).
Mr Bendix has tried to argue that,
“…the ego causes most of man’s problems in dealing with one another.”
While trying to solve a seemingly complex problem in his own life, he claimed that,
“There were no real answers or solutions on the conscious level of the mind. I had to go beyond the mind of thoughts to the core of the problem, the ego. The ego that the mind creates in order to give it a means to confront the onslaught of the outside world. A world that it feels threatened by.”
Throughout the article Mr Bendix talks of the ego as a separate entity. An entity that was created to protect, but has somehow managed to break its restraints and take over the human. Something like runaway robot who was built to serve but has developed a power to turn on its masters and enslave the very people who built it.
Describing the way our ego performs, Mr Bendix says that the ego interprets the information presented to it by the senses and cognitively assesses them and through the mind, produces thought. However good a description this might be, it describes the mind and not the ego. The only way we can perceive things around us is through our senses. This information is then integrated by our mind and an appropriate response is generated.
Ego is self. It is not and cannot be considered as a separate entity. It is engraved in an individual. Over the years however ego has been portrayed as evil. Pretty much the same way as selfishness has been painted in negative light. But egoism and selfishness are synonymous. The word selfish brings to mind someone who tramples helpless souls, brutally pushing them aside to gain some advantage for himself. It conjures up an image of a path taken to achieve a goal but not the goal itself. However according to most dictionaries selfishness is simply the concern of one’s self interest. There is no judgment of the path one takes to attain this self interest. That path may be good or evil. It is the job of ethics to decide that, and the job of one’s philosophy to decide the ethics or moral code.
Mr Bendix puts forth the example of a verbal assault. He states that if a person verbally attacks another, then that may result in thoughts of hostility towards that person attacking him. All seems fine here. But he then goes on to argue that there is no real damage in a verbal assault and any perceived threat is quite simply ‘imagined’. He blames the ego for fostering such imagined threats and expects the ego to take the blame for thinking such a thing. This is a classical example of the altruist philosophy. If you are attacked by your neighbor, it is your fault if you try and defend yourself against him. Your life, the altruists claim, belongs to your neighbor and if you feel aggrieved by this then it is you who is evil. The fault lies in you.
The response you give to a verbal assault or anything else for that matter depends on the way you have integrated thoughts and concepts in your mind. The mind is simply a processing device. The way you program it, is the way it will act when given certain inputs. Thus if your programming is inadequate or superficial, an input such as a verbal assault may result in hostility and violence as the output. If you have programmed it differently, such an input will perhaps result in you laughing off the baseless claims. Under no circumstances can you blame the mind or the ego for the output. The output is simple a result of your conscious volitional programming. Your philosophy.
Note that many people may not be aware of the philosophy they follow and hence the conscious programming that they did. Perhaps they were simply following the majority or their family or friends. But that doesn’t change the fact that they had a voluntary choice. They were unfortunately unaware of it. These people might not understand why their mind gave the output that it gave. But irrespective of that, it is their voluntary choices that determined the output. And now, not because the argument is convincing, but simply because they have something to blame – a scapegoat, these are the people who will be the first to believe when altruists claim that the ego is to be blamed..
This is exactly what Mr Bendix claimed when he said,
“It is not what is said to us, felt, or thought about us that does harm, it is the ego’s reaction that creates the damage.”
Little do they realize that their scapegoat, the ego, is themselves. And then these people will drown in a battle with their own consciousness, because they are utterly confused and lost. Searching for a way out of this mess and chaos. The altruists have a way out. They will ask you to surrender to God or some such higher being or higher power.
It is at this point precisely that, like all proponents of mysticism, Mr Bendix encourages and urges everyone to shed aside their mind and their reasoning and look to a ‘higher self’
“…we can all do something to alleviate this dysfunction. But it cannot be done on the intellectual level. The mind is ill-equipped in this pursuit. By taking notice of how our mind and ego work, we can begin to function at a higher level.”
Mr Bendix concludes that when we dispense with the ego, our true nature is brought forth. This would be true if our true nature was not that of the man who built skyscrapers and dams but that of a sheep in a big herd, shepherded by the mystics and the spiritual gurus of the world.
Ego defines an individual. Without ego there is no existence of that person. So asking “Is Ego Necessary” is like asking “Is Existence Necessary”.
I end with a quote by Howard Roark from The Fountainhead…
“Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision. Their goals differed, but they all had this in common: that the step was first, the road new, the vision unborrowed, and the response they received—hatred. The great creators—the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors—stood alone against the men of their time. Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced… but the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won…
[For every man] His vision, his strength, his courage came from his own spirit. A man’s spirit, however, is his self. That entity which is his consciousness. To think, to feel, to judge, to act are functions of the ego.
The creators were not selfless. It is the whole secret of their power—that it was self-sufficient, self-motivated, self-generated. A first cause, a fount of energy, a life force, a Prime Mover. The creator served nothing and no one. He lived for himself. And only by living for himself was he able to achieve the things which are the glory of mankind. Such is the nature of achievement.”
– — –
(Author’s Note: Minor edits incorporated after publishing)
I remember glancing at the article and thinking that “it(ego) is there for a reason” before moving on to read the rest of the paper. I agree with u in that ego has been unecessarily demonised. A selfless entity is not possible.
Giving a Psychological perspective to this discussion, ego has been discussed endlessly in Psychology [primarily by Freud ofcourse!]To make a long discussion very short, the ego has its functions and its not a wise idea to dispense with it altogether even theoretically. Awareness of what u r doing and why r u doing it will go a long way in keeping an individual healthy[mentally] and happy!
So there!!
“…And only by living for himself was he able to achieve the things which are the glory of mankind. Such is the nature of achievement.”
If ever a human were to mug up this line, he’d never get a clue about Life and being a Progressive Human.
Truth lies in the Self.
In reading Nikhil Pawar response to my article concernig the ego, I relized one glaring misconception. The ego I am refering to is quite different to one he is writing about.
I ‘ll explain it to make it more clear. The ego was created by the mind in order to coordinate its defense postures. When the mind perceives stimuli from the senses, it interprets these and can creates cognitions (thoughts, ideas, mindset, plan of action, and so on). The ego, that I am refering to, picks up on these and creates an emotional response, which are physiological.
The fight-or-flight response to perceived threats is naturally inherent in most creatures that inhabit the planet. Adreneline is pumped in, the heart beats faster, the senses are heightened, etc. This is done to help the organism in its instinct for survival. As for verbal, emotional and mental assaults, the ego can grow to the point where it views them as threats and creates similiar reactions to them. Hence the problem.
This is highly dysfunctional since the perceived attacks pose no real physical threat. The ego perceives them to be attacks upon itself and has now grown to the point of believing that it is the real self and in reponse, defends itself as if the organism is fighting for its life. As well documented, a source of psychologically stress, anxiety, panic disorder, and clinical depression of all types.
My very point is that the ego is not the self.
That said, most of which the rest of his argument in response to my article has little to do with it. My contentions have been exaggerated to a discussion of altruism and mystcism.
“And now, not because the argument is convincing, but simply because they have something to blame – a scapegoat, these are the people who will be the first to believe when altruists claim that the ego is to be blamed..
This is exactly what Mr Bendix claimed when he said,
‘It is not what is said to us, felt, or thought about us that does harm, it is the ego’s reaction that creates the damage.’”
Yes, this is what I said. And no, this is not what I CLAIMED even though it has been erroneously taken to be interpreted that way for the purpose of the argument. Putting your words down on paper and claiming that is what I said, is an illogical progression.
Please take the time and care to read what I said. The unpleasant emotions that we cause ourselves to have, such as anger and fear, come from our ego’s reactions and not the other person’s actions. It seems that my words have been illogically extrapolated to fit into an attack on altruism.
As for blaming the ego or calling it evil, I have not alluded to that at all. Blaming and judging are two of the biggest maladaptive tools of the ego. By ridding ourselves of the dyfunctional aspects of the ego, there seems to be no neccesity to blame or judge at all. I think this response to my article has helped make that point clear.
Mr Bendix,
Thank you for the comment. If our definitions are different, this would indeed be a futile exercise.
However the point you make about a verbal assault being an “imagined threat” is still arguable. I agree that it will cause no physical harm. But when you say the ego takes it as an attack on itself and defends itself as if it were facing a real physical assault, that is an arguable point.
For example, if someone comes up to me and launches verbal assault, I will in most probablity not retort back with an assault of my own… verbal or physical. I will either not respond at all or I i’ll try and disprove the allegations. So in this case will you say I have taken cotrol over my ego? I would disagree with that. It is my ego that gave that particular response.
My point is that the response ego gives to a verbal assault may either be detrimental (as you have claimed) or beneficial (as I claim it may be if the mind is well programmed). In either case, the ego cannot be blamed.