GuidoWorld

Ego A-go-go

In the last few posts we’ve discussed how the ego (self-consciousness) gets routinely bashed in psychology and spirituality. Yet, the ego is just a process, a locus of possibilities,  neither inherently good or bad. What we do with the ego decides its usefulness and sense of satisfaction.

The ego is often criticized for being absent from the present. At these moments our mind is wandering or fretting over what we are going to have for dinner,  rather than enjoying the sunshine or smelling the roses. Yet, as we previously pointed out, it is after all, the ego which can and does smell the roses, just not as often as some would like.

The ego, therefore, is both the locus of our joy and our regret, of our pleasure and our pain.  Wishing for the demise of the ego is literally suicide, yet this is the goal of many spiritual disciplines.

The ego is the process by which we are aware of our experiences. It is our identify by which we learn, have a memory and a sense of history. The ego is highly flexible and adaptable. Able to live in the past and future as well as the present it is no prisoner to the moment. Yet, what it does on these time excursions greatly impacts our quality of life and how we feel about the world and ourselves.

Our ego’s stance during its forays into the past, present and future greatly affect the way we live and the quality of our experiences. When looking forward to the future we can plan and prepare, or we can fret and worry. We can be filled with anticipation at the opportunities lying before us, or we can be paralyzed by fear or the prospect of failure. We can draw upon our past to prepare ourselves or fantasize abilities we can not draw upon.

When looking back at our past, we can use it to learn, or recognize patterns which can help is in the future. We also are free to focus on anger and regrets over perceived injustices. We can fortify and energize ourselves by recognizing past accomplishments and strengths or we can sap ourselves with a sense of never attaining what we wanted. We can learn from our mistakes and misfortunes or we can view our life as ill-fated and doomed to emptiness.

Likewise, in the present, we are free to maximize and savor the moment, or we can detach and protect ourselves from possible pain and disappointment. We can fret and agonize over every event in our life, or we can embrace what comes our way. The ego can be forever unsatiated by striving for perfection or grateful for the endless possibilities inherent in a finite imperfect life. We can regret what can’t be or be uplifted by the promise of growth and development offered by the limits and boundaries of our bodies and senses.

The ego is free to be a nice guy or a jerk, to be enthralled with life or be bored. Those who complain about the ego and view it as a problem or something to be overcome, seem to be missing the possibilities and beauty of self-consciousness. And who is it that is complaining about the ego? Isn’t it their ego itself?

Next time maybe we’ll reflect on the ego, the functional self, subconscious and unconscious as they are given to us in actual experience.

Jim Guido

Ego and Self-Esteem

In the last couple of posts we’ve reflected on the mechanics of human experience and noticed that we have both a functional self and a conscious self (ego). While the functional self is busy being immersed and present in the world. The conscious self is the part of us that is aware of our experience. The ego’s ability to be self aware is what gives us a present. The ego’s distance from our experience is what has us be able to savor, appreciate and learn from our experiences.

The ego is not locked in the present, but is free to dream, plan, invent, reflect and have a sense of history and individuality. Many spiritual and psychological disciplines have a tendency to demonize and insult the ego. At times they complain that the ego is too distant  and misses the beauty of the moment by its endless babbling to itself.  At other times they state that the ego is too self absorbed and self important and its ties to the world and its feelings are the source of all pain and suffering in life.

In both of the above cases the spiritualist and psychologists are focusing on some of the potential drawbacks and limitations of the ego while ignoring its strengths and assets. Yes, the ego can be trite, petty and oblivious to the present while lost in thought, but the ego is also the very process by which we become aware of having a present. Without the ego our experiences would just go on without notice or importance, it is the ego which makes us aware of our experiences and gives them meaning and a sense of history.

It is true that our sense of self and of living in a world is born out of our sense of self-consciousness (ego).  It is also true that such awareness opens ourselves up to the experience of pain and suffering. Yet, it also true that it is this same ego which makes it possible for us to feel joy, love, satisfaction and purpose. It is this same self-consciousness which makes it possible for us to learn, be compassionate and to desire to engage in right action. It is the ego which makes it possible for us to decide to try to be moral, ethical and sensitive to the environment.

In my many posts regarding the male sex drive we noticed how often our society focuses on the negative of this inherent drive. In fact, in many societies, the male sex drive is viewed as something a man is to suppress or overcome.

In our discussion regarding male and female sexual images we noted how the phallic image is almost always associated with images of violence and aggression. The phallus is seen in the missile, rifle and knife, but not seen in the pen, microscope or telescope. The phallic qualities of penetration, expansion and emission are only seen in terms of violence and destruction, rather than in the desire to create, invent, cure and build. The phallic design of most tools and scientific instruments is all but ignored by modern psychology.

In our exploration into the male sex drive we saw how often it is demonized and viewed as a handicap. We also saw how often men are asked to deny or overcome their sexuality.

This tendency to demonize or deny is not just limited to the male sex drive. In our discussions regarding human experience we have found that it too is viewed as something to overcome. The spiritualist often views human experience as something vulgar and profane, as an obstacle to happiness and enlightenment. We are instructed to  transcend our mind and body and the limits of human experience and to enter the the sacred, eternal and infinite universe of celestial reality.

Likewise in our current discussion regarding the ego we see that once again the ego is a handicap and something to overcome. That the ego, like human experience, is an illusion and that it is the locus of all pain and suffering.

Almost every reference to the ego is negative in our culture. People are described as being egocentric, egotistical or self-absorbed.  People’s egos always get in the way of their understanding of a situation or in their relationships to others. Considering this is it any surprise that the majority of people in our culture have a poor self concept or a low level of self esteem?

How can one have a positive self-image if the very act of self-consciousness (ego) is something negative or illusionary?

It seems that no matter what aspect of human life I analyze or reflect on I find reams of denial and self-hatred. Why is it so fashionable to deny our very humanity and view it as an evil to overcome?

Me, well I’m in love with life. I find life and human experience fascinating and fulfilling. This is not to say that I deny life has its drawbacks, limitations and pains. Yet, without these limits there would be no experience, no individuality and no personal history. Limitations do not have to be a negative. Pain, when predominant, can hinder the quality of life. Sometimes it can even make death seem life a better option. Yet, for the most part all of our experience both positive and negative, successful and futile add to the richness of our life. Almost all of our feelings and thoughts have the potential to make our life richer and more meaningful, oftentimes sadness can be as rich and fulfilling as joy.

In my book Exploring Intimacy I discuss the origins of much of this desire to view life and human experience as something to deny or overcome. The fights for survival has been very real and many of our coping mechanisms are logical and somewhat beneficial. Yet, this continued need to escape the world and our humanity seems a bit unnecessary and counter-productive.

In future posts I hope to investigate other ways in which we have a tendency to deny or  demonize our humanity and our experiences. I would appreciate hearing from any of you who likewise see this tendency, or from those who see ways in which we embrace and relish our humanity.

Jim Guido

The Conscious Self (Ego)

In the previous post I talked about the role of the functional self (preconscious). The functional self, as we noted, is the part of us that lives in the world. It is our autopilot when we are lost in thought while we drive, walk or do any number of tasks.

While the functional self is aware of, and immersed in, the world, the ego is aware of itself. The ego is aware of itself, it is our self-awareness. Without the ego we would have no sense of self, no sense of being an individual. Without the ego we would have no sense of personal history.

Our conscious self (ego) makes us aware of the passage of time, allows us to sense personal growth and change. While our functional self is busy sensing and perceiving, our ego is savoring, judging, assessing, deciding and directing our experience. While the functional self is living and documenting the ego is appreciating and reviewing.

The ego is that aspect of us that takes ownership and responsibility for what we say, do and think. The conscious self feels pride, embarrassment, compassion, love, etc. While the functional self is absorbed in the actual and is pretty much bounded by the present, the ego is free to play with the possible and ruminate on the future.

The ego’s ability to play with the possible is what allows us to create, plan, invent, and problem solve. The functional self documents and stores much of the sensory data of our life. It is the ego which reviews, recollects and learns from this data base. The conscious self’s ability to smoothly go between the past, present and future gives our life meaning and history.

The dictum of many spiritualists and psychologists to be in the present or be here now is fraught with misleading expectations and complaints.The functional self is almost always in the present in the actual. The ego should not be expected to be in the present, for the ego can be aware of the present not be in the present.The ego’s distance is the very reason it can reflect, savor, appreciate and alter our experience.

The conscious self is the witness to each one of our lives. A person who was totally present would not be able to see, savor, appreciate, or understand his experiences. This is why it is essential for us to have both a functional and conscious self.Those who complain the loudest about the ego seem to miss this fact.

Many spiritualists and psychologists go so far as to to advocate for the destruction of the ego. They point how often the ego’s false sense of ownership and its tendency to babble cause pain and remove one from what is important. Yes, the ego can be overly absent and preoccupied, and yes it’s sense of ownership is critical to our suffering and pain. Yet, the ego’s sense of ownership and self-awareness is also essential for our experience of joy, love and happiness.The ego can be overly absent and trivial, but that same ability to be not present is also necessary to our ability to create, plan, admire and savor.

To a large degree it is each of our choice whether we abuse or maximize the abilities and proclivities of the ego. In the next post I plan on discussing more in depth our societies tendency to demonize the ego and the effects it has on our perception of life and death.

Jim Guido

Preconscious and the Functional Self

In our recent reflections on the process of human experience we noticed a few things that are often overlooked. First for an experience to become conscious there must be both a part of you immersed in the experience and a part of you which stands back and observes the experience.

The part of us that is busy being immersed in the experience is the sensorial perceptual part. This part of us is an awareness that is in the world. We will refer to this as the conscious  functional self, because it functions in the world but is not self-conscious. The functional self appears to include all the aspects which one used to refer to as instinctual. The functional self breathes, digests, keeps the heart pumping etc. Yet it also deals with a whole lot of talents and tasks which lay outside of what we classically think of as instinctual.

The functional self is busy perceiving and orienting us when we are on autopilot. This is most noticeable when we are multitasking or lost in thought. At this time we are able to walk, drive a car even play piano while our “mind” is elsewhere.

Yet, the functional self is even more primary than that. It is the functional self which makes it possible for us to perceive and have a world. It is the functional self which organizes all the streams of stimuli into organized packets. It takes all the flashes of light and orients them into shapes and objects, and into a perceptual field. It takes all the noise and turns them into sounds, notes and words.

The functional self seems to be hardwired into our basic structure. For not only does it process and organize information but has the ability to do this built into it. Without this hardwired structure the ability to learn a language and to speak would not be possible. The functional self is there before we have conscious thought and is our constant companion when we develop a conscious self.

The majority of the time I am speaking, I am in the flow and have no need to choose my words. This again seems to be the working of the functional self and the conscious self (ego) only gets involved when it is embarrassed by what is being said, or feels a need to give additional guidance or direction.

The preconscious functional self not only organizes all perception and sensation, but also  documents and records it for further use by the conscious self (ego).  This is how we can retrieve things from memory which we did not consciously pay attention to at the time. It is the part of us that records a smell from our childhood, or the familiar feel of a room which spawns recollections both fond or disturbing.

While our ego is focusing on specific things in our environment or our perceptual field the functional self is aware of far more. The functional self is much like a video camera which records all senses, not just sight. Yet, the functional self is in itself a selective process, it chooses a relatively small band of sound and light to record.

Experience is finite, and so, therefore, is the abilities of the functional self. Much of its abilities appear to be hardwired as in the case of sound and light frequencies it can turn into sensory data.  Yet, beyond this fact, there still appears to be a great area of data which the functional self is selecting. Such as what to pay attention to as we are driving or walking while lost in thought.

The functional self is not just an autopilot machine, but an awareness capable of reacting  to situations and successfully responding to the environment. The functional self can make non-conscious decisions, yet it has its limits as to the choices available.

In the next post I will explore the role of the conscious self (ego) and its relationship to and its interelationship with the functional self.

Jim Guido

Human Ideals?

In the last post I discussed the fact that human experience has two essential components a subject (experiencer) and an object (something to experience). Yet, despite this rather obvious observation we find that the goal of human life from the perspective of spirituality or psychology is often to deny or overcome either the subject (ego) or the object (the world).

The ego is often viewed as a self-centered prisoner of his own making. Whose endless babbling prevents him from fully appreciating his experience, and making his life unnecessarily painful and trite. The world, on the other hand,  is often viewed as an illusion or as a temptation keeping us from recognizing true reality which is the transcendental world of spirit, the sacred and God. In either case the source of all human suffering is in the deceptive ties individuals have with themselves or the world around them.
This view makes sense when one views human experience as a negative and something to avoid or overcome. In order to escape or reduce pain it is often beneficial to distance yourself from the situation, or disassociate oneself from the experience. When one looks at the painful history of man it makes sense that we were advised to remove ourselves from the world, or remove the world from ourselves. In modern psychology this was known as a coping mechanism, a way to survive and minimize the damage caused through chronic pain.
In my book Exploring  Intimacy  (available  in the words section of this site) I analyze the benefits and short coming of this reaction to the fight for survival in terms of its roots and effects on human history.

Yet, since life can be relatively pain free and pleasing to the senses, why don’t we have a  philosophy which celebrates life on its own terms? Why can’t we enjoy both our ego and our body living in the world?

I find it odd that the same mentality which attacks the ego for being a removed babbler during life, praises this same consciousness (spirit) in the afterlife. Those who attack the ego (conscious mind) for not being present in human experience, often make a body-less  mind the goal of the afterworld. Those who die live in heaven and watch us on earth. These spirits being devoid of a body have no sense experience and therefore must just be a spirit of endless thought.

I must admit I’ve always been baffled by this paradox. I cannot imagine any experience without senses and a body. All experience takes place in space and time and seems to require a body of some sort capable of being a subject to experience an object. A spirit who has shed this moral coil is by definition body-less.

As I noted in my last post, my body and consciousness are intimately tied to each other.  My thoughts and ideas are born out of my senses and experiences, and conversely my thoughts and ideas shape and guide my experiences. Any experience I could have without my body would no longer be mine in any tangible sense. Any experience by my spirit not filtered through my body would not be part of my experience, but an experience of another person.

If my consciousness were to live on past my body as either a spirit or in another body it would no longer be me in any linear sense. It would be a new ego (consciousness) in a new situation.  My experiences would be highly altered if I were to experience them in your body with your eyes, ears, nose, etc. Though all our bodies have similarities I am quite sure that there are substantial differences in perceptual abilities and preferences which are pivotal in our individuality and uniqueness.

The highest goals of humanity stated in science, philosophy and religion often seem to be so self-hating and defensive. The goals always seem to be a denial of human life, or a desire to distance, remove or disassociate ourselves from either our bodies, minds or the world around us.

I myself, find life fascinating and awe inspiring.  Though it be true that disassociation is a valuable technique to reduce or avoid pain, I think it is also true that disassociation reduces and removes so many positive experiences from mortal experience. While at times it may be prudent to remove oneself from our experiences, at other times it robs us of so much depth and richness. A richness and poignancy dependent upon the integration of mind and body, of ego and our sensations and perceptions.

In Exploring Intimacy, and in most of my posts, I am attempting to articulate and foster the beauty of temporal visceral experience. I feel fortunate to be a feeling, perceiving sentient being immersed in a world which I help create each day.

I find much of the idealists and human psychologists to be imprisoned in a world of self-hatred, where denial, repression and disassociation are both over identified and passed unnoticed as a pillar of their strategies. Avoidance of pain is an anaesthetic not an embracing of life. They deaden not only pain, but one’s experience of joy.

Jim Guido

Experience and the Experiencer

I am forever aware that I am having experiences. Hardly a waking moment goes by in which I am not conscious of having an experience. Some experiences I am more present and aware than others but in almost every situation there is part of me that is having an experience.

It seems odd that something that happens so frequently in life could be so taken for granted or misunderstood. Yet, relatively few human beings have taken the  time to reflect on and appreciate the actual mechanics of human experience.

When I have an experience or recall a past event there is part of me that is experiencing and part of me that is aware of my experience.  Many spiritualists and self-help gurus advocate that we totally immerse ourselves in our experience, that we stop being in our head and be truly present. This logic emphasizes how much unnecessary chatter dominates many peoples lives and encourages people to “be here now” and to “stop and smell the roses”.

Though this may be good advice it also portrays human experience in quite a misleading fashion. While there is nothing wrong with being more present in our experience, it is deceptive to have one believe that they could ever be totally present. Not only that, but the overemphasis on being present  casts our conscious ego in a particularly negative light.

Our conscious ego is not just some babbling self-centered idiot who interferes with the quality of our experience. The ego is also the experiencer which appreciates, guides and savors our experience. Experience without someone to experience is empty and can retain no meaning. For meaning is all about consciousness, and without an individual’s awareness of his experience (the ego) no meaning and sense of personal history can be formed.

Experience without conscious awareness has no means to document or even recognize that an experience has taken place. Upon reflection it seems obvious that every human experience involves both a sensorial/perceptual  component and a conscious/reflective component.

My body is in the world. We often notice that our body seems to exist in the world without much guidance from our ego. I walk, talk, breathe and  even drive the car sometimes while basically being on auto pilot. I often become aware of my “mindless” activities when a cat comes darting out necessitating my being more conscious of the immediate situation. This being on autopilot is a time when we do find ourselves babbling to ourselves or are “lost in thought”. Yet even when we are apparently most absent from experience there is still part of us removed enough from the experience to document it and retrieve our full attention when needed.

If we were on autopilot without any awareness there would be no part of us to alert us of the impending accident involving the cat.  Even when we are lost in thought or our attention is focused elsewhere there is a semi-conscious part of us that is documenting so much more than we are overtly aware of.

Being fully absorbed in a conversation at a party does not preclude me from experiencing and documenting other simultaneous experiences. Let’s imagine that I’m talking to someone about their trip to Alaska. Since I’ve always dreamed of going to Alaska I’m listening to their every detail and asking probing question after probing question.  When relaying my conversation the next day to a friend they ask me who all was at the party. If they persist in my telling them who was there I’ll kind of replay the evening in my mind. Though I consciously did not say to myself there’s Jerry and Linda, I’ll be able to remember (see) them even though they were previously not conscious participants of my memory of the evening. If pressed I probably could name many of the songs that played during the time I was fully immersed in the discussion about Alaska.

Similarly, people totally focused on other things with actively babbling egos are often able to recall the most minute details of a scene that occurred days if not months ago when interviewed as witnesses by the police.

These examples demonstrate a few things. One is that we are far more conscious of things than we realize, and that even when lost in thought there is a part of us which remains aware of our surroundings. It also suggests that only part of our awareness is fully conscious (ego).  The remainder of our awareness is more passive and documents as well as allows us to function on autopilot.

The role of the ego in my general awareness is a little more complicated than often expressed. My ego is what I am conscious of, but I am aware of much more than I am conscious of. As I said before I can perform complex skills such as hiking, driving, singing and playing musical instruments without needing the assistance of the ego. My ability to function in the world is often independent of my conscious ego.  Yet, all these experiences will remain lifeless and without meaning until they become part of my conscious life (ego).

My ego seldom selects the words I speak. Words flow out of me naturally and quickly. During the course of most conversation my ego seems to function as a monitoring device, which takes pride in, guides or gets embarrassed by what is coming out of my mouth. The ego only gets involved when I’m struggling to find the words to express myself or when I feel a need to get back on track.

Yet, not only conversation but all experience remains lifeless without the ego’s awareness and participation. As  I mentioned earlier the ego is the part of us that guides, savors, improves, corrects and orchestrates our experience.

Human experience is composed of seeing, smelling, touching, hearing, tasting and responding (interacting) as well as an awareness of the event. The conscious ego awareness is what makes the event memorable. Unlike the body, the ego is not immersed in the event, but rather it is relatively removed, it is a spectator.

The body is perceiving and interacting with objects while the ego is the subject. Experience seems to require both an object to perceive and a subject which perceives. An ego without an object to perceive seems as illogical as an experience without someone having the experience.

Many popular self-help practices as well as many famous philosophical and religious systems seem to ignore the basic mechanics of human experience. You have some who treat the ego as an illusion or an obstacle and demand the adherent to be totally present, and you have others who go to the opposite extreme and say all the world is an illusion and demand its followers to transcend the world and live in the infinite.

Since both the body and consciousness are necessary for experience, as well as a world (object) and self (subject) it seem counterproductive to denigrate their importance. Why we must choose to either deny the ego through being ever present, or destroy the world through seeking refuge in the eternal (sacred) ? What is so bad about being human and relishing the wonder that is human experience?

In the next post I hope to continue exploring these questions.

Jim Guido