Very helpful discussion. Aesop may increase the insight here. The Ox-driver and Herakles story where, after the wagon fell into a deep ravine and the driver stood, without doing anything, invoked Herakles. Herakles appeared and said:
‘Put your hand to the wheels, goad the oxen, and do not invoke the gods without making some effort yourself. Otherwise you will invoke them in vain.’ As Martin Buber reminds, we exist within ourselves and our realization (actualization).
The Buddha did not only say that we should not cling to the ego, he said that it does not exist as a lasting entity. On the other hand as it is largely a social construct, we should not either walk into the traps of the society we belong to. The Buddha was a non-conformist + sympathy (cum-passio) rather that "charity" or love for our human species.
Should we follow the ancient philosophers? Plato and Socrates? Epictetus or Epicurus? Or go all the way with Buddha?
How about "The Golden Mean"? Divest yourself of ego to the extent possible but maintain enough to look after enlightened self-interest. There is such a thing as compassion fatigue, where you are so concerned about others that you expend all of your energies trying to help. But in my experience, most people don't really want help or to change, and they will use you until you're no longer useful to them, then discard you. In other words, if we ALL adopted a selfless attitude, it would work. Our society spiraling into self-absorption only makes this problem even worse. Buddha wasn't averse to self-preservation as I understand it.
I see this easy...you see, know, feel good that emits from you. Your loving kindness towards the world without expecting anything in return is as much your I is worth. World needs sincere kindness, compassion and love. Be the I or the one emiting it.
Thanks for posting this, Anya. Turning to the classics for answers to life-long questions about a one's place in the world as well as the universe is essential to a person's growth as a human being.
Great take on modern ego and hyper-individualism. Leaves a lot to consider.
It's very difficult to argue that the West, America in particular, hasn't dug itself into a pit of extremes regarding self. When relationships fail we retreat to 'focus on myself'. When conflicts arise we say 'I have enough going on in my own life right now'. When the powers that be overstep, we look not to a collective, but to a precarious cluster of individuals rallying and exhausting their pains in some shaken mess confused for harmony. This take might be brash, but perhaps the greatest obstacle preventing us from attaining a virtuous, rational society is our incessant need for self-gratification.
Our culture needs to reemphasize the value of civic virtue. That does not mean one has to sacrifice their individual self-care; it merely means ending the vicious cycle of eroding into ourselves whenever resistance or grievance should come to pass. An individualistic society should almost take more priority in remembering the collective value, in remembering that we build ourselves with a dual purpose: one in achieving quality inner peace and functionality, the second in providing greater service to mankind.
I would argue that instead of "Bios, grids and feeds have essentially become full-blown self-identity billboards that not only advertise the self, but have evolved into a daily ritual of self-narration: a constant contemplation of how best to curate, refine, and project the exact version of ourselves we want the world to see," social media (and other forms of "Out here") are what take us away from ever discovering our true selves. We live in a culture that absolutely discourages people from seeking the answers from within, which is the only place they exist. As a result, in an attempt to fit in--which is perceived as a way to "be myself," people who have no clue (influencers) are really no different from vampires who need other people's (in this case) adulation to stay alive.
Maybe instead of Nobel Prizes to acknowledge achievement we should recognize the Seraphim Medal, awarded by the King of Sweden, to recognize our common humanity. Ironically, it is rarely awarded.
I could be wrong but I do not think there was a noun for self in that ancient world; in Greek and Latin it was reflexive. I believe self came to being with the German, selbst, but I do not think Freud used this but rather siele, which was more akin to soul. So now I will say that as we lost the soul we gained a self but the self does not have a transcendence whereas the soul does. The self is aa lonely concept creating an anxiety such as a dog feels when the master leaves him/her.
Anya, this was a good summary of the classic philosophers. It does not address God's design, which does not annihilate the self, but transforms it into a servant of God. We are all very good at trying to run our own lives, but even reason can be deceived without being anchored in God. I am talking about the Biblical God, not the many human-invented gods. Augustine of Hippo came after Marcus Aurelius and expanded greatly on Aurelius's ideas within a God-context. Augustine talks in great detail about all these ancient philosophers. He lived about 354-430 AD and was relatively close to their actual impact on the world at that time.
Very helpful discussion. Aesop may increase the insight here. The Ox-driver and Herakles story where, after the wagon fell into a deep ravine and the driver stood, without doing anything, invoked Herakles. Herakles appeared and said:
‘Put your hand to the wheels, goad the oxen, and do not invoke the gods without making some effort yourself. Otherwise you will invoke them in vain.’ As Martin Buber reminds, we exist within ourselves and our realization (actualization).
Eternal return.
The Buddha did not only say that we should not cling to the ego, he said that it does not exist as a lasting entity. On the other hand as it is largely a social construct, we should not either walk into the traps of the society we belong to. The Buddha was a non-conformist + sympathy (cum-passio) rather that "charity" or love for our human species.
Should we follow the ancient philosophers? Plato and Socrates? Epictetus or Epicurus? Or go all the way with Buddha?
How about "The Golden Mean"? Divest yourself of ego to the extent possible but maintain enough to look after enlightened self-interest. There is such a thing as compassion fatigue, where you are so concerned about others that you expend all of your energies trying to help. But in my experience, most people don't really want help or to change, and they will use you until you're no longer useful to them, then discard you. In other words, if we ALL adopted a selfless attitude, it would work. Our society spiraling into self-absorption only makes this problem even worse. Buddha wasn't averse to self-preservation as I understand it.
Self-preservation is an important angle to take into consideration in this conversation!
I see this easy...you see, know, feel good that emits from you. Your loving kindness towards the world without expecting anything in return is as much your I is worth. World needs sincere kindness, compassion and love. Be the I or the one emiting it.
Thanks for posting this, Anya. Turning to the classics for answers to life-long questions about a one's place in the world as well as the universe is essential to a person's growth as a human being.
Thanks again.
Great take on modern ego and hyper-individualism. Leaves a lot to consider.
It's very difficult to argue that the West, America in particular, hasn't dug itself into a pit of extremes regarding self. When relationships fail we retreat to 'focus on myself'. When conflicts arise we say 'I have enough going on in my own life right now'. When the powers that be overstep, we look not to a collective, but to a precarious cluster of individuals rallying and exhausting their pains in some shaken mess confused for harmony. This take might be brash, but perhaps the greatest obstacle preventing us from attaining a virtuous, rational society is our incessant need for self-gratification.
Our culture needs to reemphasize the value of civic virtue. That does not mean one has to sacrifice their individual self-care; it merely means ending the vicious cycle of eroding into ourselves whenever resistance or grievance should come to pass. An individualistic society should almost take more priority in remembering the collective value, in remembering that we build ourselves with a dual purpose: one in achieving quality inner peace and functionality, the second in providing greater service to mankind.
Great read.
I really enjoyed this post! Thanks for sharing!
Good article, Anya. Speaking of music and self-obsession, here's this from George Harrison:
"All I can hear
I me mine, I me mine, I me mine
Even those tears
I me mine, I me mine, I me mine
No one's frightened of playing it
Everyone's saying it
Flowing more freely than wine
All through your life
I me mine..."
--------------------------------------
excerpt from "I, Me, Mine" - the Beatles, "Let it Be"
Good point. When the Ayatollah first came to power the first thing he did was to outlaw all forms of music except traditional Iranian music.
I would argue that instead of "Bios, grids and feeds have essentially become full-blown self-identity billboards that not only advertise the self, but have evolved into a daily ritual of self-narration: a constant contemplation of how best to curate, refine, and project the exact version of ourselves we want the world to see," social media (and other forms of "Out here") are what take us away from ever discovering our true selves. We live in a culture that absolutely discourages people from seeking the answers from within, which is the only place they exist. As a result, in an attempt to fit in--which is perceived as a way to "be myself," people who have no clue (influencers) are really no different from vampires who need other people's (in this case) adulation to stay alive.
Maybe instead of Nobel Prizes to acknowledge achievement we should recognize the Seraphim Medal, awarded by the King of Sweden, to recognize our common humanity. Ironically, it is rarely awarded.
I could be wrong but I do not think there was a noun for self in that ancient world; in Greek and Latin it was reflexive. I believe self came to being with the German, selbst, but I do not think Freud used this but rather siele, which was more akin to soul. So now I will say that as we lost the soul we gained a self but the self does not have a transcendence whereas the soul does. The self is aa lonely concept creating an anxiety such as a dog feels when the master leaves him/her.
Ego literally means I in Latin.
Anya, this was a good summary of the classic philosophers. It does not address God's design, which does not annihilate the self, but transforms it into a servant of God. We are all very good at trying to run our own lives, but even reason can be deceived without being anchored in God. I am talking about the Biblical God, not the many human-invented gods. Augustine of Hippo came after Marcus Aurelius and expanded greatly on Aurelius's ideas within a God-context. Augustine talks in great detail about all these ancient philosophers. He lived about 354-430 AD and was relatively close to their actual impact on the world at that time.
Buddha was right. The ego does NOT exist!
ego is performance art-ask trump
Narcissus is taking over the world. God help us from the social media and political egomaniacs.