He has a schizophrenic take on the ego. In the past he defended the ego as a vital force for survival. But sometimes he dismisses the ego as an antiquated concept. True to form, however, he does so in a vague and inscrutable manner.
Again, the “ego” is yesterday’s psychological wedge.
By “psychological wedge” does he mean the ego is literally splitting the psyche in two or does he mean the ego is a wedge issue that separates one group of like minded people from another?
Now the “ego” battles multiple Selves and is left susceptible to the Law of Diminishing Return. The “ego,” quite linearly, did not manifest with the intent of “combatting” multiple Selves. The “ego” must now choose which Self to speak to where “it” was once the dominate “voice” in one’s head.
I think what he is getting at here is that the ego is conceptually a different “self” living within the psyche of a person. Clearly people are aware that they have different and sometimes conflicting motivations from time to time. This is evidence of multiple selves. Then there is the part of the self that is self critical. This is further evidence.
I tend to lump this self critical aspect together with the part of the self that is self destructive, jealous, vain, racist etc. and I refer to it all as the ego. It might not be technically correct but that is how I look at it. As I said earlier, in the past he has defended the ego (or the qualities of the ego) as a positive force for survival. It is interesting to think of his preoccupation with race in this context. Really, race to him is merely an extension of his ego through time and space. In this sense his philosophy remains consistent.
But what is an “ego” to “say” to one with antithetical Selves self-created for the very purpose of submitting the “ego” to an internal silence?
From my perspective the ego is the cause of a great deal of suffering in life. It was a watershed moment in my life when I learned to separate myself from my ego and observe it. Through this process I ceased being governed by my ego to a large extent and I also gained insight into how my ego functions and the role it plays within my greater self. This liberated me from a great deal of depression and anxiety which had dominated my existence before hand. If ever I acted in accordance with what he calls “God-ordained free will” in my life this is the greatest example. However, if I take the pro-ego perspective, what I have just described appears as a subjugation of the ego. This is the idea I think he is attempting to convey in the passage quoted above.
Again, at one time the conception of a “man with a ego” was a man very Self-aware and thus very aware of outside his Self [sic.]. His “ego” was that first self-creation that functioned as an “outside observer and advisor” to the dominant Self. Over time, the “ego” was liberated and became only a reflection of the bad Self. Now the “man with the ego” is a stunted man, isolated in his own mind, privy only to a “reality” of his own desires and impenetrable to competing realities. This “ego” is a fundamentally transgressive ego where it was once a self-created feed back loop utilized to obtaining a fuller grasp of the total reality.
I am in full agreement that the ego is a natural process originally designed for survival. To the extent it aids man in his survival it is beneficial. Where the ego tends to run afoul is when it perceives threats that are not real and acts inappropriately to defend itself from these “threats.” The origin of the ego run afoul is typically bad parenting or some other form of abuse. If ego separation is not achieved then it is passed on to the next generation. I suspect this is the motivating force behind his white Supremacy. In a sense it is his ego that is the white Supremacist and he has ceded control of his greater self to his ego.
So now these two extremely antithetical conceptions of the “man with the ego” provoked a reaction from the dominant Self. Which of these “egos” is the one to trust, the one to distrust or how can I, the dominant Self, exploit the trusted ego and the distrusted ego? How can I, the dominant Self, silence the transgressive ego and hear more clearly the trusted ego? Such questions require the application of multiple selves manifested concretely from the dominant Self to test the “ego” in all ways possible. A loyal ego is a silent ego. A disloyal ego is a noisy ego.
There is a choice that must be made. Do you choose the light or do you choose the dark? The ego is tricky and can be very convincing at times. I can now clearly see my ego sits on the dark side of the spectrum and I have made my choice not to ally myself with it. He seems to have made a different choice and has constructed an elaborate philosophical and spiritual system to hold it all together. To the extent he can live a peaceful, happy life and not interfere with anyone else’s life I wish him well.
Tomorrow is the first Sunday of Advent and I would like to shift gears a little. This white Supremacist series, although interesting, has introduced a certain negative energy into my life that I do not want to have present during Advent. As such, I will be taking a break on this subject for a while (perhaps permanently). In keeping with the theme of ego I would be remiss if I did not point out that this series has been ego gratifying for me. If I am being honest I have to admit that part of me (my ego) enjoys the arguments in the comments section. And the times when I felt I got the better of him gave me a short term rush of adrenaline. But this is all ego and vanity. It ultimately does not lead to happiness. In fact, it leads in the opposite direction despite its entertainment value.