Skip to main content

Multilayered EGO



I often, generally in moments of relaxation, have tried to learn about ego. My usual procedure for doing this is to think-a-thought about ego, any thought .Then as though someone up there, desperately wants me to think about it,I suddenly and surely get a second thought to jump onto and then its not too much time before I am really sinking in the process of learning about Ego. But thinking can not make you learn the whole concept, just like learning theory about, say operating a computer, cannot teach you to operate one. So, you need to take lessons from life, the rude way in which she teaches- by giving the test first. The thinking only helps to be aware about the oncoming test.
Every time I think something I fail to document it. So eventually it evaporates. So this time, here I am, writing what I feel is the crux of my last such thinking session. It started with—everybody has (an) Ego (whatever it may be).How do we know it? Because we associate a boundary inside which we call our SELF and we have a definite sense of our limits and so also of our outside. So ego is like a rubber balloon rather than an atom’s nucleus. It is the boundary that is the Ego. The feeling of having a centre about which this boundary must be, is a derived and secondary concept. Obviously it is not the postulate.
What seems interesting here is that our ego is not, only because we have definite limits of ourselves but because we have definite limits of others. We know that a certain man is 5ft 11inches (the physical limit of the form) and that he cannot jump beyond 3 metres (the physical limit on ability).So we move around having a picture of the world as many balloons here and there. For most of them we have names. Some are less important to have different names so we unite them under similar looking and call them by a specific group name.
This idea becomes more interesting and complicated when we find that not only these balloons are intersecting sometimes but that when we group other balloons we make another balloon containing all them. To make the point clear ,say I know a thousand human beings by first name and, for some of them, their boundaries are very clearly defined for me, because I know them better.For others this boundary is rather fuzzy. Now I form a big balloon and call it humans. This balloon contains people because they look like other members of the balloon and because they share common limits. Now if we suddenly see a man do something out of his limits, we either extend the balloon for humans to incorporate this achievement or we cast him aside and make another balloon for him.
Now the things get interesting when we place our own balloon with other balloons. For some balloons we define that we are in them, for some we decide we don’t want to be in them. Others we don’t mind. These definitions make our character, help us in deciding our actions and strengthen our sense of ego. So my point is, is only our own balloon our ego, or is the system of things in which we are placing ourselves also a part of our ego?
I consider myself as an identity and so I have an ego. But then again a group of people like me who happen to be born in the same place, belong first to a city, then to a state and then to a nation. Like the balloons in the balloons.
Now every city has its ego. The supporters in an intercity match of cricket or for that matter an inter-colony match, an international match, the wars, the inter company rivalries, the inter university sledging, the gang wars, the religious clashes trying to establish that my ideas are better than yours, that my limits are bigger than yours, that my balloon is bigger than yours, prove that even a group of people having similar limits or egos, have a common ego.
So going by the old picture of the ego as being the center of an identity, where do we place this ego of a nation? this ego of religion? So this is the new picture of a multilayered ego. That makes it easier to see and hence easier to get free from.
Thinking about getting free from Ego, will this multilayered ego be easier to escape from than the older one? Will it be difficult to get out of the well because we think that it is deeper now with all the layers over it, or will it be easier because we have made comfortable steps to get out of it, one step at a time, one layer at a time?
We are having these questions because we are still not ready to leave our older idea of the Ego. There is no one who needs to get out of the well. No one needs to climb the steps. When we understand what is written above, we realize that Ego is more like a multilayered onion. Start peeling the layers and we realize that at the end there is no onion.

Comments

Eruditus said…
I sent this article to "The Speaking Tree, Times of India ", but it was rejected.
Maybe i am thinking very philosophically, even by their standards.

Popular posts from this blog

The ' What if ? ' illusion

As humans, our mere ability to think 'What if?' makes us believe that we are in control. But do we really change things, do we affect the reality. If we do , to what degree? It is said that if a butterfly makes an extra flap of its wings, the reality can change so much so that after a decade a nonexistent cyclone can result.Is it really true? Even if it is, does the butterfly really have a control enough to make that extra flap? Is it really free will or an illusion of free will? A very fascinating example is seen in first person games like Prince of Persia or God of wars and so on.The game makers try hard to give the gamers a feeling that they can do anything in that virtual world. The game programmers know very well though that they can program only a limited number of options. There cannot be more than a finite number of stimulus- response pairs that they would have programmed. Even then, while we play the game we feel that we are in complete control (at least that is the ai

IIM Ahmedabad interview

14th March 2010, IIFT Delhi Morning 8:45 exactly around 28 call getters were divided into 4 panels .Then we were called in for writing our essays. In ten minutes we were supposed to write an essay on "Is banning politicians with criminal records from contesting election violation of their rights?". At first I felt it was a bouncer, so I only had two choices, either duck down and give up or hook. I could not have played a defensive shot. It was a bouncer because I had to be sure that I don't mention any random political proper nouns in the essay which i could be questioned upon later in the interview. so very carefully i put forward two points, in a fairly structured way. Firstly, that in india politicians are looked upon as leaders, and there is a need of immaculate integrity at the top.Secondly, if thousands of citizens' rights are at stake, we can forgo a chance of violating one politician's rights and if he is a true servant, he won't mind it. I thoug

TED

The following are the answers that I wrote for the Ted fellowship form. I write them here because they provided me with wonderful insight Tell us about yourself We take this portion of the application very seriously. Please take the time to answer the questions thoughtfully, with enough detail to help us understand who you are. All responses are limited to 1500 characters except where noted. If a friend were to describe your accomplishments in up to three sentences, what would he or she say? * Tejesh, who has got dozens of different pet names owing to his social circles, has his biggest achievement as cracking IIT JEE which is the world's toughest entrance exam. He cracked it big time by being 147th out of 3 hundred thousand people that appeared. He has a powerful analytical mind, which is evident from his affinity to solving puzzles and his ability to think freely.He has an addiction for outings and knows the mountains and forests of India alike. What other achievements (not only