I went to church today instead of Bikram. This was the first day Judy went for a long, long time. She was still feeling bad from the chemo, which has stopped now, but was determined to go. It was good to have her back in church. It was plain good to see her. Our minds function in similar ways, and I love talking with her. The rest of the day was a little bit of this or that and a big nap. A telephone healing client called at 3:30 instead of four. That was perfect for me because Kathrin and I were going to a Krishna feast at Bernice and Manuel's house again, and I had to walk the dog before we left.
We picked up our contribution of a gallon of unfiltered apple juice to which our hosts added fresh-squeezed ginger—an excellent combination. The music, the meal, the meditation, the company were all excellent as they were before. I even enjoy Manuel's lectures on the Bagdagavita. The only problem was that the evening went on for too long. We finally broke up at 9:45 pm.
As part of the lecture, he spoke about what a mistake suicide was. Except for some Japanese religions, I think most religions are opposed to suicide. I asked if someone asked to be taken off life support was that suicide. He said yes. According to him, Mike committed suicide, and I committed murder by making his death possible. His comments didn't particularly bother me. I'm content that letting Mike go was one of the most loving things I have ever done. I also suspect he doesn't know his religion's position on end-of-life decisions where a person is only being kept alive by artificial means.
When we started contemplating letting him die, I checked with someone from the Catholic church. I would have been okay either way, but I knew Mike would want what the church said to do. FYI: It has always been legal to allow people to die by removing life support considered an 'extreme measure.' How many tubes were going in and out of that poor body? Extreme wasn't the term for it anymore.
As the group broke up, I told Kathrin that I wanted to leave quickly. She said she had to say good-bye. Now, my idea of good-bye is, "Good-bye, I was so good to see you. Hope to see you again," and on to the next, including saying good-bye and thank you to the hosts. Two minutes tops. Her idea was a two-minute conversation with a single individual. I finally went up to her and said that if she wanted to have long conversations, I would appreciate it if she found someone else to drive her home. She did. I went home.
We're going to have to negotiate this transaction ahead of time. I appreciate Kathrin's great social skills at making good friends by the droves... , but I'm not ready to make best friends after an evening, no matter how attractive or interesting I find a person. I am more comfortable having a relationship develop slowly over time, months even years with many repeated contacts. I will tell her that she either has to plan to make other arrangements to get home or plan to say a few quick good-byes in the future. It was 9:45 pm before I was on the road. I had to drive home, walk the dog, wash my face, brush my teeth, do a little reading to calm down because I was overstimulated from the evening, and get ready to get up a 5:55 the next morning and get myself to Bikram.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Musings: I'm putting this separately so those who are not interested can choose not to read it.
In discussing the Bhagavata tonight, Manuel talked about the true ego and the false ego. He said Jung talked about this; he represented it as if they had the same concept. I just checked Wiki, my favorite source of information. Jung sees the ego as part of the Self. I don't think the two distinctions are quite the same thing. As Manuel was explaining it, the true ego would be comparable to the Self as a false ego equivalent to the ego.
The ego, for me, has something to do with the individual interfaces with the rest of the world. The Self has something to do with our inner workings. It's like looking at the earth's crust, which interacts with the elements versus the Magna inside the earth. One has to do with a human being in relationship to the world at large; the other has to do with the human condition — Viva la difference.
Manuel was saying that the true ego versus the false ego lines up more with Jung's distinctions than mine. Nevertheless, it was nice to hear someone refer to the ego in a positive light and a negative one.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Musings: I'm putting this separately so those who are not interested can choose not to read it.
Jung made a distinction between ego versus soul, Self. I'm very interested in the concept of ego. I think it gets a bad rap. It is an essential part of our psyche. Someone without one is in big trouble. I make a distinction between a healthy, functional ego versus an unhealthy, dysfunctional ego.
Jung's design is a circle with a dot in the middle. The dot represents the ego; the circle represents the Self. The ego, the dot in the middle, is considered part of the Self. I played with different designs showing the relationship between ego and soul. I first started with the design of a circle for the ego and a circle for the soul. I couldn't make it work.
Then I thought, the ego is formed in response to the available culture as well as internal influences. I drew two circles apart: one circle represented the outer world to which we have to adapt, the other the inner Self, which is both universal and unique to every individual. The newborn's ego is small to nonexistent and sits between these two forces. As the child grows and develops, the ego achieves definition in response to both the external and internal forces.
We are formed by the external world, both physical and social. The outer world offers us roles to play, much as the acting profession offers different roles to performers. These roles include professions and character, moral versus immoral, affectionate versus unaffectionate, etc. Performers may mold themselves to the roles they play, but they never can completely stop being themselves. No two performers fulfill a role in the same way. We learn the language and the values of our parents. We learn our role in the family and our possible roles in society. However, stereotyped the roles we play maybe, we can never escape our Individuality. Even when we try to do so, we each do it in our way. We are stuck with our Individuality. We define ourselves by these roles. We say, "I am" and "I am not." All this helps us form our ego in relation to the outside world.
The ego is the part of us at birth, although undeveloped. It is, at best, a feeble sense of "I am." And "I am not." Probably, the "I am not" proceeds the "I am." It starts by distinguishing itself from the physical world. In utero, "I am not the bed of rocks I'm lying on," mother's spine. After birth, "I am not the arms I am lying in. I am not the bed I'm lying on. This thumb is readily available whenever I need it; it must be close at hand." The infant slowly understands its physical boundaries. This process is part of ego development.
What we call our Individuality is the material we bring in with us. Some of it is genetic. From what I have read, scientists today recognize that genetics alone do not determine who or what a person becomes. It is also true the genetics can limit or expand our options. Friends have a Fox G1 child, a genetic mutation that severely limits this child's ability to move his body, not less perceive or think. This child will never develop an ego in the human sense of the word. Nonetheless, even then, each child born with this condition is unique, and each child's development will be influenced by his/her family and cultural setting. (This does not mean that a 'good' external environment can cure this disability.)
Besides genetic influences are specific to each individual, there are inner drives that are universal to all of us: the drive to survive physically, and the drive to belong, be accepted and have a secure place in the external world. While these drives are universal, the way these drives manifest in each individual is different depending on both internal and external influences.
As understood by a newborn and young child, the need to be loved is also a survival need. We need to know that we are valued and will not be left for the wolves. (For those who haven't already gotten the idea, I'm big on evolutionary psychology's influence. No, I do not consider it the sole determinant of what we become in our lives, but it is part of the quality of the material we have to work with as we work to develop ourselves.).
The inner part of us comes with two elements: the loving, cooperative side, and the side that wants what it wants when it wants it- and so there. This part of us is just as capable of hatred and anger. If selfishness is built into us, it must have a positive, possibly survival, purpose, and therefore has value.
I don't know if human beings have always wanted to be seen as individuals within the tribal unit. (My guess is the drive was more in the other direction, to be seen as one of the tribe and not as an individual). I assume this need to see ourselves as distinct from those around us, as an individual, comes up when we are uncomfortable with the external expectations and are forced to see ourselves as different. (As we well know, societies respond differently at different times to variations on the existing mores.)
The ego is our self-awareness, self-concept forms from input from both our external world, the world we are born into, and our nonconscious minds. The ego, which sits between the external and the internal world, expands and grows with time. Hopefully, this image is the design that proved most satisfying to me. I have no idea if there is someone else who has written about ego with this design. If there is, let me know.
Like any work of art, we are formed by the external influences on us, the artists that help make us. A good artist sees what shape that piece of wood or marble will lend itself to. Just as wood is wood, but each piece of wood is unique. The uniqueness of each piece of wood is created by the interplay of internal and extremal forces. What can be made with each piece of wood for the artist, even if each piece of wood from the same tree, is distinct. We are all a work of art in the making. A good artist learns how to work with his medium, understanding its limitations and possibilities. He doesn't ignore those factors and think he can make the medium bend to his vision. The artist also has to develop his skills. (That is another topic for another day.) Unlike a wooden work of art, we are one of the artists creating ourselves. We have choices.
