Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:
One needs to protect one's ego in order to survive, or at least to avoid mental breakdown.

Now that is a stupid notion. If you have an ego that needs protection I would look at myself very carefully.

My ego does not need protection. Such a stupid thought. Really. Do you feel so vulnerable?

You are protecting your ego with this very post.

can't you see that?

Now that is the wierdest notion. I am not protecting anything. I dont have to.

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:
I'm going to come right out here and suggest you go and research the notion of projection.

ok, so how do you yourself protect your own ego then?

I doubt you just shrug your shoulders and assume the blame for everything.

Man needs ego preservation in order to advance, and this is what I am showing here.

Whatever our situation, the man (or woman) of strong ego will find justification wherever possible, often hiding behind ambiguous moral codes or religion.

You need to clarify what you mean by 'ego', since it's obvious that not everyone is using the term in the same way in this discussion. Do you mean it in the sense of one's sense of one's own importance? Do you mean it in the Freudian sense of ego, id, superego? Do you mean it in the Rogerian sense of simply 'self'?

I suspect we're all just poejangling here, but in case we're not.

It appears to me that the OP is saying that, somehow, if someone is so unattractive in person and personality that he (and it does seem to be one sided on a gender basis, this half of it anyway) that one is, rather than investigating the real source of the problem and trying to examine their own behaviour, one is entitled to blame everyone else in the name of protecting one's ego. A massive exercise in self-deception.

One may as well start believing in gods.

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:This is where God comes in.

God creates a shell of power around our psyche to keep the action of evil at bay - the action of evil is manifested in the group's collective ego.

In this example, the collective ego is that of the scoffers and dismissers - those groups that fail to see through the shell into the inner light.

They are consumed by self-interest.

My shell is made of godless reality.

In this example, the collective ego is that of the indoctrinated and self deluded - those groups that fail to see through the fiction into the wider more interesting universe that is.

Other than that the effect is identical.

Fallible wrote:
You need to clarify what you mean by 'ego', since it's obvious that not everyone is using the term in the same way in this discussion. Do you mean it in the sense of one's sense of one's own importance? Do you mean it in the Freudian sense of ego, id, superego? Do you mean it in the Rogerian sense of simply 'self'?

I would be talking about the Freudian ego, superego, and sense of one's own importance.

Godless Infidel wrote:
My shell is made of godless reality.

In this example, the collective ego is that of the indoctrinated and self deluded - those groups that fail to see through the fiction into the wider more interesting universe that is.

How do you know that you are not just deluding yourself by rejecting the notion of God?

You say that the universe is more interesting without the fiction - how so?

and I maintain that life is far more interesting when we take on board science AND God at the same time.

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:

Fallible wrote:
You need to clarify what you mean by 'ego', since it's obvious that not everyone is using the term in the same way in this discussion. Do you mean it in the sense of one's sense of one's own importance? Do you mean it in the Freudian sense of ego, id, superego? Do you mean it in the Rogerian sense of simply 'self'?

I would be talking about the Freudian ego, superego, and sense of one's own importance.

Sorry dont have it. No need to protect it.

Anyway that deity of yours do you have proof of its existance?

virphen wrote:
It appears to me that the OP is saying that, somehow, if someone is so unattractive in person and personality that he (and it does seem to be one sided on a gender basis, this half of it anyway) that one is, rather than investigating the real source of the problem and trying to examine their own behaviour, one is entitled to blame everyone else in the name of protecting one's ego. A massive exercise in self-deception.

One may as well start believing in gods.

If one is continually rejected by other members of society, through no fault of his own then he needs a mechanism to deal with it.

for instance, if one suffers from mental or physical impairment then why do they deserve rejection?

Quite simply, they do not deserve it, yet that is how nature works, though magnified by the capitalist culture of greed, hypocrisy and narcissism.

Those suffering from this affliction need a defence mechanism - to protect the ego and overall state of mind.

Hence religion or the psychological mechanism as outlined in this thread (or a combination of both).

Scot Dutchy wrote:Anyway that deity of yours do you have proof of its existance?

I have as much proof as you have of its non-existence.

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:.... and sense of one's own importance.

That may be your problem right there.

How important you are is determined by other people. What does having a sense of self-importance do for you?

John

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Anyway that deity of yours do you have proof of its existance?

I have as much proof as you have of its non-existence.

I dont have to prove anything. I dont say it does not exist. I just say bring on your scientific evidence.

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:

Fallible wrote:
You need to clarify what you mean by 'ego', since it's obvious that not everyone is using the term in the same way in this discussion. Do you mean it in the sense of one's sense of one's own importance? Do you mean it in the Freudian sense of ego, id, superego? Do you mean it in the Rogerian sense of simply 'self'?

I would be talking about the Freudian ego, superego, and sense of one's own importance.

You're mixing two different definitions?

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:

Fallible wrote:
You need to clarify what you mean by 'ego', since it's obvious that not everyone is using the term in the same way in this discussion. Do you mean it in the sense of one's sense of one's own importance? Do you mean it in the Freudian sense of ego, id, superego? Do you mean it in the Rogerian sense of simply 'self'?

I would be talking about the Freudian ego, superego, and sense of one's own importance.

Sorry dont have it. No need to protect it.

Everyone has some sense of their own importance or they wouldn't eat, drink, take shelter etc.

z8000783 wrote:

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:.... and sense of one's own importance.

That may be your problem right there.

How important you are is determined by other people. What does having a sense of self-importance do for you?

John

Gotta disagree there, John. Relying on other people to tell you how important you are is a recipe for distress, because your sense of self and self-worth would rise and fall according to the opinions of others, all of whom have their own agenda. If you can accept that you are fundamentally important to yourself, this doesn't happen. Of course I'm not talking prima donna levels of self-importance here, just in the sense that you accept that you are a worthwhile individual with needs. As I said, most people see that they are important in some respect even if they don't like themselves much, or they wouldn't bother fulfilling basic needs like eating, drinking, sleeping and avoiding obvious dangers.

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:

Godless Infidel wrote:
My shell is made of godless reality.

In this example, the collective ego is that of the indoctrinated and self deluded - those groups that fail to see through the fiction into the wider more interesting universe that is.

How do you know that you are not just deluding yourself by rejecting the notion of God?

How do you know you're not deluding yourself by accepting it? It seems to me that you have to do a whole lot of adding unnecessary elements to reality to get to where you are.

You say that the universe is more interesting without the fiction - how so?

Speaking for myself, imagine how awesome everything is if it's a combination of chance and trial and error over billions of years rather than some being going 'let there be light'.

and I maintain that life is far more interesting when we take on board science AND God at the same time.

If you find it interesting, then good for you.

Fallible wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:

Fallible wrote:
You need to clarify what you mean by 'ego', since it's obvious that not everyone is using the term in the same way in this discussion. Do you mean it in the sense of one's sense of one's own importance? Do you mean it in the Freudian sense of ego, id, superego? Do you mean it in the Rogerian sense of simply 'self'?

I would be talking about the Freudian ego, superego, and sense of one's own importance.

Sorry dont have it. No need to protect it.

Everyone has some sense of their own importance or they wouldn't eat, drink, take shelter etc.

Or they just don't like being cold, wet, hungry and thirsty?

It's the same thing, isn't it?

Maybe. But I think there's a difference between basic self preservation and the need or desire to be high up on a social/sexual hierarchy.

My thinking is that we have the need or want to self-preserve because we attach some importance to ourselves.