On Ego and Roles (Thoughts)

When I am working and ask if I can help and the customer responds automatically with "No, I'm fine." When really what they want is for someone to help them find the thing they are looking for but they don't want anyone to think that they are helpless, weak, or can't find it on their own. Inevitably, within a few seconds, they raise my attention with, "Actually, where is the so and so?" 

Sometimes I smile when I filled with a sense of ego. When I accomplish something difficult or figure something out that is meaningful, or when someone says that I did a good job. I am consumed by a sense of pride and confidence. I smile and look inward to congratulate myself. "What a good job I have done!" "They like me!" Then I am struck by another thought and I smile to myself and I accept my pride and release the feeling of ego and move on with life. If I allow myself to live in the past accomplishments I will have a harder time recognizing the current experience and become distracted from those around me who rely on my judgment and expertise. If I forget those around me in pursuit of prolonging my sense of self-worth then I forget to treat people as I would prefer to be treated. I prefer to those around me to acknowledge my existence and be present around me. I want to be a part of their world, not a ghost adjacent. 

My longing to be perfect is a reflection of my dysfunctional ego. An ego that will not be satisfied with anything less than perfection creates an endless cycle of failure. Instead of being satisfied with improvement with an upward trajectory, an inflated ego demands a level of expertise that is only afforded to those that are practiced, educated, and experienced, and only to varying degrees regardless of said experience. 

I get nervous before I stream myself live, offer my opinions to superiors, or try to impress loved ones. I want to control the perception of others in a way that makes me think that they think that I am awesome. That I am wise, courageous, strong, funny, healthy, sexy, and all other archetypes of awesomeness. When I am nervous I forget to be in the moment and I forget to focus on the task at hand. In the back of my mind, I am imagining those that are watching me and attempting to will them into seeing me in a positive light. 

This is illogical for many reasons. Firstly, I am incapable of accurately predicting the thoughts of others. Secondly, I have no control over and shouldn't require control over the thoughts of others. Thirdly, I have to accept that not all people will like me, hate me, love me, think about me, forget me, know me and in fact, most people will never think about me at all. Even those who have met me will rarely think of me twice. And my best friends, family members, and lovers will only think of me occasionally and with only a small fragment of an accurate impression of myself. 

My ego allows me to spite others for not caring enough about me. When I choose not to call a friend and use the excuse that they haven't called me in "who knows how long" or when I say to myself, "if they wanted to talk to me they would call me." My ego tells me that in order to be my friend you have to put in the same amount of effort I put in so when my friends don't put in the effort it is simply a reflection of my effort. My ego tells me that if I text them first then I am the weak one. 

My ego makes me want to show how amazing I am by working harder than anyone else, even though I am lazier than I could be, waste plenty of time, and only marginally work toward bettering myself. When I judge others as being lazy because they don't answer a phone I don't want to answer. When I look around at everyone and think "these lazy fucks!".    

I am full of shit. 

Any desire that is born simply for the need to impress others is shallow and elusive. To understand what others want one would have to constantly be probing and questioning those around them to gain insight into what might impress others. To make your parents proud you have to constantly be assessing their pride in your deeds, or lack of deeds. Maybe your parents are elusive as well. They disguise their pride and your ego becomes lost and confused. 

Roles: 

The ego is an expression of the collective idealism you create around the perception of yourself. The ideal self is postulated within the mind and over time it evolves. Whenever you contemplate yourself as being in alignment with your perceived ideal self your ego is satisfied. 

Be wary of the ideal self as this is generated with others in mind. We generate and develop our conception of ourselves by comparing ourselves to those around us. We impersonate, mimic, and react to the world and we are shaped by its actions. We are told who we are by witnessing the world. We know we are human because other humans look the same and identify as humans. Are parents and siblings become role models and we become like them. Adapting and surviving. But we are not them and so we take different paths and soon we learn of the paths of many others. Through stories, we learn about the lives of others and we incorporate those archetypes into our bank of lives to emulate. "I like that person. I don't like that person." We identify allies and enemies by taking sides in stories and justifying actions. We place ourselves into the story and take on the roles of its characters. We imagine living the lives of these characters and 

These stories are ancient but in the age of information, the stories are overwhelming. From before we are alive we are inflicted with stories. Many of them that are purposely unrealistic in a way that clouds the mind with counterfactuals and contrivances. (This has been an attempt to get the word contrivances into a sentence.)

We can't trust the news to tell us what is really going on. 

Politicians attempt to convince others that they are the hero in a virtue story. A story about how people should act. A story about how people should try to help others. A story about service and chastity. A story about trust and courage. These are just stories. They are not real. Politicians are professional administrators with jobs related to spending the public's money. They determine their own salaries, bonuses, and benefits. 

There are no roles. Your life is not a story. You are an ape on Earth, on your way to death while witnessing the deaths of those around you. You didn't choose to be born and you will most likely remain ignorant to anything deeply true in the universe. You will only tenuously grasp reality and mostly fumble along getting by on sheer momentum, determination, and luck.  

Luck is another word for ignorance. Luck is not knowing the causal link from an outcome to its salient cause. Luck is seeing a result without seeing the effort put into it. It is assigning positive or negative value based on its relative benefit to the individual. 

Brief Thoughts on the Ontological Argument

Click here to get more!

The ontological argument...

Anselm defined God as "a being that which no greater can be conceived", and argued that this being must exist in the mind, even in the mind of the person who denies the existence of God. He suggested that, if the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality because if it exists only in the mind, then an even greater being must be possible—one which exists both in the mind and in reality. Therefore, this greatest possible being must exist in reality. 

---- From Wikipedia

The first issue I have with this argument is the use of the word "being". Is a being a conscious creature? Is a being a sentient thing? Is a being a type of person? Is a being an alien? Anyway...

The use of the term "greater" is an issue as well. The term greater makes no sense by itself. Greater than what? Greater just means bigger or better or more, which all require context. There has to be a standard to refer to. Maybe Anselm created this context in his works and defined a standard "being" in which to compare his notion of a greater being and then went so far as to infinitely extend the idea until he just ended with the word God. As in the same God that is the vague term used to describe any unknown or unknowable thing personified as an agent. 

Essentially the argument is...

If I can think about something it can exist outside the mind if I  just ad the word "better" to it. With the word better I can argue that it is better to exist outside the mind and therefore if a thing I think about is the best of its category (for example a "being") then it must exist because it would be better to have that thing in existence outside the mind than limited to just inside the mind. 

This argument is shit. It allows for existence to arise from thoughts alone and for anything thought of to exist in reality. 

Example: If I can think of the best guitar and it exists in my brain then the best guitar must exist in reality because the best guitar is only made the best by existing outside the brain. Because it is better to exist then to simply be imagined. But the concept of better and the concept of existence have little to do with each other. 

Something can exist without being better than anything else. Being better only occurs when comparing two things and not all things require comparison to understand. It can simply have a purpose or a relationship with other things or it might be something that simply exists with no discernable interaction with anything you understand. Maybe you see a cloud a few miles away. It makes no difference to you in any practical way but you see it and it exists. It is not better or worse than anything. It's just a noteworthy cloud. 

Any argument that puts human consciousness as the basis for reality seems needlessly vain. The idea that nothing would exist without humans is ridiculously presumptuous because it presumes that before humans existed there was nothing. This is stupid. Before you existed plenty of things existed. Unless you don't believe that things exist outside of your mind. If you think that the only existence that exists is the existence of thoughts and that you have a singular existential experience and that is what matters seems too insular. The history of life is the history of interaction. From when single cells began to combine with each other all biology has been an interconnected network of communication, metabolism, and other ecological concepts. To distill all of existence to what exists in human minds seems limited. 

Humans attempt to describe reality based on their sensory and communicative capabilities. Because humans observe reality and have the ability to see themselves as a part of that reality they can describe themselves in the same way they describe other things. Just because you exist and your brain exists doesn't mean that something you thought of exists outside your synapses. I would imagine that it would be easier to think of things that don't exist rather than think of things that do exist. Even if you had a complete list of things that actually exist in the universe you could still think of combinations or exaggerations of those things that would exponentially increase the things you can think about. Most of those things would not exist. 

For example: If I know of all the animals that exist I can imagine each of those animals with a chair growing out of their back and I just doubled the amount of bullshit in my head but that doesn't mean that each animal exists with a chair growing out of its back in reality. It makes no sense. Being able to think about something or imagine something has almost no relation to what actually exists in the world. 

It seems like ontological arguments are actually just arguments designed to satisfy an already-held view. It puts too much value on cognitive capacities and conjures up reality out of thin air which is not scientific or rational. If one wants to justify their irrational beliefs one can use the ontological argument.

I'm reminded of the argument, "I think, therefore I am." The problem with this is that in isolation you can't really determine that you exist scientifically. There is nothing to test against. You need others to verify a hypothesis and engaging in experiments. I think that if others think you exist and you can interact with external objects then you probably exist. Or at least exist in some context.

The concept of God exists but that doesn't mean that there is a perfect "being" running around doing things.