In modern (westernised) spirituality we have found ourselves muddle of a situation. On one hand, a lot of New Age, or repackaged ‘eastern’ philosophy teaches that we should transcend the Ego, in order to attain a more connected spirituality, often with the ultimate goal of realising that we are all parts of the godhead. On the other hand, sometimes the very same people, who talk negatively about the Ego will preach the importance of boundaries, consent, body-liberty and other ideas that strongly depend upon the acknowledgement that we are all truly separate beings, each with our own agency. These are qualities of having an Ego.
Origins of the Ego
Plato divided the human soul into three parts:
• Logistikon (λογιστικόν) our sense of reason.
• Thymoeides (θυμοειδές), our sense of honour and courage.
• Epithymetikon (ἐπιθυμητικόν), pertaining to our physical desires.
The goal was to have Logistikon rule over the other parts. Because Logistikon was the seat of the will, it offers us an early comparison to what we now call the Ego.
Plato didn’t believe that a human individual was capable of functioning independently from their community. In this sense, harmony with others was of the highest importance and it’s most likely that true individuality, like we purport to aspire to in the modern West had not been invented in Plato’s time. Even with the Delphic1 maxim, ‘Know Thyself’ the ancient Greeks meant for us to understand ourselves in context with the order of the universe and one’s community.
Our modern understanding of the Ego, as the seat of our individuality is therefore a much later development.
In Hindu philosophy, the closest equivalent to the Ego is the Ahamkara (literally, the “I-Maker”).
Like the Ego, this is the part of the mind that produces individuality, separation: the experience of identity and “I am”.
Ahamkara is viewed as a source of Maya (illusion) and over-identification with this part of the self is something to be overcome. This has been transferred to modern western spirituality and muddled with our own ideas of the Ego, which were originally much more neutral.
In Hindu teachings, for instance the Bhagavad Gita, the separation from others that causes individuality is thought to arise from envy, and in turn this envy produces desires and suffering which are to be overcome. In contrast, in Freudian psychoanalysis, desire (the pleasure principle) is fundamental instead, and an emotional quality such as envy would be thought to arise from desire.
The philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724 –1804) divided the human experience between Self and Not-Self. He considered this an ongoing negotiation where even inanimate objects are shaped by the way we comprehend them. While he believed in a core reality (noumena) he taught that we never see it directly. Instead we see appearances (phenomena) and these are affected by the contents of our minds, social environment and culture. He also divided the self into two further parts, the first being the Empirical Ego which is that which we can observe about ourselves, and which is partly a construction through our identity, personal history, and personal narratives. The second is the Transcendental Ego, which is the part of us that thinks, in-line with Decartes’ Cogito Ergo Sum. This Transcendental Ego is ‘the observer’.
Sigmund Freud defined the Ego (das Ich) as the rational, decision-making component of personality. Below the Ego is the Id (das Es), which is an animal-like part of the mind, observable in infants, which entirely serves the pursuit of pleasure and the aversion to discomfort. The third part of Freud’s model of the mind is the Super-Ego (das Über-ich), which is the seat of one’s social training and is especially concerned with the avoidance of guilt, and perceived social shame.
In this tripartite system, the Ego’s job was to mediate between these other two parts and the outside world. Freud called this interaction, the ‘Reality-Principle’. In his system, a strong Ego is one that can delay gratification, and weigh up consequences in order that it can achieve more ambitious and long-term outcomes. Likewise a strong Ego can delay defensive or reactive actions in favour of compromise, fairness, and diplomacy.
Freud considered the Ego, an extension of the Id which has been modified by experience in the world. As a child develops, the Ego takes over the Id as the primary seat of consciousness, and self-awareness.
In Freud’s system, the Ego is something that evolves, is generally positive and which is more productive than the other parts of the self. Though the Ego may produce defences, complexes and other compensations when it is not getting what it wants, this is a results of a bad relation to its Superego, or if it feels under attack from other individuals. A well-developed Ego will have fewer of these reactionary habits, in favour of a more tactical attitude that accepts wins, losses and compromises.
In modern Psychology, the Ego has taken two primary meanings which are both more general than Freud’s outline.
In the first, the Ego is the executive functions of the mind which focus on reality-testing, self-regulation, and adaptability.
In the second, the Ego is the seat of the ‘self’ and all psychological phenomena that relate, such as identity, beliefs, values, self image and self-esteem.
Aspects of the Ego can be either conscious, or unconscious:
• Conscious aspects include: Decision-making, reality testing, and self-reflection.
• Unconscious aspects include: Defence mechanisms and other processes outside direct awareness.
The Daimon and True Will in the Western magic tradition
Plato (approx 428- 347 BCE) and many later philosophers taught that each person is assigned a unique ‘Daimon’2 (guiding spirit) at birth. This Daimon helps shape a person’s destiny and character, and is central to the soul’s journey and self-realization.
Socrates more or less equated the Daimon with what we would now call a ‘higher conscience’. The Greeks were however much more ambiguous about whether the Daimon was part of the soul of an individual or a parent-like entity with a separate agency. Indeed the distinction my not have made much sense to them, as spirits, lacking bodies, also lack clear boundaries.
The Daimon evolved into the Roman idea of a Genius. Originally Genii were the guiding spirits of the male lineage of families (the female equivalent was the Juno), or governing spirits of places (Genius-Loci)/ Over time the concept of a Genius evolved into the guiding spirits of people of note, and then nations. In this sense the Genius is similar to the modern concept of a Guardian angel.
Note that the idea that some people are ‘Geniuses’, capable of directing culture into paradigm shifts in thinking, evolves from the idea of guiding spirits governing our fates.
Similar to the idea of the personal Daimon or Genius, is the occult idea of a Holy Guardian Angel. This comes from the 15th century grimoire The Book of Abramelin, by the legendary Abraham of Worms, a legendary Jew from the city of Worms3 in Germany.
The six to eighteen month purification ritual outlined in this book is supposed to align the individual to their true purpose in life, and after meeting the Angel, culminates in confronting and (hopefully) defeating the demons that are acting as obstacles in one’s life.
The idea of attaining ‘knowledge and conversation’ with one’s Holy Guardian Angel was taken up as one of the central goals of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, founded in 1887 in England. Seeking to marry early psychological ideas with techniques from older grimoire magic the HOGD mostly treated the Holy Guardian Angel as a higher part of the soul, albeit, one whose true purpose was to make sure you figure out what your true purpose is. It is telling that the HOGD was a strictly upper class society for leisurely Gentleman and Ladies of means. The magic of the lower classes by comparison was rarely concerned with trying to figure out what one should do with all one’s time.
That the Holy Guardian Angel is all the rage in modern occult circles is at least indicative of the fact that we are generally more time-rich of our ancestors.
Aleister Crowley (1875-1946) generalised the mission with his concept of the True Will, a unique magical mission and purpose that each person is supposed to fulfil this lifetime.
In a sense Crowley asserted that, above the human ego, is a higher ego.
The achievement of these goals is not always a given, rather it is often a struggle with a human’s lower faculties.
In Crowley’s reasoning the True Will is naturally aligned with love and responsibility, whereas the lower Ego is often self-limiting.
Where the concepts are similar is the strong sense of ‘me and not you’. Each person’s True-Will is singular and individual. As such, it is frequently applied, as Crowley applied it, in the service of radical individualism. In contrast with earlier ideas of a guiding Daimon, angel or Genius, attaining union with the True Will, in Crowley’s system often means overcoming one’s social conditioning, and acting in rebellion to societal mores.
Crowley’s ideas were highly influenced by the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900). Nietzsche saw humanity as a stage between our animal past and the future Übermensch. He described most people as being caught between baser instincts and the potential for a ‘higher’ existence.
The Übermensch is someone who has achieved mastery over themselves, creating their own values, and lives with creative autonomy. Nietzsche’s prophecy was elitist and he didn’t expect the higher purpose to be realised by the majority. Rather, Übermenschen are said to be only the most exceptional individuals. This presented a symbol of what humanity could become if it overcame what Nietzsche saw as herd-mentality and outdated moralities.
The Higher Purpose, as a construction of the Ego
In many ways Crowley’s True Will is a mash-up of the Daimon or Holy Guardian Angel4 and Nietzsche’s self-constructed and self-governing individual who creates his own destiny.
In this way Nietzsche’s Übermensch is potentially a much more powerful (and dangerous) magical idea. That a magician can reconstruct their own Ego in service of high ambition.
In contrast to the traditional ideas of guiding spirits and personal teleology5. I do think that the Ego is partly something we construct, and that full utilisation of one’s Ego presents us with the ability to create purpose rather than to fulfil something that is preordained.
As I wrote in the previous article, Humans Are in the R&D Department of the Universe, I think the universe has become more complex over time, and that human’s role in this is exploration and participation rather than destiny.
As Kant taught, relating to the world as a self, and the environment of concepts and things as not-self allows us to be individuals, and this individuality, makes us particularly effective in being builders, creators and explorers.
Responsibility and decision making
As the ‘I am’ of the personality, the Ego is also the ‘I do this’ and the ‘I chose this’. As such it has a vital part of our morality: ‘I did good’, and ‘I fucked up’.
Having difficulty making decisions is often a problem of the Ego, a fear of having one’s narrative about oneself challenged by potential failures. Having trouble taking responsibility for past actions is similar. A narrative about a person is always going to be an oversimplification. Given the choice about where to trim the information, it seems tempting to trim the challenging stuff first! Both ‘person A is one of the greatest rockstars of all time’, and ‘person A is a gross bag of germs who farts a lot’, might very well be true at the same time!
For this reason most of the problems colloquially associated with the Ego and Egotism, are actually problems of a weak or underdeveloped Ego. The general diagnosis’ for these ailments is frequently that the subject has an ego that is ‘too big’. I propose that the opposite is actually true. A strong and functional Ego, is less in need of defences. An ‘egotistical’ or ‘egocentric’ person needs to build their Ego up in order to become less selfish. A strong ego by comparison, is capable of acting upon one’s conscience, and accepting responsibility rather than having these faculties be overridden by fear, social pressure or other concerns.
In contrast, egocentrism arises in part, from not fully differentiating between the self and the other. It is the difficulty in accurately assuming or understanding a perspective other than one's own, and it is often accompanied by the assumption that others should take part in helping one achieving what one wants in the world. In the worst cases it is the mistaken belief that other people exist to serve one’s Ego. The afflicted people will often behave as if they don’t understand that other people also have Egos of their own.
A strong Ego recognises others and understands that these other Egos are to be negotiated with rather than controlled. Therefore a strong Ego, aware of its own separation form others, is required to fully understand consent, cooperation and responsibility.
Taking an independent moral stance on an issue takes strength of Ego, especially when moving against the crowd. (This is of course entirely separate from the morality, or facts of the issue at hand. Strong egos are often wrong and weak egos are often right.)
Art, performance, and extending the self
As a musician, singer and front-person, I have performed professionally with many local bands over 25 years. The relationship between a performer and their audience is to me a very profound one. Through human empathy and the power of music to hypnotise bodies and convey emotion, a performance is capable of expanding the performer’s sense of self to the size of a room, or a stadium. Broadcasts can extended the performer’s influence and communication even further, even globally.
If this were all that was happening however, and it is a necessary part, the performance would not be considered a good one. The audience must be ‘invited into’ the performance, to participate in the moment. This is akin to powerful meditation. In this sense the performer is trusted to steer the ship, while the audience consents to be the vehicle. In exchange the audience partly ‘becomes’ the performer, and gets to feel what it is like to sing, play guitar, play Hamlet etc.
All of this is modulation of the performer’s Ego, and the modulation of the audience’s Egos. Most people intuitively understand this when it happens. Occasionally a member of the audience will misunderstand what is happening, and try to invade the stage so that they can become the front-person themselves!6 The moment in time aspect of music is powerful, magical and illusionary.
Without the performer’s Ego, the material of the performance, the extension of the Ego outwards, and the ‘invitation’ for the audience to extend their own attention and consciousness into the performance, the performance cannot work.
Even if the performer is, say, an Elvis impersonator, and the goal is for the identity of the performer to ‘disappear’ and be replaced by the character (or spirit!) there is still a committing factor that starts with the Ego and is then broadcast outwards. In a sense the impersonator is ‘lending’ their Ego and talents to ‘Elvis’ so that the Elvis spirit can shine through and become a living person again. If this sounds odd, remember that the Elvis we remember is the character that Elvis Presley created on stage, not the guy who at some point stubbed his toe in the dark while walking back from the bathroom to his unkempt bed.
The Ego is not the persona, but all functional personas are channelled through Egos.
Love as an extension of the Self
A friend recently asked me what I think love is. Though my answer surprised her I think I believe it to be true.
I think Love is an extension of the self. When we love people we invite them to connect to part of our identity. Likewise we allow ourselves into theirs. To a Mother, her children are in part, like an extension of herself. One of the difficulties of parenthood (that I have observed) is to what extent one self-identifies with one’s children and to what extent one encourages them to form their own independent selfhood. In this the relationship must be ever changing.
Most traumas of childhood seem to relate to this: that the child felt the parent didn’t allow them their agency. Traumas of parenthood are more complex, either the child is not independent enough, or else their independence is wild and uncontrollable.
So there is a paradox. We can love others because we have separate selves and yet the love is a connection of selves.
Though it is a platitude that someone can ‘love everyone’, part of the true power of love is in its exclusivity. People who have never felt exclusively loved, for instance the way a parent should love their children, will not have this hurt healed by someone who ‘loves everyone’.
These ideas about love are still something that I am playing out but I put it them out there for response.
Enlightenment, and letting go of the Ego
In transcendental traditions such as Yoga, Kabbalah and Sufism, it is understood that the highest (most abstract) states of consciousness one can achieve, necessitate the temporary dissolution of the ego. This is a condition which is sometimes referred to as ‘ego-death’. These states, can also be experienced, in some cases, with some psychedelic or entheogenic drugs such as psilocybin, LSD, and DMT.
Having one of these experiences is powerfully moving, and can do a lot to put the rest of one’s life in perspective. The experience may be accompanied by a feeling of love and bliss, sIt is understandable that a minority of people connect with this experience so deeply that they try to continue to live that way even when the experience is over. In my opinion however, it is a mistake to try and live ‘without an Ego’.
At some point the experiencer must come back to their body and take care of mundane things, eating sleeping, working, being in a family etc. These things, especially social interaction, require the Ego. Total and permanent dissolution of the Ego would render one inhuman.
Often in seeking to relinquish the Ego one merely covers it up, and loses control over it. In exploitative group situations a spiritual teacher may require that their followers relinquish their Egos in order that they may gain control with their own Ego. This rarely turns out well.
Similarly, as is evident in reports of cult survivors, there is no spiritual state achievable by a human being, that cannot become corrupted by an unbalanced Ego. For this reason, even, and perhaps especially, after an Ego-death experience it is important to get back into a good relation with one’s Ego.
The primary lasting impact of the Ego-death experience is then the realisation that the Ego and the entire self, is a very temporary thing.
Becoming okay with old age and death
One of the most powerful acts of Ego comes from the acknowledgement of it’s limits.
People have tried to extend their Ego beyond death. Ironically achieving this always means ultimately letting go of any control over the self. Any constructed persona, achieved for instance through fame, will ultimately fall under the control of other people once the individual is dead. What began as an extension of their Ego then becomes transformed into what we magicians call an ‘Egregore’. A spirit created from the accumulated belief of a group of people.
I believe, based on my personal experiences, that the Ego arises as a result of a consciousness in a body. Without a body to anchor it, and to define its boundaries, and Ego cannot easily retain its separation. Likewise, while some people undoubtably feel pain at letting the Ego go when the body dies, a lot of people, perhaps most people, feel a sudden relief and enjoy the feeling of being like a drop returning to the ocean, or like a house of dust blown to the wind.
In this way, the Ego can never reach its full potential until it becomes at peace with its eventual death, and with the degradation of the body as one ages.
This is one of the ways Western culture has gone very wrong. We have an ubiquitous message of self-improvement, pertaining to the false idea that humans are capable of perpetually getting better. This is at odds with the law of nature and time, that eventually we will age, and start to become worse at pretty much everything! There is a dignity in accepting this as fact.
Similarly important, is the realisation that the ideals that one holds oneself to are one’s personal deals with oneself. It is not necessary that other people uphold the same ideals as you. Understanding this can make one a lot less judgemental of others.
A lot of this judgement comes from an inability to fully acknowledge that other people are truly separate from oneself. Fully engaging with and understanding one’s own ego can help with this distinction. If others are as different to you as you are to others, then it makes little sense to judge them to one’s own exacting standards. In this situation our very separation can be conducive to fairness and justice. People may need and desire very different things from you.
This is at odds with the idea that fairness inherently comes from getting closer to others. A strong Ego can recognise other Egos. A strong Ego can feel empathy without feeling its own selfhood in threat.
Service to others
Given that we are mortal, it seems to me that amongst the most meaningful things you can do with your Ego is the pursuit of what you are good at in service of others. There are infinite ways to express this. I primarily perform music, write on magic, and teach both. In my pursuits I hope that many people will find the meaning I produce useful. I especially hope that a few others take what I am doing, get inspired and go on to do it better than I have!
Delphic: Pertaining to the Oracle of Delphi, where the priestess Pythia delivered cryptic prophecies inspired by the god Apollo. The Dephic cult and teachings were built around this central teaching.
While the word ‘demon’ derives from Daimon (also spelled daemon), the Daimon is a neutral and general category meaning a spirit. A positive spirit, especially pertaining to inspiration or a guardian entity was termed an Agathodaimon and the corresponding evil spirit was a Cacodaimon.
Pronounced ‘Vorms’, this word has nothing to do with the invertebrate. The city was also home to an historical religious assembly in 1521 called the ‘Diet of Worms’. Any uncomfortable imagery this produces in your mind is entirely your fault, and I recommend you go purify yourself in Holy water immediately.
Crowley changed his mind about the Holy Guardian Angel in his later work where he decoupled it from the True Will and claimed it was a separate being.
Teleology: the philosophical study of something’s purpose.
Just don’t!
I'm glad that you are a curious person who thinks about these things, then writes about them so others will also think about them. Thank you for sharing your curiosity.