The most terrible of all things that can happen to you is never visible.Well, it is neither contextual nor absolute.It is rather something that is impossible to corner and define.It is felt when all your thoughts fight among one another to stand out and fill the void of a decision.It is when each idea refutes another and all are right, that you reach the ultimate dead-end.
It did happen to me, and does to this day.One such example is glaring at me right now.We are aware of people who were passionate about something and ended up becoming something else( reasons being family problems, monetary issues and so on) , and are still successful.To begin with, I've always thought, " How can they live with that?"Is there no Ego in them? If you view them through Ayn Rand's lens, they are visible as the second-handers( no need to explain as the term itself is weird).In the conventional thinker's view, they are great, for they have sacrificed their dreams for a higher purpose.Fine! nothing wrong in it.The former perspective has a "self" , while the latter doesn't have a "self",is the inference gathered.To make it brutal, replace the "self" with ego.
I've seriously pondered my brains over to decide who is right.I then realized there was no right or wrong, there was only Ego,and what all mattered to it.Though it is stereotyped to be an arrogant word,common sense says it isn't.I'd say the ego is split into 2 domains.The ego-in-itself and the ego of presence.The unintended inference of my theory is that everyone who breathes in and outsuffers from possesses a split personality: Each facet driven by the respective egos.( Magnitudes don't matter)
When you are alone in your mental space and when the only person you want to impress is yourself, the ego-in-itself drapes your personality.However when you are in a group, or an organization, or competition or when there is a hell of a crowd in your mind space,you are at first coerced to and later accustomed to wear the mask of the ego-of-presence, which appears when you step outta your skin outta insecurity or any other authentic driving factors, and forays into the space that divides one man from another.This act of stepping out is at first very gingerly but it is applauded and praised which gives you instant happiness, as drugs do.You are high, you want more.Like all addicts, you eventually reach a point where it doesn't work anymore.You get stagnated, the journey back to yourself is too damn hard.So a successful stock broker who always wanted to be a musician might toil hard during day, but might quietly slip back into himself in the silence of the night and play a song to his suppressed dream .Anyway, it is the constant competition between the two ego-traits and the pattern of wins and defeats that illuminate your character.
You might get fed up with the 2nd trait but you can never be de-obsessed with the ego-in itself.That's how it is,All my life I've seen the 2nd trait to be predominant in almost all the people I know.The remaining few are of course,not really making their presence felt but rather feeling their own presence and smiling at themselves.
PS. Ego is cliched.Agreed.
It did happen to me, and does to this day.One such example is glaring at me right now.We are aware of people who were passionate about something and ended up becoming something else( reasons being family problems, monetary issues and so on) , and are still successful.To begin with, I've always thought, " How can they live with that?"Is there no Ego in them? If you view them through Ayn Rand's lens, they are visible as the second-handers( no need to explain as the term itself is weird).In the conventional thinker's view, they are great, for they have sacrificed their dreams for a higher purpose.Fine! nothing wrong in it.The former perspective has a "self" , while the latter doesn't have a "self",is the inference gathered.To make it brutal, replace the "self" with ego.
I've seriously pondered my brains over to decide who is right.I then realized there was no right or wrong, there was only Ego,and what all mattered to it.Though it is stereotyped to be an arrogant word,common sense says it isn't.I'd say the ego is split into 2 domains.The ego-in-itself and the ego of presence.The unintended inference of my theory is that everyone who breathes in and out
When you are alone in your mental space and when the only person you want to impress is yourself, the ego-in-itself drapes your personality.However when you are in a group, or an organization, or competition or when there is a hell of a crowd in your mind space,you are at first coerced to and later accustomed to wear the mask of the ego-of-presence, which appears when you step outta your skin outta insecurity or any other authentic driving factors, and forays into the space that divides one man from another.This act of stepping out is at first very gingerly but it is applauded and praised which gives you instant happiness, as drugs do.You are high, you want more.Like all addicts, you eventually reach a point where it doesn't work anymore.You get stagnated, the journey back to yourself is too damn hard.So a successful stock broker who always wanted to be a musician might toil hard during day, but might quietly slip back into himself in the silence of the night and play a song to his suppressed dream .Anyway, it is the constant competition between the two ego-traits and the pattern of wins and defeats that illuminate your character.
You might get fed up with the 2nd trait but you can never be de-obsessed with the ego-in itself.That's how it is,All my life I've seen the 2nd trait to be predominant in almost all the people I know.The remaining few are of course,not really making their presence felt but rather feeling their own presence and smiling at themselves.
PS. Ego is cliched.Agreed.
Bro is ego is customized(for this article) in your article , in fact it is going to be defined in two different forms .
ReplyDeleteWell best part is ultimately man lives to satisfy his ego,that is clearly stated at the end and examples are really good ones.