I agree with your psychoanalytic definition which might be mistaken for your first explanation- some might also confuse the term with Pride or self-preservation rising to a challenge. It is interesting to reflect on the novels of the 19th century before all the therapy terms became vogue and marvel at the deep understanding of human nature presented by authors such as Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Zola, Flaubert, Hardy, Trollope, Meredith among others.
In another related article: "Does Your Language Shape How You Think?" By Guy Deutscher I wondered about other possibilities such as gender, religion and class that could also shape our thoughts. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/magazine/29language-t.html On Aug 28, 10:55 am, [email protected] wrote: > One of the serious confusions in this thread is the alternative definitions > of the concept of ego. The common understanding of ego is > > equated with conceit - as in egotistical. Used in psychoanalysis the concept > of ego (along with the superego, the id and the self ) are components of the > structure of the self. From this perspective the concept of ego functions > like a traffic cop mediating between the desires of the id (I want what I > want when I want it ) and the super ego (the voice of laws: shoulds and > should nots). > > In short the ego psychoanalytically is the voice of reason - thoughtfulness. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: gruff <[email protected]> > To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> > Sent: Sat, Aug 28, 2010 10:09 am > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Understanding: Mind, Consciousness, Thought > > Allow me to introduce Occam's Razor, which was first articulated by > > William of Occam in the thirteenth century. It postulates that all > > else being equal, simpler explanations should be preferred over more > > complex ones. > > What is being explored here sounds more like religion than science. > > Can we slice it down to it's simplest form? > > Ego! I suspect all animals have it to one degree or another but with > > regard human beings, we could not live without one. Scaling ego, I'd > > have to say that the more insecure the individual the greater the > > ego. I suspect there is a level or range of ego which allows us to > > exist but when our consciousness goes below that level, we shrivel, > > and when it goes above that level we swell up like an over-inflated > > balloon and burst.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
