Thought I'd post a reply to this...the posting I made yesterday over in the Study Hall has some bearing on this discussion (although more on "ego" and "self" than on God, Magic, or Prayer.

 

It seems to make sense that the ego is influenced by a great number of factors, both external and internal, both under our conscious control and outside of it.  The ego (that aspect of ourselves that we describe as "me", which is distinct and separate from "them") is necessarily dependent on our interpretation of external events, and our external reactions to them, as well as internal events, our internal monologues, and automatic reactions such as emotions.  Now, since we are always assimilating new input, from internal sources as well as external, it only makes sense that that interpretation will change as the new information is assimilated...in essence, our "ego" is never the same from one moment to the next.

 

Now, responding to Red, as much as the ego is "me", I do create it, because it is completely defined by my interpretation of myself, but, definitely, we are forced to interpret ourselves in the context of the external world, so external events and the environment does necessarily have an impact in molding the ego.

 

Huh...what was my point?  Does that all make sense?

 

 

 

Was waiting for that, Wanduring...thought of mentioning the Druidic Triad version of "self", myself, but know that you are fond of it...  ;o)

 

Anyway, an interpretation:

 

1. What others think he is

 

1) What others think you are, yes this is part of yourself, but not part of your external self, and I would think, by definition, that it is not part of the ego...I don't know what psychologists would have to say on that matter, though.

 

2) What you think you are is precisely what I would call "ego"...it is your interpretation of your self, your automatic reactions, emotions, etc., in the context of the world around you.

 

3) What you really are is, of course, not necessarily what you interpret yourself to be...this is especially true because people are very fond of denying and/or rationalising their automatic reactions, emotions, etc., when it is doubtful that anyone actually really knows why they act the way they do all the time...you think?

 

So...there is a little bit of a semantic difference here between "self" as defined by the three points above (which I agree with, by the way), and "ego", which is part of that "self".  Classically, I'm sure you know, psychology divides the "self" into three parts:

 

Id: "the division of the psyche that is totally unconscious and serves as the source of instinctual impulses and demands for immediate satisfaction of primitive needs"

 

Ego: "the division of the psyche that is conscious, most immediately controls thought and behavior, and is most in touch with external reality"

 

Superego: "the division of the unconscious that is formed through the internalization of moral standards of parents and society, and that censors and restrains the ego"

 

There is not a one-to-one mapping from this model to the Druidic Triad model, but it seems that "ego" could be covered by pont #2 (who you think you are) and that "id" and "superego" could combine together in point #3 (who you really are).  It's only natural that a psychological definition would ignore point #1 (who others think you are), but I agree that this is an important part of things in practice.

 

Anyway...good to hear from you...and now it's back to work!

 

-- Sasquatch

Actually Saquatch, i think it is a pretty close one for one match...Id being what you really are, Ego being what you think you are, and Super ego being what others think you are...  The last doesn't seem to matchuntil you think about it...we all unconsciously react to societal strictures without thinking...and that tends to help define what others think you are...all in all...I often interchangably use ego for self...one of my failings..but i agree with you about those three things that make up "self".  Different way of looking at the same thing.

  On a bit of that your first post said in mesage 10...I have some problems with that after thinking on it a bit. mainly "Now, since we are always assimilating new input, from internal sources as well as external, it only makes sense that that interpretation will change as the new information is assimilated...in essence, our "ego" is never the same from one moment to the next."  This is true from to a certain degree...but also false up to a point<which may be opinion or unstubstantiated fact> fromt he stand point that you have various routines and subroutines within yourself that dictates how that external data is internalized.  While the information content varies and changes within a individual, the basic routines on how that information is used is dictated by the subconscious that you may not realize..and comes down to the personal makeup of that person...  An example would be intelligence. Can a person in effect become more intelligent from the external data they recieve? Or do they jsut become more knowledgeable as they learn more.  A example of that would be with math for me. I can't remember numbers very well at all, while i love the intricacies of math and often try repeatedly to increase my ability in that area...it jsut doesn't happen, I still can't remember what 6 multiplied by 7 is or 9 multiplied by 4.  The informationjsut doesn't process.  On the otherhand I can understand the underlying concepts of geometry VERY well. I suspect it has alot to do with how i think...mainly i think in visual, so i can visualize the geometric concepts BUT i can't see numbers or words. I couldn't understand A^2 + B^2 = C^2 until i saw the visual proof of how it works and then the concept was easy for me...and have retained it ever since.  In other words, the secondary routines may change but the major routines don't which would seem to say your core self doesn't change...jsut the exterior facade that you create for yourself.  So "self" mightnot change, whether ego, id, or super ego...just that you maybecome more knowledgable about various things.  In one way, it is sorta like a computor...you can change the software, but the hardware remains the same <humans not having the best ability to change our hardware as of yet>.Anyhow...theory and conjecture for the most part

 

 

Now, that is interesting...not the way I would look at it.  Yes, the superego is, in part, defined by social convention, and what other people think one should be, but that is not necessarily what people think you are...which is what the Drudic Triad division of self is talking about.

 

For example, I have internalised societal rules about Honesty, and tend to behave in an honest and trustworthy fashion...that doesn't mean, though, that someone can't think that I am dishonest.  And if you consider peoples' propensity for projecting aspects of themselves onto other people, then that doesn't seem very far-fetched.  So, in this case, from the psychological point of view, my "superego" has a strong honest aspect that effects my behavior, but from the Druidic Triad point of view, there could very well be a strong dishonest aspect to my character, due to another person's misinterpretation of my motives.

 

Does that make sense?  Or am I taking the Druitic Triad definition too literally?

 

Now, as for your computer analogy, I like it, but here is my idea of the organization:

The "hardware" of the computer would be the "id"...it is essentially unchangeable, the way it will behave in any given circomstances is defined concretely upon its creation.

The "operating system" is the "superego"...its specification is not completely dependent on the organisation of the hardware, but the software that runs on it necessarily must conform to its specifications.

The "software" that actually runs is the "ego"...this is the mechanism that interfaces with the outside world, translates input from the external sensors (keyboard, mouse, microphone, camera, scanner, etc.), interfaces with the hardware through the operating system, and then produces behavior based on the interpretation of the inputs (drawing an image on the screen, playing a sound through the speakers, etc.).

 

Now, this is not a very precise analogy, but I wonder if there is something useful in thinking about the ego as interfacing with the id through the superego in a similar fashion?

 

Dunno.

I think you're right...and the computer analogy is more than a bit too artificial to be workable in this context, anyway...

 

Do you think that "freeze" is actually one of the instinctual responses?

 

I'd be more inclined to think that fight/flight are the built-in response modes and that the "freeze" mode is a result of over-riding the instinct...you relegate the "jumped in the dark" response mechanism to your ego, which isn't ready to deal with it when the time comes, hence you freeze as your ego tries to reason out the best response.

 

No?

 

-- Sasquatch