• Psychedelic Drugs Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
    PD's Best Threads Index
    Social ThreadSupport Bluelight
    Psychedelic Beginner's FAQ

What is the function of the ego?

"Originally, Freud had associated the word ego to meaning a sense of self; however, he later revised it to mean a set of psychic functions such as judgment, tolerance, reality-testing, control, planning, defense, synthesis of information, intellectual functioning, and memory."

said by wikipedia

Seems to me that it is rather important for us humans, and with out it we'd be living far back in time and possibly extinct.
 
The German term was "das Ich", the accurate English translation would be "the I".

The tranlator of the standard addition of Freud's complete works made a few controversial translations, "the ego" for "das Ich" being one of them. Fortunately most people's idea of the what the ego is is accurate - it's primarily the sense of self, but as cloudy says, the ego's functions also encopmpass such things as reality monitoring, it's a reservoir of energy from which we invest in objects ("drive" as recons says) and it's most primitive and arguably most important function is to uphold repression - the psychedelic experience is proof of this
 
Last edited:
The ego is the pronoun that the mind gives to itself. Thought of oneness, thought of what is personal, thoughts of differentiation from the rest.

"Cogito, ergo sum."
 
Well if your ego is your sense of self then it must exist simply because you wouldn't exist without it, because what else exists except that which you can recognize as self or relating to self?
 
Original Tree of Life.

Hello, If you havnt heard Terrance Mckennas Original Tree of life.
It is a 9 hour class broking into a bunch of 1 hour and 30 minute segments.

In the first one he speaks about how original early man has psilocybes in their diet. Due to the simple fact that if they chased cattle and couldn't catch any then they would find the mushrooms and eat them.


Now proven when consumed in low doses, like 1 mushroom. Mushrooms actual make visual acquity better. Now if 1 mushroom makes your visual acquity better. Then technically the mushroom allows you to percieve reality better than what you originally were.


Terrance Breaks it down like this...
The Mushroom was used in 3 different ceremonies which have been proven

The Hunt
The Orgy
The Religious Experience//Shamantic.

Now the ego was dissolved by the magic mushroom.
It has been proven that in this garden of eden which man destroyed
Woman was the original ruler.

The Mushroom had cult status in Pre Man
and it has a certain status with the baboon tribes terrance observed.

IF you are interested in listening to this add me to msn i am
[email protected].

It's interesting as all hell.
 
Is there anyone here with a decent enough psych background to give us the full low down on the ego? BristolRob maybe?

So far we've heard tidbits from a couple dozen posts, but they're largely repetitve.


One tidbit I'm able to contribute is that it's thought the ego first came around in evolution when homo sapiens (may have been erectus at the time) started forming social clans/groupings (eg. the nuclear family). This makes a lot of sense, then again, I've heard even birds construct 'complex' social hierachial systems. I personally would have thought the ego would have more to do with the quality of information exchanged in social systems.


IAmJacksUserName said:
I wonder if we're even talking about the same thing when we refer to the "ego." There's no way to quantify it, and I doubt most people even have a sense having one. It wasn't until I had my ego utterly dissolved by salvia that I even recognized it as an entity within my psyche. Without a way to clearly identify and label such an abstract phenomenon, having discussions about it are a great way to get tied up in knots.

I'd say about 50% of the thread has it, & 50% don't


Wayne Gale said:
Well if your ego is your sense of self then it must exist simply because you wouldn't exist without it, because what else exists except that which you can recognize as self or relating to self?

Do you think an ant thinks much of itself?

What about bacteria?
 
karma1485 said:
Thoughts are replaced with awareness and quite frequently awe. Beauty and love permeate through out my whole being. <3 I am floating in the cosmos... I am. (Ive really only experienced ego loss of this proportion from smoking DMT, though LSD and RC's have only let me peek through the doors so far)
to me, if you characterise your state as 'i am' you have not achieved ego loss. there's no 'i' in ego loss :)

related reading:

Which drugs work best to induce ego loss, and how to they differ?
Ego Loss?
Ego Loss Forever
What does ego loss mean to you?

alasdair
 
there is no I---- just ALL, everything at once. You cease to be a singular perspective of the Godhead and take on a cosmic perspective where you exist as everything. You are not separated (ego separates us normally) from anything else in the universe, but exist as just the process of the cosmos. This is how people are able to access telepathy and "psychic powers". It is all One Mind- when the ego is dissolved, one can access the One Mind with a thin veil of ego to communicate information back. I am not able to do this however and during ego loss I kinda just disappear and its beautiful but I cant reflect on it until after my ego comes back.
 
it's the sense of self.
without it, consciousness would not suite this world.

almost everything Freud believed is utter crap.

the definition still stands, though-

it is the self, and that definition does not depend on the assumption of the existence of the Id or Superego.

dissolution of it does not produce the effects that Freud would predict.
The ego one loses with psychs, leaves one with no ability to distinguish between the universe and oneself, leading to the perception of being just part of the universe.
This is true, but the exhibition of behaviour, not centred on the particular small sack of matter, controlled by the genes causing said exhibition, is not evolutionarily advantageous.

The higher levels of cognition (consciousness) are useful to us, but they allow us to see things as they are. (WHY WE EXIST. TO EFFECTIVELY PERPETUATE THE PROPAGATION OF PARTICULAR SEQUENCES OF NUCLEIC ACIDS)
The ego ties this higher cognition (consciousness) back down to mundane reality, making it a blind slave to the pointless propagation of the genetics, which code for it.

Of course, genetics which gave the faster "thinking" minds more freedom than the slower "thinking" DNA, would soon die out,
as consciousness would serve itself, rather than its creator. (if we created huge machines that supported us completely (as bigger, better, faster, stronger, more intelligent beings), it would be idiocy to let them realise that is their purpose of existence- why would they bother to continue working for us?)

it takes the most powerful minds to look at existence and see it how it is.

psychs help, by untethering the consciousness from mundane reality (being a slave to the genes).


it scares me to think of all the stupid people.
people who don't know or care WHY things happen, and WHY people behave as they do.

quite literally, absolute tools (blinkered slaves, working blindly for the tiny bits of matter that created them)



and, hahahahah, Terrance McKenna. ignored.
 
Last edited:
^Thanks alisdairm. That first link contained a valuble clarification of what ego loss is taken from Mark Epstein's "Paths Beyond Ego."
Epstein said:
There are now several common misconceptions about the key Buddhist notion of anatta, or egolessness. To begin with, many new meditators mistake egolessness for the abandonment of the Freudian ego.

Conventional notions of ego, as that which modulates sexual and aggressive strivings, have led many Americans to mistakenly equate egolessness with the kind of primal scream in which the person is finall freed from all limiting constraints.

Egolessness is understood here as the equivalent of that Wilhelm Reich's orgasmic potency, and the ego is identified as anything that tenses the body, obscures the capacity for pleasurable discharge, or gets in the way of feeling "free".

Popularized in the sixties, this view remains deeply embedded in the popular imagination. It sees the route to egolessness as a process of unlearning, or casting off the shackles of civilisation and returning to a childlike forthrightness. It also tends to romanticize regression, psychosis, and any other uninhibited expression of emotion.

Another popular misconception is that egolessness is some kind of oneness or merger, a forgetting of the self with a simultaneous identification with what lies outside the ego, a trance state or an ecstatic union. Freud described the "oceanic feeling" as a sense of limitless and unbounded onesness with the universe that seeks the "restoration of limitless narcissism" and the "resurrection of the infantile helplessness."

Thus, egolesness is identified with the infantile state prior to the development of the ego, that is, that of the infant at the breast making no distinction between itself and its mother but rather a merged in a symbiotic and undifferentiated union.

This formulation is complicated by the fact that there really are states accessible in meditation that do provide such feelings of harmony, merger, and loss of ego boundaries; but these are not the states that define the (Buddhist) notion of egolessness.

Egolessness is not a return to the feelings of infancy - an exception of the undifferentiatyed bliss or a merger with the mother - even though many people may seek such an experience when they begin to meditate, and even though some may actually find a version of it.

A third and more interpersonal view of egolessness suggests a kind of subjugation of the self to the other. It is as if the idealized merger experience is projected onto interpersonal relationships in what the Gestalt therapists have called "confluence," or loss of interpersonal ego - boundaries. This is really a kind of thinly disguised masochism.

The psychoanalyst Annie Reich, in a classical paper on self-esteem regulation in women, describes this very well. "Femininity," she says, is often "equated with complete annihilation." The only way to recover needed self-esteem is to then merge or fuse with a glorified or idealized other, whose greatness or power she can then incorporate.

For both sexes something similar exists in spiritual circles. Meditators with this misunderstanding are vulnerable to a kind of eroticized attachment to teachers, gurus, or other intimates, toward whom they direct their desires to be released "into abandon."

A forth common misconception, popular in the so-called transpersonal circles, stems from a misreading of important papers by Ken Wilber and Jack Engler. The belief here is that egolessness is a developmental stage beyond the ego; that the ego must first exist and then be abandoned. This is the flip side of the belief that egolessness preceeds the development of the ego - here it is seen as that which succeeds the ego.

This approach implies that the ego, while important developmentally, can in some sense be transcended or left behind. Here we run into an unfortunate mix of vocabulary. The system referred to by these formulations is the Western psychodynamic psychology of ego development.

Then there is a jump, or switch, to an Eastern-based, spiritual vocabulary that makes it seem as if the ego that has been formed is the same ego that is being abandoned.

Yet listen to the Dali Lama on this point: "Selflessness is not a case of something that existed in the past becoming nonexistent. Rather, this sort of 'self' is something that never did exist. What is needed is to identify as nonexistent something that always was nonexistent."

It is not ego, in the Freudian sense, that is the actual target of the Buddhist insight. It is, rather, the self-concept, the representational component of the ego, the actual internal experience of one's self that is targeted.

What is being transcended here is not the entire ego. Rather, self-representation is revealed as lacking concrete existence. It is not the case of something real being eliminated, but the essential groundlessness being realized for what it has always been. In the words of the Dali Lama, "This seemingly solid, concrete, independent, self-instituting I under its own power that appears actually does not exist at all."

Meditators with this misunderstanding often feel under pressure to disavow critical aspects of their being that are identified with the "unwholesome ego." Most commonly, sexuality, aggression, critical thinking, or even the active use of the first person pronoun are relinquished, the general idea being that to give these things up or let these things go is to achieve egolessness.

Apsects of the self are set up as the enemy and then attempts are made by the meditator to distance oneself from them. But the qualities that are identified as unwholesome are actually empowered by the attempts to repudate them!

A final misunderstanding of egolessness is one that sees it as a thing in and of itself, a state to be achieved or aspired to. Here, the need to identify something as existing in its own right is manifest, and the belief in the ego as concrete existent is, in some sense, transferred to the belief in egolessness as concretely existent.

It is not the ego that disappears, but that the belief in the ego's solidity, the identification with the ego's representations, is abandoned in the realization of egolessness.

I've only experienced ego death four times, and I rarely see "ego death" etc. used in a manner that seems to refer to that state. Rather than re-explain it, I just dug up my older explanation from the "Ego Death from PEAs?" thread.

I think it would depend on what type of ego-less state we're referring to. "Egolessness" achieved through trance, dance, or a meditative state where one becomes fully absorbed in a visualization or other sensory processes will probably be different than during a state of unengaged passivity (a full and total version of which I think of, and have been referring to, as "ego death"), as the experiences involved in each are very different.

From my four experiences of "ego death" using different drugs I would agree that once you're there the experience is fundamentally the same. However, the lead up to the experience is different, and I think that's what Newmoonrecord is probably saying when he says that the mescaline ego death experience is different than with tryptamines. For me, with both experiences via ayahuasca, the lead up was cognitive, consciously guided, and explicitly symbolic. There were visions of faces turning inside out, being stretched over masks, eyes turning around and dropping into skulls (all beautiful despite the seemingly grotesque description), and other clear signs that I was entering ego death by drilling down through the concept of self-reference. With DPT it happened through a far more abstract but also more coherently narrative and mythic visionary process, and was my first and by far the least traumatic of the experiences and the one from which I've retained the most memory. With the DXM/5-MeO-DMT combo the transition was abrupt, violent, auditory and tactile, where a single note of the music I was listening to was felt dropping down my spine and descending through a graduated series of impossibly empty phenomenal vacuums. All of the experiences had the metallic reverberation sound and electric jolt I posted about earlier immediately preceding the experience of ego death though, and all were empty and perfectly passive, lasting only a few minutes. They were far from the experiences of unity and bliss that some experience as ego death, though I have experienced that too and for me it is a far different, far more contentful, desirable, and useful experience than whatever the proper label is for these four damn near traumatic experiences, one of which would have sufficed.
 
Last edited:
Is there anyone here with a decent enough psych background to give us the full low down on the ego? BristolRob maybe?

So just to exercise mine - below is from a paper I have in review

The German original “das Ich” literally translates as “the I”. It is somewhat regrettable that Freud’s terms have not been translated more literally since the originals have an appeal that is lost in translation. Freud used the concept of the ego in a number of different ways; a useful way of gaining a sense of the different applications therefore, is to cite some examples of its use:

(1) A referent to the conscious sense of self:

n each individual there is a coherent organisation of mental processes; and this we call his ego. It is to this ego that consciousness is attached”. (Freud, 1923, p. 17).

(2) An unconscious force maintaining self-cohesion:

“It is certain that much of the ego is itself unconscious and notably what we maycall its nucleus; only a small part of it is covered by the term ‘preconscious’ [i.e., available to consciousness]”. (Freud, 1920, p. 19).

(3) A nucleus of somatic cohesion:

“The ego is first and foremost a bodily ego”. (Freud, 1923, p. 26).

(4) A great reservoir of libido:

“Thus we form the idea of there being an original libidinal cathexis of the ego, from which some is later given off to objects”. (Freud, 1914, p. 75).

“The ego is the true and original reservoir of libido” (Freud, 1920, p. 51).

(5) The primary agent of repression:

“[T]he ego is the power that sets repression in motion”. (Freud, 1924, p. 150).
 
BristolRob said:
If under psychedelics the ego moves towards dissolution - and we experience this great fluidity of association that we tend to appraise positively - then why has the ego happened?

In evolutionary terms, there must be something about the ego-less state of consciousness that wasn't as favourable to survival as the "ego-full" state of consciousness.

There's an awful lot of assumptions in this Rob. First off the idea of the ego itself is just another one of Freuds ideas - and the vast bulk of Freuds ideas were absolute shite.

Secondly the idea that the psychedelic state is ego-less doesn't really hang true to me either. You don't often get people on acid walking naked into police stations - they still have enough ego to realise what things are dangerous to their physical beings and what isn't. People on psychedelics don't sign away the contracts to their houses for example. So the "ego" is still fully operating. People on psychedelics arn't jumping off buildings thinking they can fly - they're usually responsible in their behaviour, certainly more responsible than drunks for example.

I don't think it's a distinction between "ego" and "ego-less" but more a distinction between "sober" and "intoxicated". Survival lends itself to the sober state more than it would to someone who was permanently intoxicated on psychedelics.
 
The book "Why Freud was wrong" is a worth a read to see where Freud was coming from.
 
you are right about Freud, but ego-loss does happen on psychs.

i wouldn't describe a breakthrough salvia experience as "intoxication".
 
What do you mean by ego-loss tho? Feeling freer and more open-minded by just be feeling freer and more open-minded rather than being ego-loss.
 
o_O

have you done salvia!!??

"freer and more open-minded"??



I was U.
not in a way that glorified me to the point of U,
but in a way that demonstrated that,
due to the inconceivable vastness and dynamicism and potential of U,
any particular part of it had no real meaning, other than the fact that it was U.
 
Yeah, I have to say, the ego loss experience is a whole lot more than just feeling freer and more open-minded. Freud was full of crap, but I think by ego we all mean the sense of self, of separate identity. Removal of that is ego-loss.
 
Ego loss to me is simply when you "cease to be" as in "becoming other things" etc. However this doesn't define the original question.

I think you can subdue certain aspects of the created ego & alter them to suit "another purpose" by redefining your ego (Buddhism etc)

What is the ego - it's the thing/reasoning that makes you post about the ego on the internet - amongst other things ;)

Fuck this I'm going scrubbing rainbows up a side street somewhere. <3
 
Xorkoth said:
Yeah, I have to say, the ego loss experience is a whole lot more than just feeling freer and more open-minded. Freud was full of crap, but I think by ego we all mean the sense of self, of separate identity. Removal of that is ego-loss.

Yeah I get what you mean and I've experienced that too. But none of us lose our sense of self to the extent that we give away our valuables do we?

If we actually did experience ego-loss and lost our sense of self wouldn't we be inviting strangers into our house to have a look around and take what they wanted? After all, why would someone with true ego-loss need material possessions?
 
Top