THE EGO AND ITS ROLES

THE EGO AND ITS ROLES Psychointegration Session 20/MAR/2006 By Jorge Raul Olguin With regard to what the ego is, the ego can have many definitions. The ego represents prominence, the roles of ego are fruits of the reactive mind, the ego means a posture, the ego is manipulation... We commented that there is a role of ego absolutely manipulative, when the person has too much power or influence over another person and he/she manipulates by playing an inquisitive role of ego. The person directly manipulates satisfying that bad need to subdue another person. Generally, when somebody is trying to subdue another person it’s because the person that dominates has a deprivation. If a person is harmonic inside and outside, why would that person subject? Why not helping? Why not supporting? Why not holding back? Evidently the roles of ego have these deprivations, because these roles of ego are demanding. We said more than once that a baby demands because he needs his food, then, his tool is the weeping. The baby demands by crying, but the baby gets used to that demand, then the weeping becomes a bad habit because the baby keeps demanding and demanding, because he saw and realized that it gave good results to him and then he thinks: "I’ll keep on doing it."  Obviously, the ego is far away from dignity, because a person with dignity, instead of demanding, he/she will find a way by his/her own means, and with time if that person has a comfortable position (not economic) but in all aspects as a honest human being, he/she is going to help and support other people, and also transmit that knowledge of life to others so that they continue doing so without any competition, because the only one who competes is the ego.  When the ego demands, it’s like those children in kindergarten who compete to see who has more pieces of a puzzle, maybe they don’t even know how to use a puzzle, but they only want to hoard. This means that a child has not yet overcome that competitiveness. And, why does a child hoard or demand? Because when he was little, he was taught to demand. However, when we are adults we are still demanding. That’s why I said, suddenly we are eager to prejudge... Many years ago... I say many because when one has many experiences, one year means a lot and for those who do not have many experiences, one year passes very fast. Actually we all feel that the years pass very fast, but at least we have fond memories or ungrateful memories in those 365 days. Well, five years ago I accompanied my daughter to take my granddaughter to the doctor. My granddaughter was at that time one year old and when she saw the doctor's white coat she broke down in tears, because she associated the doctor’s white coat with the pain of an injection. Her reactive mind was telling her: "Watch out! This being is dangerous." Dangerous for the baby, who feels the pain of the injection without reasoning that it can save her life, because it can stop a disease that can be viral or not. In the same way that a creature, who has no medical reasoning, judged the doctor as an entity capable to hurt her, because she understood that an injection means aggression, we, as grownups, have already engrams or not-integrated roles of ego and we are going to judge or prejudge people without knowing them. There is no person who has not prejudged somehow another person. Probably a person had a negative experience with a girlfriend and he prejudges a ‘similar’ person according to his own point of view, although this person could be different, but he practices prejudice. - Oh, no! I dated Martha. With Martha my life was hell. Those two years were absolutely indescribable. And now that I know Sophie, I don’t know if the same thing will happen to me. Sophie might be similar to Martha. And the poor Sophie is not aware of anything, maybe she is a nice girl, perhaps she is a girl capable to offer everything, maybe Sophie had a bad relationship with Albert, but of course, Claude doesn’t know she had a problem with Albert. To Claude Sophie is the same as his ex-girlfriend. Then, a chain of prejudice is created. Roles of prejudice obviously manipulated by the ego. Is there a healthy ego? Well, that's what my partner commented to me, if there could be a healthy ego. A “healthy” ego between quotation marks because it is always a matter of debate. She commented that there are important roles that are not pernicious to other people, like the role of wanting to be in charge of a large company. If a person is presented with a starring role obviously they will turn her down. Or perhaps, a person who wants to approach a project and needs sponsors, who will finance the project, there must be a strength of leadership, otherwise they will ignore that person and the project will fall into the basket of oblivion. But that's a healthy role! Then, what I asked my partner was: How can one achieve a healthy role from that disproportionate prominence, which is only seeking to swipe the other? Precisely by integrating these selves in a Central self through the technique called Psychointegration. What does it mean? Just a dialogue where the person feels a click and in that openness he/she says: Ah, it was this! Because in psychointegration there is nothing magical. Psychointegration means that one wakes up and begins to realize, begins to auto-analyze oneself seeing other people through a different perspective, seeing others with new eyes and realizing what can be harmful to oneself and what can be harmful to others from one’s behalf, because it is full circle. It's reciprocal. Although I said more than once that we give the power to the words of the others, so that they hurt us, in the same way, if I have my ego integrated, not only the criticism of others won’t affect me, but I will take it as a constructive criticism, and if I see that the criticism is destructive, I’ll directly delete it. I’ll put it in the basket of oblivion because I'm not interested on that. But I will not have an opinion about the others. I’ll directly dismiss it. Not pretending to be superior, I’ll simply dismiss it because it’s not compatible, nothing more.  Here, we are not talking about being superior or inferior. However, if I have the ego integrated, I will try not to hurt others by using prejudice, seeing ghosts where there are none, etc... No. I'll give the person the opportunity to know her better. And when I know that person, then, I will form my point of view. My point of view won’t be infallible either. It may also happen that the person is excellent and I’m also a good person and we don’t get along well because we have different points of view, because we all have no obligation to think the same way. The secret is to respect the other’s point of view! Even if I have appreciation for that person, I will defend his/her point of view although I disagree with it! I will defend it! That’s what Voltaire said, why will I not defend your point of view? I might disagree with it, but I will defend it because I respect that person.  Maybe not respect, because it sounds like I loathe that person, maybe I don’t respect his/her point of view, if the person invalidates my opinions and he/she does not give me valid alternatives. I'll always “demand” between quotation marks because the person can tell me NO because he/she has free will, I’ll demand in a good way, I'll ask, I will beg so that the person gives me his/her point of view, which invalidates mine. But, if the person has no valid alternative, I will realize that he/she is a biased person and he/she invalidates my point of view just because he/she is full of prejudice, not because he/she has a more important alternative, which is more valid to that person. However, I will respect it if the person invalidates my point of view and he/she gives me a valid alternative although that alternative may be nonsense to me. Respect because at least that person thought. I respect his/her point of view because the person says: “Well this is not how I think. I think this...” But that person at least gave me a reason. This doesn’t happen always, even in the political parties in power where there are opponents who say: "This is wrong. This is bad…and this is even worse." And they keep their mouths shut. They give no valid alternatives for the bad or the worse. Then, if these people don’t give me a valid alternative, I'll stay with the bad and the worst alternatives because they are not giving to me valid alternatives. Well, a person who does this kind of things is always against everything because the roles of ego make him seek prominence. And prominence does not always give the desired outcome. Because I can stand on a pedestal speaking and wanting to be hero and all my words will make me look like a fool in front of the people who came to listen to me, a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand people, it does not matter because I don’t give a valid alternative. Then I'll be the protagonist, but I'm going to be a protagonist of hilarity to the others. Then, if I realize that I'm being simply a clown to the people around me, another role of ego will arise. The ego of resentment. - I don’t understand! They're all idiots! I am the one who is right and they're all idiots because they mock me! Why don’t I accept the defeat? Why don’t I accept that I’m wrong? Because the ego jumps to another role of ego, which is pedantry. And the pedantic person cannot be wrong. How does he make mistakes? How does somebody tell him that his position is superior, when he doesn’t know him? No, no. But there may be another role that arises. It is the role of the poor victim. - Of course... I understand... I'm insignificant... I’m not good at this... I am going to do something else... But the person will keep holding grudges. He will keep feeling resentment because those who were talking to him didn’t understand him. They no longer understood him since they were mediocre people while he was pedantic, To this person, who plays the role of a poor victim, they didn’t understand him because they despised him, they didn’t listen to him, they directly covered their ears. He is still right, huh? But he keeps being right as a poor victim. - They will never understand me! I'm not good! But deep inside he says: -Actually I’m right. The thing is that they do not understand me because they try to humiliate me. The ego will never give in, because the ego always wants to win the battle, the ego will never be conciliatory. There is no conciliatory ego. How will a demanding force be conciliatory? The demanding force will always try to claim possession. And if the person is weak or if the spirit is weak and cannot take control over the situation, he/she will try to inspire empathy and will try to manipulate through pity, just like the woman who says to her husband: - Sure, look at the time you've come home! I was alone with the kids. If something bad had happened to me, you would have been the culprit. Then, she seeks to transfer the blame to the other, and if the husband has also roles of ego, he will allow the transference of these faults. -Of course, poor Juliet, perhaps she is right. I was 20 minutes with my friends. She is a victim, I’m a shameless. I'm not good as a husband. And then the man disqualifies himself. Maybe he is going to give in and ask for forgiveness! The other person, from the role of victim, is not going to grant pardon, but she will move on being inquisitive, which is another role of ego. - Now you ask for forgiveness? You should have come earlier to tell me! Now, I will not prepare food for you!  Now, the other person took control because he lowered his head. I say ‘his’, but I could have said ‘her’ as well, because the roles can be the other way around. Maybe the man came early to the house and the woman had a meeting with her friends because she is an executive in the office and she came late.  - I’m here like a fool! You surely went out with your co-workers! - But I’m the one who brings the money! - Sure! And now you reproach me that you make more money that I do! From there one can see the male chauvinism, although not exaggerated chauvinism, but with a role of victim. They will never agree in that way! Because both of them have the wrong reason. The reason to see who wins the argument. It doesn’t matter! There's no dialogue, there are many words, but nobody listens. They throw these darts at each other just to see who hurts the most. - You don’t understand me! - No, You are not good as a man! Now, if a woman says to a man such thing; he feels like a stab in the kidneys, when a woman says to him that he is not good as a man. The man measures himself through his sexuality, A man seeks to excel through his sexuality and a woman obviously has a great tool to discredit a man. She discredits a man sexually and he's over. Actually it shouldn’t be like that! Because both, a man and a woman, are spirits that might have thousands of virtues and defects and sex is just a part of life. The thing is that society taught the boy to be always right. The session was interrupted by a phone call.