Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 08:51:15 +0100

To: transpsych-l@asylum.org

From: Thomas.Jordan@geography.gu.se (Thomas.Jordan)

Subject: Essay: The mental-egoic mind

I hope you don't mind if I use the list as a kind of testing ground for early drafts. I have tried to formulate the salient features of the mental-egoic consciousness structure, much in the same way as in the previous post on the mythic-rational mind. The main point is to spell out the basic tension between very substantial development advances on the one hand, and the destructive tendencies inherent in the separate ego on the other hand. I find this endeavour very difficult. Is it at all possible to make generalizations in this order of magnitude? Is it meaningful, or should we accept that human life is so complex that all efforts to "Grand Theory" frameworks are futile? Is this description not exceedingly Eurocentric? Wilber tries to formulate something of a Grand Theory, but perhaps the picture remains sharp only as long as we don't try to focus on details.

*******************************************

On the mental-egoic consciousness structure

(Motto: "I can get no satisfaction")

A significant attribute of the mental-egoic consciousness structure is the emergence of the individual out of the collective. The I-feeling of the mental-egoic person is attached to a personal, separate ego. There is a sense of being an individual beyond the socially defined roles, a sense of having a unique personality. This growing separate-self sense follows from an increased ability to reflect independently. The mind gains an agility in imagining all kinds of hypothetical possibilities. One can envision alternative futures, become enthralled by ideas and visions, but also fear for all the unpleasant things that might happen. Life is a field of possibilities, and is no longer confined to conventional patterns. "What do *I* want in this unlimited world," is a question which imposes itself on the mental-egoic mind. The values, roles, and worldviews of the social environment are no longer accepted uncritically, because the individual has acquired the ability to reflect on such patterns, using general principles, a sense of basic values beyond conventional moral rules, and modification of previous beliefs through personal experiences or different kinds of evidence. The subjective image of one’s own personality becomes central to one’s identity. There is a set of beliefs about who one is, what one can, which values are important in life, and so on. It is no longer spontaneous impulses or conventional role expectations that dominate the individual’s will, but a set of ideals about what ought to be. Identification with the self-conception as a mental mind may lead to a sense of threat from strong emotionality, which may be felt as overwhelming to the mind. Dissociation from the body is therefore a great risk.

The great limitation of the mental-egoic structure is that the individual believes him- or herself to be a separate person, and only that. This basic belief permeates the sense of identity and the individual’s basic motivation. If I am my separate personality, this is all I have, so I tend to find my own personal life project, my desire for satisfaction, my wishes, my needs, my relationships, my ability to live up to my ideal self-image, all-important. Everything refers to the ego. If you are your desires and your self-image, you are unable to see them in a larger perspective, as for example putting them aside in order to realize unconditional love. The motivation of the mythic-rational mind was strongly related to social conventions and norms. The versatility of the mental-egoic mind permits the formulation of personal visions and life projects. The mental-egoic individual experiences her- or himself as the author of of her/his life path. The concerns within which these visions and goals are formulated are, however, restricted to the ego perspective. As long as the exclusive identification with the separate ego persists, there is always a risk for developing narcissistic tendencies, i.e. trying to accumulate power, success, prestige, etc. for your own person in order to appear grandiose and significant. Self-assertion comes naturally to this consciousness structure. Separateness entails an acute sense of vulnerability, hence a persistent drive to attain control over oneself and the environment. At its best, the highest satisfaction of the mental-egoic mind can be to give others satisfaction. However, it is still a question of one ego relating to another, referring this experience to the personal ego. The mental-egoic mind can envision a multitude of hypothetical alternatives to the concrete reality, and is therefore able to compare the worldview of its own society with other worldviews. This versatility of imagination gives an ease of seeing events and situations from several different perspectives, and the ability to consider different perspectives at the same time. Where the mythic-rational mind was unable to reflect critically on social conventions, the mental-egoic mind can operate with universal principles, and can use these principles to evaluate conventions and norms. The propositions of social authorities are checked for internal consistency and are compared with accumulated evidence. The cosmology conveyed by the culture is no longer passively accepted as absolute, since it is now recognized that the cosmology is only a subjective and provisional image of the order of the world. The ability to shift perspectives and to take the role of others naturally leads to a living and meaningful conception of the "generalized other," from which follows a set of conceptions about how people in general ought to act towards each other ("the Golden Rule," for example). True democratic relationships become possible, where people might be willing to listen to each other with the goal of mutual adaptation. The mental-egoic mind is capable of perceiving the uniqueness of other individuals, where the mythic-rational mind tended to see each member of a particular group as basically similar (attribution of collective traits). However, even though reflection inevitably results in some kind of "live and let live" philosophy, the concerns of a person exclusively identified with a separate ego tends to speak for a "me first" mentality. Actual behaviour may therefore lag behind moral development in the realm of reasoning.

Thomas Jordan