EGO DYNAMICS: Constructing Experience

I'm experiencing the ego-self right now, as are you experiencing your ego, or self-concept 'package.' This experience is about as inconsistent as you could imagine. In fact, that's exactly how you do imagine it.

When you awoke this morning did you plan your 'day'? Did you make decisions on doing this or that? Ego-self is the protagonist in all your predicting and preparing. "You" are ALWAYS directly engaged with experiencing your 'self' through realizing parts and never a whole. You could never NOT be engaged with ego-self, since you would NOT 'exist' if you completely detached from your circular experience of 'identity.'

"You" are the context of every experience "you" encounter, because you constructed the experience in order to encounter it. Understand the ego-self dynamics and you understand the mechanics of experience.

Many spiritual paths seek to annihilate that context in the belief that there is some underlying context not reliant on "you" being a "you."

Yet, take out the "you" as subject, and there would be nothing to experience (object), since every experience is subjectively encountered and interpreted. "Awakening" is meaningful and therefore, "you" will experience the meaning you intend it to be. This will be based on the ideology you enter into it with. What you go in with is what you come out with, only magnified by the intensity of altered/heightened states of consciousness.

Even the glorious "egoless" experience that many so desperately seek, is itself an ego experience. Seek and you shall find, simply because you have constructed it to be experienced.

Ego-self interprets, and even 'names,' everything it experiences ("banana," "dog," "god," "enlightenment," "ego," "orgasm," "consciousness," etc, etc). This provides an undeniable sense of 'reality' and seems to help increase mutual understanding of experience, but only barely, since you could never fully understand MY experience nor I, yours.

I have noted that my "parsing" of ego-self experience has tended to anger some folks, particularly when I start at the top (the ultimate experience of "enlightenment") and work down. When, in fact, this understanding of ego dynamics may aid in understanding the specialized concepts we tend to provide a religious observance to, without realizing this compulsion for 'sacred' contexts actually impedes experience.

Maybe the easiest method toward "awakening" is to simply understand the ego dynamics that determine the context, and conduct, of your life. The fact, that you have named and given meaning to some event in time as an "awakening" means you will have it exactly as you have contextualized it, based on the ideology that taught you how it should be contextualized in order to be experienced. This digging into concepts need not be painful and can lead to that "lightness of being" we would like to experience in our lives.

THE EGO-SELF CONCEPT

You can name it anything you want, self, mind, consciousness, ego, big mind, awareness, Joe, Sally etc, etc, etc, (mine seems to be called "mike") the point is it's "you." You will carefully observe it by understanding the concepts it, or "you," idolize and associate with as 'truth.' No need to dissociate, just know what "you" associate to and how serious you take this association. This is exactly what I do by 'parsing' the dynamics of the ego. But this seems to cause anxiety and resentment in folks because, essentially people don't want to KNOW the concepts they adhere to in defining the 'self,' especially when those concepts have been made sacred. They proclaim:

Just "Be Here Now," and shutup, dammit!

Socrates' declaration "know thyself" becomes "know thy... 'self.' Your concepts inform "your" ego-self how to "Be Here Now" and, make no mistake, "you" will define that "now," (whether you wish to deny this defining or not) simply because it MEANS SOMETHING to "you." Denying your will to construct experience simply limits experiencing fully.

The ego-self must give meaning to every experience BEFORE IT IS EXPERIENCED or it would NOT mean anything at all. You would not experience that which is meaningless, simply because it would not exist in your subjective 'world.' Experience is conceptualized through interpretation. Every experience you have must be interpreted by your "self' for your 'self' to KNOW it at all. Anything you do not conceptually interpret denotes no awareness that it even exists.

But here's the rub, "you" construct experiences so that "you" can then interpret what you constructed. This is the 'infinite game.'

Many claim that I complicate that which is "simple." Actually, this is an attempt of ego-self to deny itself through specialized concepts, or platitudes, that tend to terminate all attempts to understand the concepts it constructs and lives by as 'truth.' However, some folks refuse to just "simply be here now" and they dig deeper into the mass of conceptual understandings the ego-self proclaims as truth, in recognition that "be here now" was constructed and interpreted by the ego-self merely to reinforce itself as 'real.'

Obviously, many would prefer nothing be said and this is the "fallacy of the sacred" and religions are fueled by it. The modern 'masters" proclaim, "just seek silence in the emptiness."

Ideological "enlightenment" programs (is there any other kind?) deny "you" as source. A completely "empty" and "silent" ego-self could not exist to experience the silence and emptiness. However, since it does believe it exists, it will construct experiences that it provides MEANING to, so that it can interpret that meaning in a circular reinforcing context of 'existence' or an infinite 'I AM.' It will attach nomenclature to those experiences by calling them "silence," "emptiness" and "enlightenment."

But what is it really? ; )

CONVERSATIONS WITH EGO: Which Map?

ego: Bingo! Houston we have “awakening”!

Mike: Wow! I felt it too. You think it was the Big Ragu, the Whole Shebang?

ego: Well, maybe not the full enlightenment, but certainly an awakening, at the least.

Mike: What? There’s more than one? So… is this the first awakening, or was there one before it?

ego: I don’t recall any thing like that before. Must be the first.

Mike: So how many more do we need to get before we get the full enlightenment?

ego: I’m not sure. Quite a few, I think. In fact, wasn’t it four Jhanas.... or was it seven Chakras? Wait a minute, which map are we following anyway?

Mike: Damn! I didn’t even think about that…

ego: Geez, Mike, we can’t just go wondering around in the Kosmos. We gotta have a map.

Mike: But I thought we were trying to become “non-dual”?

ego: But Mike, I can’t help you read that map. Remember, non-dual means we can’t talk about this stuff anymore.

Mike: Well… if I don’t talk to you about it, how will I know when I’m there?

ego: I don’t know. But that’s what the non-dual gurus teach. Non-dualism cannot be talked about because it’s “non-conceptual” and can only be experienced.

Mike: Uh, okay….but then…how did we learn about it from the guru?

ego: He told us, silly. Good thing you got me, otherwise how would you remember all this stuff!?

Populist Gurus and Spiritual Cowboys

Spiritual populism is certainly on the rise in the west and the cowboy-gurus are poppin' out of the woodwork. I imagine that as empirical reality begins to severely bite folks in the arse, many will begin turning to these circus masters.

It's interesting that we seek for new, more sustainable ideas for evolving the empirical world, but continue to accept the same old spiritual claptrap from the spiritual cowboys and 'action-heroes' of "awakening."

Consciousness clearly exhibits it’s resistance to evolution in its compulsion to repeat and idolize the same tired old stories over and over again.

Here's an interview with Jed Mckenna, another populist guru singing the same sad songs we’ve all heard, ad nauseum, for centuries. I was going to purchase one of his books until I read this interview. I was not surprised to encounter the same pithy “pointing to the moon” platitudes that are repeated endlessly.

However, I will admit that Jed's a bit different from the norm in that he adds that good 'ole fundamentalist “fire and brimstone,” of the early 20th century evangelist preachers, to non-dual entertainment. Now we have non-dualist teacher as evangelical cowboy lassoing you for the big round-up of souls. Jed McKenna's gonna beat that 'dualism' right outa ya!

Notice that his third book is called "Spiritual Warfare." Seems to me if we could just get rid of all the testosterone tainted spirituality out there, we might be able to finally get somewhere with this "awakening" business. It is becoming clear, with all these western gurus, that you can't be "male" and enlightened too. But that's just a growing observation I've been experiencing and, obviously, I lump myself in that pile.

In the interview “Jed” tells us what “awakening” is NOT about:

“If it’s soothing or comforting, if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy; if it’s about getting into pleasant emotional or mental states; if it’s about peace, love, tranquility, silence or bliss; if it’s about a brighter future or a better tomorrow; if it makes you feel good about yourself or boosts your self-esteem, tells you you’re okay, tells you everything’s just fine the way it is; if it offers to improve, benefit or elevate you, or if it suggests that someone else is better or above you; if it’s about belief or faith or worship; if it raises or alters consciousness; if it combats stress or deepens relaxation, or if it’s therapeutic or healing, or if it promises happiness or relief from unhappiness, if it’s about any of these or similar things, then it’s not about waking up. Then it’s about living in the dreamstate, not smashing out of it.”

Ahhh… how the western mind loves to “smash” its way to enlightenment, “bring it on dude, I’ll blast ya! Let's kick some ass people!" So who's the Alien we've got to destroy? Why none other than the evil and dreaded "ego" and its "dreamstate" world.

Jed's a hard worker and his brand of enlightenment easily conforms to the paradigm of working to transcend the ego or "no pain, no gain." I’ll bet you his ego loves it and yours will too!

Jed’s “awakening” is:

“On the other hand, if it feels like you’re being skinned alive, if it feels like a prolonged evisceration, if you feel your identity unraveling, if it twists you up physically and drains your health and derails your life, if you feel love dying inside you, if it seems like death would be better, then it’s probably the process of awakening. That, or a helluva case of gas.”

Skinned alive, prolonged evisceration, twisted, drained and derailed, dying inside and seeming like death…is “awakening.” LOL! Seems more like a Bruce Willis movie to me.

Notice that the interviewer writes that Jed’s hobbies are, “he plays video games, he rides a mountain bike, he skydives, he reads Walt Whitman. Jed McKenna is an enlightened teacher.”

Walt Whitman? So what happened to “O CAPTAIN! my Captain! our fearful trip is done.”

Nope! Not for Jed. He’s no sissy and in this game, only the strong survive.

So how do we know he’s “awakened”? Well..he said so.
But also “he had an ashram in Iowa, numerous students (several of whom became enlightened), and has three books to his name.” There ya have it, folks. He’s awakened others and wrote books about it. What more proof do you need?

But Jed recognizes he doesn’t fit the bill for your average enlightened guy. But he don’t care a speck,

“a few pockets of resistance pop up, but I plow over them. Their indignation is as meaningless to me as the growls of little pink puppies. I’m indulging myself with a somewhat more forceful manner of communicating now, mainly for my own amusement, and their reaction at this stage is not a factor.”

Ha! And he eats "little pink puppies" for breakfast, don't ya know! This guy sounds like a goon from the Sopranos. He just plows over 'em, yee haw!

Good grief…"but where are the clowns? Quick, send in the clowns. Don't bother, they're here."

So how how does our super-hero want you to "awaken"?

“An exodus not outward toward Japan or India or Tibet, but inward, toward the self—toward self-reliance, toward self-determination, toward a common sense approach to figuring out just what the hell’s going on around here. A wiping of the slate. A fresh start. Sincere, intelligent people dispensing with the past and beginning anew. Beginning by asking themselves, "Okay, where are we? What do we know for sure? What do we know that’s true?"

Yea, well (yawn) we’ve heard that “seek the kingdom within” spiel before. Nothing much new here. However, for Jed this “truth’ is mighty painful and your gonna suffer mightily for it. Non-dualism meets the crucifixion (playing at a theater near you!)

But then imagine my surprise when the interviewer writes this:

“Jed McKenna doesn't exist (I'm sure "he" would agree with this on one level!) -- there is no teacher named Jed, no ashram in Iowa, and no students as described in his books. It is all a fake. What evidence do I have for this? the fact that there is no evidence for any of it. No photos, no face-to-face meetings, no one saying they have ever met the man, much less been a student of his (I welcome any evidence to the contrary)."

"McKenna expertly diffuses this objection.”

JED: "This whole thing really has nothing to do with me personally and it would be counter-productive to shift the focus onto me. I’m not relevant to anyone’s search. I’m just a finger pointing at the moon. There’s nothing to be learned from the finger. Everybody’s eager to find a distraction from the real work of waking up, but that’s all it is, a distraction.”

So there is NO Jed Mckenna and just a finger pointing at the moon? HA!

Doesn’t matter though. Who cares who Jed Mckenna is? Not Jed, since "Jed McKenna" is a pseudonym. Now we have dozens of blogs all gossiping about who Jed McKenna really is.

But here is an important point that "Jed" makes, “Don't you think it's reasonable to ask to know a teacher's success rate? The proof is in the pudding, right? Didn't you ask them about the fruit of their teachings when you started with them?"

Well, maybe that’s not because of the teacher, but because there is NO “enlightenment.” Therefore, anyone who proclaims to teach a fiction should stick to writing books and therefore, "Jeds" teaching is fictionally relevant.

Your experiences are NOT "illusory" and there is no “real” that you need seek. But don’t tell the seekers. Unfortunately, when the new inmate enters the asylum, confidently proclaiming himself Jesus, all the other inmates quickly vie to become his disciple. Look at the history of "awakening" and this "monkey see-monkey do" process becomes abundantly clear. The whole paradigm is an ego fixation. It's time for awakening into the anti-awakening movement. You will learn the truth, but the learning is infinite and can have no outcome.

In fact, if you want to start “awakening” you’re probably better off not reading books by these self-proclaimed charlatans and I haven’t found one that doesn’t fit that bill. However, "Jed" has offered you one piece of sound advice.

Read Walt Whitman.

Now there’s a real guru and a truly enlightened teacher!

NEW ADDENDUM TO THIS POST - "Making Egos Real (or Jed McKenna is one big fact ego)" 

What are You Defending Against in This Moment

It’s never really about attack, since attack comes from the need to defend. Attack is merely an aspect of an ego defense system. However, your ego-self system is ever vigilant against attack (psychological and physical) and this is because it's an active player in the game of death. The objective of that game is different from all 'life' games since you must avoid the outcome rather than seek it. In avoiding this outcome we press into our experience of 'life' by demanding outcomes to life experiences to prove our 'living' and this involves the enlightenment or awakening paradigms.

Enlightenment is sought in 'life' primarily in opposition to the experience of 'death.' It is conceived as the greatest method of asserting 'self' into the experience of 'world,' in opposition to the most diminished experience which we refer to as death (or end of 'self').

However, keep in mind that the ego-self is not as concerned about ending it’s concept of ‘body” as it is with ending the total experience of a ‘self,’ in which the body is only one part of that comprehensive integrated experience.

This is because ‘self’ is only an experience. Its 'world' has no tangible or physical properties only the experience of tangible and physical properties. The ego-self constructs numerous and variable experiences for which to ‘live’ (experience) through its construct of 'self.'

Yet, your ego-self has no experience of death, other than an experience of 'inevitability' and you do experience that everyday.

The ego-self constructs each and every experience it encounters and this is why there are no coincidences in 'life' ("you" just deny responsibility and that denial is the foundation of an 'ego-self'). It provides itself with teachers and teaching moments (and not the ones you consciously choose). This helps maintain an experience of a ‘world’ as directly received from a 'world.' Nevertheless, it cannot construct the experience of death and this cannot be taught from the 'world.' Oh sure, it can experience others dying, but, it cannot construct its own experience of death since it allows for no teachers or teaching moments in time.

Since it has no experience of death, but death is conceptualized as inevitable, it is conceptualized as an 'ending.' This entails a moment to moment self-experience we refer to as "mortality." It is this mortality that makes the ego-self entirely unsafe with itself. How can you trust what you teach yourself (and you pretty much teach yourself everything) if within the construct of 'self' is mortality and the complete cessation of 'self' at any moment?

Certainly, the world provides theoretical and conceptual teachings on death (religion and spirituality), but always doubt is inherent in every theory simply because they cannot be tested. But obviously the ego-self will construct an experience of death since death is inherent to its self-construct and this is because it constructs the experience of ‘others’ dying. Yet, the experience of death, unlike other life experiences cannot ever be confirmed until the moment of death.

Therefore, you are never NOT constructing an experience of death in your experience of life and this tends to put a damper on things.

All of our experiences tend to interface with one another and this is why just having “intent,” as the Law of Attraction proponents advocate, is rather inconsequential, since any 'intention' construct must compete with its opposite. What’s important about the egoic experiential construct of death is that you will spend your entire ‘life’ constructing your experience of death and this is the function of all religious-spiritual concepts and ideologies.

However, you will NOT realize or 'know' the culmination of this death-construct until the time of death. It’s not important to realize the ‘when’ of death, because the game is about preparing for that 'event' at any moment and this is why death is the only experience the ego-self must defend against IN every moment. Since it cannot define or construct it, it must therefore always be vigilantly prepared for it. Interestingly enough, there are examples of individuals who, upon accepting the diagnosis of a terminal condition, discard all preparation and report this to be the most joyous time of their entire life.

Essentially, your defense against death is how the ego-self defines life because all assertion of ego-self into the world is in opposition to death. To "live life to the fullest" is only to oppose the dualistic opposite of life, which is death. The paradox is that the ego-self construct, or experience of ‘self,’ includes living-unto-death within it and this tends to buffer or dumb down all experiences because deeply inherent within each experience of living, is the construct of death. Subsequently, Living-unto-death reinforces the experience of ‘time’ because there is so little of it available to 'life.'

All ego-self experiences tend to dualistically nest within each other reinforcing and canceling-out other experiences and this merely supports the ego’s need TO experience ceaselessly. Will the ego-self experience ceaselessly after death? The answer is denied because there is no construct of experience through which to define itself in-death. This demands 'fear' and fear is the warning to the self of the immediacy and mortality of death, because it has no experience to go on.

The name of this game is defense and your defenses reinforce the ego-self concept of death and this is what must be defended against through asserting the ego-self into its experience of ‘world.’ But how can you assert into life and defend against death at the same time? Essentially, "you" have no choice since you cannot escape the dualistic 'self' that "you" require. To completely end one process would end the other and you would cease to exist and "you" certainly cannot allow that to happen. You cannot just defend against death or assert for life. You must do both, alternately and cyclically.

However, you can experience a reduction of defense, and this seems equivalent to the levels of the enlightenment experience. Recognize the ego-self use of defenses to protect the ‘self’ against death (not just embodied self, but more importantly the psychological self). This defending against can be experienced from moment to moment, like when your child talks back to you, you are cut off in traffic, argue with a coworker, etc, etc, any experience that has anger, anxiety, depression or guilt is solely related to fear of death. Anything that threatens the self-package is treated as threat of an end to the experience of 'self.'

Keep in mind that it’s not survival of the body that is of most concern, but the survival of the whole experience of ‘self,' including body, mind, others and world. If the psychological component of ‘self’ is threatened (the experience we believe as located in "mind") this is equal to bodily threat and can create as much panic and fear as if the body were threatened.

It is fear that you defend against because it warns of death. This fear creates vigilance and vigilance demands defense and constant defense can drain you to exhaustion (but this will not stop it because of your dire need to defend). Stillness of mind and body (not necessarily “meditation”) is helpful in recognizing your perpetual vigilance toward defense. This is because all your hustle and bustle, within your experience of ‘world,’ is actually from fear. Let fear guide you to your defenses so that you can fully examine why you do what you do. Therefore, the question is, when I experience fear, what am I defending against in this moment and what is the purpose I have assigned to this fear.

This might help you realize the need to do less, since it’s only the experience of death that you are protecting yourself from in all your 'doings' and to limit such self-protection can be quite liberating to say the least. Essentially, you must substitute the need to defend with an evolving experience of complete safety.

Good Luck With That!

The Unsustainable Modern Buddhist Agenda

Here is a recent quote from one of the many “enlightenment” sites I visit from time to time. This site is a very well traveled spiritual website containing all the enlightened lingo and lofty eastern terminology.

"Information is helpful to understand concepts, develop intelligence, and inform my philosophy, but by itself it won’t get me “there.” So what I mean by “there” is none other than the ultimate prize: satori, moksha, arahatship, liberation, awakening, enlightenment.”

Note that the author proclaims his desire for an end to the functions of mind and everything about the “mind” must be subsequently negated and, essentially, denounced as mere "information." Most refuse to call it denunciation, but clearly the concept of "enlightenment" has an origin that, for many, is conceptually denied to the 'mind.'

You are consistently informed that to attain "enlightenment" you must GET OUT OF YOUR MIND.

It’s interesting that the basic Buddhist precepts, or rules, have been distorted over many centuries. Many of these discombobulated rules demand adherents embark on a life-long journey to escape the mind and this is pursued through “practices.” Practices are the rules of the game and note that, as the above quote displays, only by following the rules will one attain the “ultimate prize,” which goes by many names, but all the specialized concepts signify an outcome or the attainment of a reward.

Yet, you can't just declare yourself a winner.

Who will know? You are “you” because of a ‘world.’ More importantly, what gives that ‘world’ substance and meaning for an ego-self is the existence of ‘others.’ To conduct yourself as if “awakening" were nothing more than a solitary process of having heightened experiences, is to deny your experience of others. In your solitary journey, seeking specialized rewards, 'others' are unnecessary.

But a solitary process is impossible, simply because who and what “you” are is entirely contingent on there being ‘others.’ You cannot be a "you" without 'others' equally identifying your 'self.' Even if all 'others' were to disappear tomorrow, your self-construct would still be defined through 'others,' except in this case it would be defined through an absence of 'others' (Heidegger).

It’s very interesting how these “ultimate prize” winners eventually publish books and go on the talk circuit teaching the rules to 'others.' That’s because to be a winner, one or more ‘others’ must attest to your having acquired the prize and this is as applicable in the "enlightenment-awakening" paradigm as in any other world-based paradigm. However, winning can be very subtle, as many winners employ the covert subterfuge of wanting you to be a winner, just like them. Of course, for you to achieve the “ultimate prize” you must play by the same rules they did and then you too can teach 'others.'

Here is another website (different from the one above) with some very serious and detailed rules to help you acquire the “ultimate prize” of "enlightenment." Credibility is crucial because, if ‘others’ doubt your enlightened status, how can it be claimed and who would follow your rules? Notice the authors title and credentials, particularly the last credential of “arahat.”

I don’t doubt that following the rules will get you what you want. But that’s only because you will give it to your ‘self’ by expecting to have it and this includes experiencing the teacher of your choice. Nevertheless, the experiences will conform to what the rules have determined CAN be experienced. Any alteration from the preordained experience can be only slight, since all ego-self interpretations of "enlightenment" will conform directly to the rulebook.

However, these 'slight' alterations have been necessary over many centuries as each ego-self adherent desires to create his or her own unique addition to the rules. This has culminated in the current modern Buddhist agenda which, in some cases, does not even resemble traditional Buddhism. In fact, many modern "masters" will deny that their path is even derived from Buddhism, even though Buddhist rules are often clearly evident in the teaching.

THE PSYCHIC POWERS
You can generate all manner of psychic or magical experiences, or “jhanas,” at numerous levels and degrees of intensity. As I discussed previously, the fact these same experiences can be attained through chemical substance ingestion should provide commentary on the usefulness of psychic experiences. They serve little purpose. However, it seems tht the neo-Buddhists use this as a measuring device in determining psychic evolutionary progress. Here is a quote from the above website:

“These may include all kinds of strange experiences, including full blown and extremely realistic experiences of other realms that can seem quite magical and fall quite in line with what one might think of when one thinks of various 'psychic powers'."

I’m sure we can all relate to altered states when asleep and dreaming. In fact, most meditative states are no different from the psychic experiences you engage with while dreaming and "lucid dreamers" have learned to do this effortlessly. The difference is that your ‘self-construct’ will engage with psychic phenomena through the experience of ‘awake,’ as opposed to ‘sleep,’ (conscious vs. unconscious?) and this merely indicates the ego-self’s ability to manipulate the experience of ‘time,' more than any other "psychic" ability.

Time is nothing more than the ego-self experiencing itself generating ceaseless experiences of itself and these psychic experiences have become a significant part of defining the 'self' as "enlightened."

The author of the website does point out this subtle difference between sleep and awake psychic experiences. However, the trap has been set and who would not want to fly “but just not in this realm!” Why wait, drop some acid and fly.

The author then goes on to say that, “the experiences of the “psychic powers” can be infinitely fascinating, as anything you can imagine experiencing is possible.”

Hmmm…how ‘bout a consistent experience of a ‘world’ in perfect peace?
However, the author states that:

“While this next point might sound a bit radical, there are good reasons to assume that we are all acting at what might be considered a magical level all the time and just doing it with little awareness of that fact.”

I wonder why he would assume this point as “radical”? Just change the rules and any finite game can become infinite and ego-self can marvel at the magic. Point is, you don’t need to drop acid or spend years attaining the esoteric levels of “jhana” to get ‘there.’ Experiential episodes are useless to a suffering world. Maybe the problem is that the content of psychic experiences are exclusive to a separate mind and, as a result, reinforces the ego-self construct of a separate, individual ‘thinker.’

That construct seems no longer sustainable and this would make the individual practices of modern Buddhism, null and void. However, what you value is what you will give credence to as an 'experience' and it makes no difference whether it's 'real' or not.

So choose wisely (or, better yet, don't choose at all)

CONVERSATIONS WITH EGO: Ego, Being and Me

ego: Uh… who's that you’re talking to?

Mike: Why, that’s Being and it’s about time you guys get to know one another.

ego: Uh…Mike, I’m not so sure there’s enough room here for the three of us. I mean, it’s always been just you and me making sense of things. Now you go and bring in a stranger.

Mike: There's plenty of room and once we all get to know one another we won’t be strangers anymore, will we? Besides, you’re the one who actually brought Being into this, remember?

ego: Uh… no.

Mike: Sure, remember that guru who you thought would teach us “awakening”? Well, he’s the one who told me that I need to get to know Being.

ego: Yea, well, I guess I screwed up on that call. Nevertheless, things are gonna get confusing around here if we’re all competing to be heard.

Mike: Well, actually, Being thinks that I should not listen to anything you say and refer exclusively to him.

ego: That bastard! Mike, how can you trust a stranger? After all these years, how can you just toss me aside? Yea, sure, I’ve made some bad calls, but you can’t deny I’ve taken us pretty far too.

Mike: Well, it’s time for a change around here and I think a new voice would be helpful.

ego: Ok, Fine! But don’t think for a second that he’s gonna know anything about the things I’ve taught you. When it comes time to getting your needs met, you’ll turn to me like you always have.

Mike: Relax. I'm not tossing you aside. In fact, I’m quite happy to have you two agree on things and then get back to me on the best way to go.

ego: That's fine, as long as he understands who’s really running the show, I have no problem with that. In fact, on second thought, I think that in time we’ll become good friends!