Why this blog post
When I was typing the words on Google "ego is like" I expected it to make quiet some suggestions. But counter my expectations I found just a few, and some didn't not make much sense (about clothing and all, not very fundamental). After searching on "Ego is like cancer" I expected to see some hits that compared the ego (as a property of a being) to be compared to a cancer (the biological misbehaviour of randomly dividing cells). But again, I didn't find any satisfying results that preaches the similarities. Though I am sure the equality is thought/teached by others, I wanted it to have a better page rank on Google.
Before the comparison
When preaching such a similarity, that ego is like a cancer, one must do a valid comparison. And before one can do a comparison, one must analyze each object/idea/concept in its own right. After analysis, similarities may (or may not) arise.
Analysis of Ego
Definition
Of course wiki will be of some help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego saying:
"Ego" is a Latin and Greek (ἑγώ) word meaning "I", often used in English to mean the "self", "identity" or other related concepts.
That isn't really explanatory, it doesn't grasp a fundamental definition. Clicking somewhat further, in search of a better description, I came to the page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id,_ego_and_super-ego#Ego which gives a very lengty description. I didn't find this very fundamental and satisfying either. What I did find satisfying is the following definition, from
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ego
The self, especially as distinct from the world and other selves.
That is more fundamental, especially the "
distinct from other" part. Now what is
other? In the
perspective of ego,
this all that doesn't define itself (that doesn't define ego).
Behaviour of Ego
Let's demonstrate the behaviour of ego by example.
Would you put litter on the bed you sleep? No of course not, that is where
you sleep. Would anyone purposely litter their place to sleep? I highly doubt it. At home, you put it in the garbage can. Do people spread litter in public and nature? Yes they do, throwing it out the window while driving, or leaving their rubbish in the park after a visit. Or dumping whole sofas into a nearby forest. Why? Because they have little or no sense that they litter the system they exist on. Someone
else will clean it up, for
them, so why bother....
Those people do not respect the system they exist on, as their ego does not include the environment to be part of itself. And what isn't part of the ego, the ego doesn't care about.
Ego would rather suggest to propagate this behaviour, then not to. Let's clarify by example. People smoking a cigarette often offer one to their company, so they do not smoke alone.
People drinking coffee ask people to come with. When people recline, the coffee drinkers often say something like: "Don't you drink coffee !? Why not!?" Oh jeez, I might have upset the coffee drinkers with this statement. If you feel so, consider who or what is getting up set here? But thats another discussion.
Smoking is just like littering your environment, but then somewhat
closer to home, it is (self)destructive. Smoking does actually kill people in the long run! (Oh you already knew that...).
Of course lots of variations exist on this behaviour. But would you expect someone, who leaves his litter in the park, tell someone else, who does the same, to clean it up? That would be an exceptionally uncommon array of events. On the other hand, someone who knows and
feels,
that he/she is part of the environment (that is, made possible by the environment) would propagate (or at least feels urged to do so) to clean the litter up. Such a person would agree on the fact that he/she is in
touch with the environment. Do you think someone littering the park feels in touch with the environment? Go and ask a few (when you see it happen) if you aren't sure about the probably answer. Or don't, they might get rude and angry because they are confused that you are asking them about something that isn't your business, well actually it is... By disrespecting their environment, they implicitly disrespect their own existence. Even worse, they disrespect your existence as well. As you both exist on the same environment and couldn't survive (for long) without it (physiologically speaking).
Analysis of Cancer
Definition
Everybody knows of cancer. Its a disease that might be fatal. Lets go a bit more into detail visiting this
Wikipedia page that states:
In cancer,cells divide and grow uncontrollably, forming malignant tumors, and invading nearby parts of the body.
Now its the
malignant tumor that really defines what a cancer is: an injurious swelling, serving no physiological purpose.
Behaviour of Cancer
The earlier quote from
Wikipedia on Cancer says something about the behaviour: "invading nearby parts of the body". In other words, it spreads throughout the physiological system, the body.
Another (unmissable) aspect is that it the host of the cancer has an significant increased risk of death because of the presence and behaviour of the cancer. In the long run, when the hosts dies, the cancer dies as well. So this dysfunctional behaviour of the cancer is actually self destructive.
A cancer may form when the cell is not in
touch with its environment. This might occur when receptors on the cell's surface, that interact with other cells, are deformed. A cancer may form when the cell is not in
touch with its environment. Cells communicate their presence with each other cells by sending a signal (using chemistry). Receptors are the receivers of that signal. When the receptors are dysfunctional, a cell misses the signal it should stop dividing (since it is touching a nearby cell already). The cell being ignorant about the nearby cells keeps dividing itself, forming a cancer.
Have you ever heard or read that two cancers team up? No of course not, and if they would (however that may take form), when the host dies, they both die. So one may logically derive that a cancer
disrespects all that is sustained by the body.
The Comparison
The most obvious similarity is that both ego and cancer do not care about, or are ignorant of, the environments they exist on. Derived from this aspects comes the self destructive nature of cancer and ego. And because the ego/cancer is self destructing, it destructs (partially) what hosts the ego/cancer. They both have negative value to the environment they exist on, both ego and cancer aren't in
touch with their environment. Enough ego disrespects the physical body (smoking e.g.)and so does the cancer. Another similarity is that both ego and cancer invade (increase their effect in) their environment. Cancer (may) spread itself throughout the body, and ego (may) offer someone else a cigarette (to
joyfully inhale the smoke) as well.
Both ego and cancer aren't
platforms to build upon. Have you ever heard of a new physiological function that improved one's existence because of a tumor being present, like a super efficient working kidney, or improved auditory senses? If so, its
very uncommon, probably misjudged, and not likely at all to remain in that state for a long time. With ego its about the same. Can you think of one scenario where ego is making things easier? Where it facilitates new organisation? Something beneficial that couldn't possibly exist without ego?
