The ego's thought system centres on establishing the 'self' as a vulnerable entity in a cruel world and then denying the fact that it is the ego mind that has created this construct in the first place.
Here's how A Course In Miracles describes it:
'T-13.in.2. The acceptance of guilt into the mind of God's Son was the beginning of the separation, as the acceptance of the Atonement is its end. 2 The world you see is the delusional system of those made mad by guilt. 3 Look carefully at this world, and you will realize that this is so. 4 For this world is the symbol of punishment, and all the laws that seem to govern it are the laws of death. 5 Children are born into it through pain and in pain. 6 Their growth is attended by suffering, and they learn of sorrow and separation and death. 7 Their minds seem to be trapped in their brain, and its powers to decline if their bodies are hurt. 8 They seem to love, yet they desert and are deserted. 9 They appear to lose what they love, perhaps the most insane belief of all. 10 And their bodies wither and gasp and are laid in the ground, and are no more. 11 Not one of them but has thought that God is cruel.'
The worlds of spirituality, therapy, and recovery are potentially great venues for healing, but their legitimate notions, expressions, and vocabulary can be misused to actually further entrench the problem and defend against healing.
'V. The Unhealed Healer
T-9.V.1. The ego's plan for forgiveness is far more widely used than God's. 2 This is because it is undertaken by unhealed healers, and is therefore of the ego. 3 Let us consider the unhealed healer more carefully now. 4 By definition, he is trying to give what he has not received. 5 If an unhealed healer is a theologian, for example, he may begin with the premise, "I am a miserable sinner, and so are you." 6 If he is a psychotherapist, he is more likely to start with the equally incredible belief that attack is real for both himself and the patient, but that it does not matter for either of them.'
Here are six ways in which spiritual, therapeutic, and recovery discourse can be co-opted and used for the ego's purposes.
Aspect 1: Reinforcement of the self
'W-pI.137.2. Sickness is isolation. 2 For it seems to keep one self apart from all the rest, to suffer what the others do not feel. 3 It gives the body final power to make the separation real, and keep the mind in solitary prison, split apart and held in pieces by a solid wall of sickened flesh, which it can not surmount.'
The self is desperate to be the centre of attention, to have its 'needs' met, to be agreed with, to be obeyed, to assert itself, to dictate to others, to control others, and to convince others of its 'rightness'. The following expressions and notions are used to establish and maintain an ego identity and presence in the world: being heard; being seen; boundaries; finding my voice; identity; my (human) rights; my needs; standing up for myself; validation. These can be used as shields to mask rage, attack, and preoccupation with self-image and material world ambitions, to manipulate others into complying with the ego's frivolous demands, and to construct and reinforce an image of self and its accompanying narrative.
Aspect 2: Projection onto others
'T-19.IV.A.11. ... 2 The messengers of fear are harshly ordered to seek out guilt, and cherish every scrap of evil and of sin that they can find, losing none of them on pain of death, and laying them respectfully before their lord and master.'
The ego mind draws a veil over the fact that the darkness comes from our (the 'decision-maker's') rejection of God in favour of self-creation. The 'sin', guilt, and fear are then projected out and located elsewhere. The following terms are common in projection narratives: abuse / abusive; adult child; disrespect; dysfunction / dysfunctional; emotionally unavailable / not being present; family of origin; narcissist / narcissistic / narcissism; offended / offensive; passive-aggressive; (re)traumatising; sick; the 'system'; toxic / toxicity. Whether or not these are factually accurate descriptions is irrelevant; it is the prominence of these terms, hurled as labels at any opponent, past and present, to bypass genuine examination, understanding, and perspective, which is so illuminating; these expressions vary from the clinical (the hurler is usually not a clinician) to the wispily vague or plain pejorative; their purpose is to slur, thus purifying the slur-er and absolving the slur-er of any responsibility. Even positive language, when woven into the narrative, can imply the presence of a menacing world: the problem is definitely 'out there'. 'Safe spaces' and 'safe people' imply that other spaces are not safe and other people are not safe, and that lack of safety is the universal reality. There is actual violence in the world, but a 'safe person' often merely denotes 'someone who agrees with my views, values, and narrative', and a 'safe space' often merely denotes a place where the ego is nurtured rather than challenged by confrontation with reality.
Aspect 3: Projection onto disorders
'T-2.VI.4. The correction of fear is your responsibility. 2 When you ask for release from fear, you are implying that it is not. 3 You should ask, instead, for help in the conditions that have brought the fear about. 4 These conditions always entail a willingness to be separate. 5 At that level you can help it. 6 You are much too tolerant of mind wandering, and are passively condoning your mind's miscreations. 7 The particular result does not matter, but the fundamental error does. 8 The correction is always the same. 9 Before you choose to do anything, ask me if your choice is in accord with mine. 10 If you are sure that it is, there will be no fear.'
Modern psychology's disorders are well-established descriptions of patterns of belief, thinking, and behaviour, originating to a large extent in a commercial need to categorise mental health pathologies. The ego likes to accommodate as much as possible under the label of the chosen disorder, and then to cast the disorder as something outside the responsibility of the individual. I have (had) psychological disorders, and I have an underlying psychological condition; both have presented / present challenges, but the responsibility remained and remains mine to use all of the tools available (within and outside the worlds of recovery and spirituality) to live with, rise above, and overcome the challenges they have presented and present. I'm not responsible for having the 'disorder' or 'condition', but I am responsible for doing something about it, and I am responsible for my behaviour that flows from the disorder or condition. Common disorders or conditions onto which responsibility is projected are: anxiety; ADD / ADHD; depression; OCD; panic attacks; PTSD; trauma. These may or may not be accurate descriptions, and they may or may not have been learned from a professional. What is at issue is their weaponisation as defences. It's of interest that people diagnosed with borderline personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, etc. rarely divulge or brandish these diagnoses, presumably because they're difficult to fit comfortably into the ego's narrative. They're unflattering and do not lend themselves to relinquishing responsibility for initiating and pursuing change.
Aspect 4: Infantilisation
The ego likes to deny the individual's agency. Infantilising language can be expertly used to do this. The individual is also seen as the passive recipient of commodities, or as the object of processes as opposed to their subject or active participant. Examples of expressions used to this end: being / feeling loved; being / feeling held (literally or figuratively); inner child; intimacy; made me feel; reaching out / outreach (note the pathos of this: an ordinary telephone call is transformed into a pitiful plea by a person in crisis); triggered; vulnerable / vulnerability. The adult in the grip of the ego presents themself as an infant requiring soothing, not responsible for their responses, in genuine danger (when the only 'threat' is the absence of approval, agreement, or attention), and lacking in resources (in a society well stocked with information, assistance, and helpful individuals and materials of every description).
Aspect 5: Defence of the subjective world of the ego
'T-23.II.2. The first chaotic law is that the truth is different for everyone. 2 Like all these principles, this one maintains that each is separate and has a different set of thoughts that set him off from others. 3 This principle evolves from the belief there is a hierarchy of illusions; some are more valuable and therefore true. 4 Each one establishes this for himself, and makes it true by his attack on what another values. 5 And this is justified because the values differ, and those who hold them seem to be unlike, and therefore enemies.'
The ego's world is in truth fragile and needs defending. There are many terms used to defend against challenge to its hegemony. There is the notion of 'my truth' and 'my (lived) experience': these deny that there is even a reality and posit that whatever the ego says is automatically true and cannot be denied. The ego cannot possibly be wrong; the individual cannot possibly be paranoid, delusional, self-centred, immature, touchy, or just plain wrong. 'My' experience is to be 'honoured', rather than interrogated. If I say you're cruel, you're cruel; if I say I have been attacked, I have been attacked; if you disagree with me, you're 'gaslighting me'. 'Feelings', 'heart', and other soft words locate the false ideas peddled by the ego in domains of human experience that are not susceptible to cognitive challenge. 'Feelings' are blamed as inviolate phenomena, whereas the real problem is the misperception underlying the feelings. The source of the problem is thus shielded indefinitely from any remedial work.
Aspect 6: Nurturing of suffering
'T-19.IV.B.1. We said that peace must first surmount the obstacle of your desire to get rid of it. 2 Where the attraction of guilt holds sway, peace is not wanted.'
Change can take place now. God can be invoked today. The ego will sometimes admit that salvation of some sort exists but puts it off indefinitely by placing it out of reach. 'Easy does it', 'Take what you want and leave the rest', and 'It's a gentle programme' are used to rebuff challenge, to defer change, and to remain sick for longer, ideally forever. Recovery is delayed by the notion of 'processing feelings' (so, rather than admit I am wrong and working to adopt a new attitude, I 'sit with' my negative feelings and 'feel' them). Suffering is even elevated to a pedestal ('honouring feelings'), as though it is noble. A lot of self-pity and self-indulgence can be perpetuated by relabelling it as grief, thus placing it beyond self-examination, adjustment, and change. Until the investment in suffering (which 'proves' the individual 'exists') is foregone, nothing will change.
Comments
Post a Comment