CLASH of EGO
Some questions, though seemingly objective, provide a perpetual subjectivity to our own being. How many people in my world really love me? How many people in my world do I really love? Answers to both these questions are objective in nature, but the definition they provide to our own self, is definitely subjective. Do we see any co-relation in the answers to the above two questions? In most pragmatic situations we will not! Why is that?
What is important to note is, how we define ourselves. I mean a definition using which we tend to carry ourselves in our daily ordinary life. Though definitions of two individuals can never be the same (or else they won’t be individuals!), it is remarkable how we tend to define ourselves more in terms of things we dislike rather than as a function of things that we like. Happiness depends mainly on men’s dispositions, not on their riches (though I sincerely believe that even riches started forming an inevitable part of it). The unconscious propensity to lean on the above kind of definition definitely makes a man ignorant in the way he acts in mundane affairs.
It is inevitable that such a definition creates what can be called a virtual boundary between our real self and what we ultimately define of our self as an inference to the above definition. This boundary in effect is the mover and shaker of all what we do and what all decisions we make. But what has this got to do with me, one would ask? We unconsciously make compromises in our daily chores, and these compromises are mostly driven along the boundary we talked about. These compromises may not reflect any direct impact in the short term, but these small drops ultimately drop in to what I term as the Clash of Ego.
It is ego which drives a wider split in the aforementioned boundary. Think of it, thinking of relationships. How many relationships are independent of and have no direct or indirect implications of ego? Ask me, even the most sacred of relationship, that of a mother and child, and Ego are not mutually independent. But a Clash of Ego therein does not cast a shadow because the cultism in that relationship overpowers the ill effect through its illuminating halo. What about friendship? We can surely say that this relationship and Ego are not mutually independent. But, does it have that kind of power? Personally, I believe that it does not. And as the drops keep on pouring down the time lane, Clash of Ego starts reflecting into its own face. The oasis turns into a mirage and it gets difficult to extend our hand and hold what we most want to hold, the relationship. Somebody has a solution?
What is important to note is, how we define ourselves. I mean a definition using which we tend to carry ourselves in our daily ordinary life. Though definitions of two individuals can never be the same (or else they won’t be individuals!), it is remarkable how we tend to define ourselves more in terms of things we dislike rather than as a function of things that we like. Happiness depends mainly on men’s dispositions, not on their riches (though I sincerely believe that even riches started forming an inevitable part of it). The unconscious propensity to lean on the above kind of definition definitely makes a man ignorant in the way he acts in mundane affairs.
It is inevitable that such a definition creates what can be called a virtual boundary between our real self and what we ultimately define of our self as an inference to the above definition. This boundary in effect is the mover and shaker of all what we do and what all decisions we make. But what has this got to do with me, one would ask? We unconsciously make compromises in our daily chores, and these compromises are mostly driven along the boundary we talked about. These compromises may not reflect any direct impact in the short term, but these small drops ultimately drop in to what I term as the Clash of Ego.
It is ego which drives a wider split in the aforementioned boundary. Think of it, thinking of relationships. How many relationships are independent of and have no direct or indirect implications of ego? Ask me, even the most sacred of relationship, that of a mother and child, and Ego are not mutually independent. But a Clash of Ego therein does not cast a shadow because the cultism in that relationship overpowers the ill effect through its illuminating halo. What about friendship? We can surely say that this relationship and Ego are not mutually independent. But, does it have that kind of power? Personally, I believe that it does not. And as the drops keep on pouring down the time lane, Clash of Ego starts reflecting into its own face. The oasis turns into a mirage and it gets difficult to extend our hand and hold what we most want to hold, the relationship. Somebody has a solution?
posted by Kapil Sundrani @ 11:05 AM
5 Comments:
This was a great message to read especially from a very good person.
It seriouly makes me ponder on how i carry myself.Whether my decisions are an act of my dislike or my likes. Correct me Kapil if i am not getting the idea behind your passage or i am digressing from the theme.
It is correct that our decision are based on our likes and dislikes but then if we keep on making decisions on above basis , then i fear we can make partial decisions and then our decisions are not goverened by the higher principles of fairness.
May be this is one of the reason for such widespread self-centeredness among the people in our country.
And since we make decisions governed by such principles we create boundaries .But boundaries they will always exist since.
Since we try to see ourselves from others eyes while our real selves sees what we are inside and for the time this distinction of the vision is there one can never be at rest with one-self.
Till the time we keep on oscillating between these to views the clash is imminent and unavoidable.
And to end it all we need to choose but then follow it no matter what happens.But never be in quandary else the clash is always there.
The theme is centered around the Clash i talked about. I wanted to get to one good reason as to why this happens and to one good solution which can prevent the split. Compromises against our own thoughts and ideas seems to be one good reason. The problem is that we try to carry along more than we can. We can't escape the custom duty if we do that! As to one good solution, i am still in search! My next blog on what I think is one :)
This is a very interesting questions..y carry more than we can?What purpose are we meeting?
But my thoughts fail to expain what does it mean "We can't escape the custom duty if we do that!"
This comment has been removed by the author.
Wow! Kapil, if Ma'am Flynn ever comes across this piece, she'll adopt you right away!!
Post a Comment
<< Home