Comment by grasshopperpurp | Hacker News Reader

Comment by grasshopperpurp | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

grasshopperpurp

I think that's more of a symptom in this case. The problem is that the writer and, likely, her husband are driven by ego. Everything about the first few paragraphs screams, I'm putting on all sorts of fronts (bc I think I'm being smart/cool).

If you feed your ego ahead of your soul, you won't know what you really want/need, and if you don't know what you want/need, how is anyone else supposed to satisfy you in any sustainable fashion?

The good news is that relationships can help you develop as a person. You should be growing together and on your own. If you care for someone and feel you're failing them in some way, it should drive you towards self-examination, which should spur new perspectives and development.

I would guess that you and your wife are less driven by ego than most. You probably don't reach a place where you're self-giving without at least corraling your ego. You may be at a point where you take it as a given.

To be clear, everything in your post is good. I just think it's Step 2, rather than Step 1.

I think the problem is… I like many people know what it is to have an ego, but I can’t recognize a soul.

Heck in many contexts soul is just a synonym for an ineffable immaterial thing that makes things better (e.g. the soul of a song).

So how can you feed your own soul? How do you know the nature of your soul?

The word "soul" has been mixed up with a lot of confusing voodoo, but when I was trying to look up the historic definitions, it was basically equivalent to 'the part of you that thinks and makes choices'

With that definition I feel like a lot of the soul talk makes sense. Like here you 'feed' your soul the information, experiences, and media you seek out, and that influences the 'nature of your soul' by creating the environment it reacts to.

For example, now you've exposed yourself to the idea of a mutually self-giving relationship, and if you keep trying to figure out more about what that means, then your thoughts and choices can start falling in line with that concept.

That definition would mean that it's essentially the same as ego, and would make the grandparent's post warning against "feed[ing] your ego ahead of your soul" meaningless. What would be the difference between ego and "soul" in your understanding, allowing to prioritize one over the other?

I think that may be correct for a technical definition of 'ego' - and you could cultivate a selfless ego or something.

In common use 'ego' tends to mean someone with selfish or slightly narcissistic personality trait, though, right?

Sometimes "ego" is used to refer to the self, but I think the distinction we're going for here is between "self" (soul) and "sense of self importance" (ego.) So you can feed your ego with praise and self-centered narratives, but it takes wholesome thoughts, good deeds, and self-giving love (both received and given) to nourish a soul.

"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things." — Phillipians 4:8

"Ego" is a very loose term (nowadays).

Freud intended the term "ego" to refer to conscious awareness, basically. Jung used it to mean the focal point of conscious awareness - he treated awareness as being a lot more "smeary" than Freud did.

Western Buddhists use the term to refer to attachment - to the body, emotions, feelings, and the sense of selfhood. I think the closest term might be "atman" - the selfhood that is derived from Vishnu in hindu thinking (I really don't know). Atman sounds like "atmen" - german for breathing. I assume they have the same root. Anyway, the Buddhist notion is a notion of something of which they deny the existence - the term "anatman" refers to the fundamental Buddhist notion that there is no enduring self (or "soul").

I was raised a Christian, and spent a number of decades as a Buddhist; I've never known what the term "soul" was supposed to refer to.

You have self, your identified being. You also have Self, everything interconnected, which includes self also.

It's about dispelling ignorance about identity. This is easier being a bit dim.

By generalization, there's less need to clarify more coarse concepts.

I italicized "soul" in an attempt to indicate that I meant it as a symbol. I thought the context made it clear, so I was comfortable using it as a shortcut, but perhaps I miscalculated.

The question remains in earnest, how did you differentiate between the ego and soul without begging the question?

Oh not a problem. It’s just that since the soul is ineffable, it makes one wonder: a what is it’s usage a shortcut for?

Whoever I see the word soul, in an argument I can otherwise understand… it works and glosses over a lot of complicated common ground.

But if I don’t know what’s going on, it’s as useful as reading “quod erat demonstrandum” at the end of a proof.

I meant the soul as part of you that is balanced, at peace, has perspective of where you fit within things, is aligned with a greater good - as opposed to a self-injuring sense of self-importance.

It's not an easy thing to summarize or pin down, and it's kind of different for everyone.

Ah I see, that clarifies things thank you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com