Hacker News Reader

Comment by Wolfenstein98k | Hacker News Reader

I don't know how to say this constructively, but this post reads like it is written with a deep smugness. It feels very "ego-y". It feels like the author has glommed onto a real concept (denying the ego) but instead used it to get out of the competitive marketplace of social media, and instead take it to their blog where the competition is invisible and lesser. It even basically finishes with "tune in later to keep in touch with my journey of mastering what all you plebs struggle with and can't see."

Just how it feels to me, anyway. It's very overwrought.

View on HN

You're right, there nothing much there but excessive, if muted, self-grandiosement and hypocritical judgement.

Eg, the first sentence:

> As I begin settling into a new flow of my life I find myself finding tremendous sanctuary and peace with myself.

2 * "I", 2 * "myself", 1 * "my life" and a claim that this person has found "tremendous sanctuary and peace".

> I notice this internal tranquility seems to be related to my exodus of social media.

In the second sentence we read that they have peace because of their absence from social media. Great, but then why write a blog post about it all?

It seems like an egoic attempt to try to claim moral high ground to castigate others, while failing to address the crimes others commit in oneself. Do as I say..

The ego has a million-and-one (and, always one more) ways to subtly cling to anyone trying to rid themselves of it.

As far as I can tell, from observations in myself, and of others, the ego is only something you can manage. You can experience moments of freedom (most reliably through psychedelics in my experience) that give you a taste of something beautiful and relieving. But the ego is just sleeping.

The tentacles of the ego are attached to the very nature of your life itself - to very basic metabolic processes. It’ll always be with you - your existence and your ego’s existence are hopelessly intertwined.

I agree. I don't think its possible to kill one's ego. And that one shouldn't want to do that anyway.

I would say, that one can educate the ego so that it is working with you not against you - one can try to align it with one's principles and remove the multiple incompatible desires in oneself. This involves internal reflection, awareness of one's emotions, acknowledgement of one's shadow self, love of honesty, endurance - and hopefully, at the end of the process you have emotions, thought and actions all working in an aligned, non-dissonant way.

It seems to be possible, but it requires extreme commitment. Different sects of Buddhism may show the way, but it is something people commit their life to completely to fully achieve.

Even then, who is to say if the monks starving to death sitting on the floor aren’t smug in their achievement lol.

Still, for those looking to reduce the role of ego in their life, it is a potential path.

Ego reduction is a sufficient and useful goal for many people.

It’s my impression and experience that it’s far more directly built into language than metabolic processes, though certainly I see where you’re coming from.

Shutting up for a long time is a pretty good way to test your comfort level with suppressing an inflated concept/value of self. Extending the shutting up to internal chatter, even more so.

Oh, great point. I believe this is why chanting meditation is a thing - they make internal chatter harder.

There's also a pretty popular book that claims existence started with the word.

> It even basically finishes with "tune in later to keep in touch with my journey of mastering what all you plebs struggle with and can't see."

She recently suddenly passed away (climbing accident), which is pretty weird considering this article and how it ends.

"no-ego ego" strikes again

Yes but what about the people who have an ego about not having an ego about ego?

joy at exposing the hypocrisy of others is a red flag of the ego.

To me it reads more like the self-criticism litany from a communist show trial.

Do you realize you’re providing a very smug criticism about a recently deceased, beloved by many, community member?

If the authors earnest blog post strikes you as ego-y maybe stop for a second check your own ego.

Your cynical response to someone practicing vulnerability is disgusting.

I would argue your comment is cynical as well. HN tries to be a place of discussion which means challenging ideas. Someone having recently passed is sad and tragic and deserves respect, but it doesn’t make their public opinions immune from discussion

What is with the recent (2000+) use of “disgusting” to mean reprehensible?

Disgusting tends to directly describe an individual rather than an act. I think that makes it much less useful in teaching and discourse, since it strongly evokes ad-hominem vibes.

I think we might all be better off to carefully consider the (mis)use of the term when our goal is to educate, enlighten, correct, or lead.

It’s a great term to use when the goal is to shame, diminish, or discredit an individual, but should we be doing that except in cases where a person has revealed themselves to be beyond a desire to improve or any hope of redemption?

I appreciate your thoughts here and I also wish people were kinder online. I’m guilty of being an asshole too often

I find that I am also guilty.

I’m afraid that the attention economy has made us all meaner in our words when we should be kinder.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com