Okay, this is a long one, but it's what's been on my mind since this post began...
Merriman Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Ninth Edition, defines the ego as: “1: the self esp. as contrasted with another self or the world 2 a: EGOTISM 2 b: SELF-ESTEEM 3: the one of the three divisions of the psyche in psychoanalytic theory that serves as the organized conscious mediator between the person and reality esp. by functioning both in the perception and adaptation to reality – compare ID, SUPEREGO – egoless, adj.
The term ego, I feel, has become a vague term. So many philosophers, psychological theorists, spiritual teachers and New Age writers have stipulated new meanings for it that it is confusing to use in a context such as this forum. It appears to always need qualification–except when its use seems to draw upon the common accepted meaning. That is interesting. Ego is a more or less stable term in the common sense. It is when it becomes connected a particular theory, or metaphysical viewpoint, that its meaning diffuses. Of course, one could identify “the common sense” as a metaphysical viewpoint itself, and–I think–it is, if you examine the common meaning.
You might have noticed that the adjective that the dictionary definition supplied above is “egoless.” I feel this example supports the second (and common sense) definition of ego as implying “egotism.” That is the common sense of the term ego: a pejorative label for a person who has “an exaggerated sense of self-importance: CONCEIT” (that is Webster’s definition of egotism).
One rarely hears the term ego connected to Webster’s “2 b:” definition, “self-esteem.” How often is ego promoted as benign? But in considering origins, I think the word ego has gotten an undeservedly bad wrap. It is a word received directly out of Latin, simply meaning “I.” That is the original meaning of the word, its original essence and energy–the two phonemes referred to self (“esp. as contrasted with another self or the world” ).
I find it fascinating that so many systems (Jungian, I believe, being one of them) contrast the term ego with Self, when “self” was the original conceptual meaning of the word ego. Metaphysically speaking, I often encounter theories that relegate the term ego to the lower, bodily mind, and reserve the term Self to refer to an eternal principle–a core consciousness, the Higher Self. That there is confusion is perfectly understandable when you enter a metaphysics that posits that we are, in fact, multidimensional–the simplest example model being “body/mind,” and an increasingly complex model being one that divides the human being into “etheric body, emotional body, mental body, astral body, and so on and so forth.”
By calling into question the concept of ego I do not hope to achieve fusion in conceptualizing the psyche. Through experience I have indeed found the psyche to be a structure both multifaceted and form-shifting. Rather, by calling into question the term ego, I merely wish to expose what I perceive as a collision of connotative and operational definitions within the term ego. A connotative definition, as I’m using it here, I mean to refer to essential characteristics of a thing. For instance, a connotative definition of “bird” would be: an animal with feathers, a lightweight skeleton and a beak. Feathers, lightweight skeleton and beak are all essential characteristics which connote “bird.” An operational definition of the word “bird” would be: an animal that can fly. Operational implies how it operates, how it acts in the world, etc.
So, as I was saying, I perceive a collision–an, I think, unfortunate confusion–connotative and operational meanings in the term ego as it is used in a metaphysical context. And it’s the common sense meaning and usage, the meaning and usage which have had the least plasticity over the years, that–I think–promotes the confusion. The common usage of the term ego is commonly pejorative and judgmental. That, however, doesn’t mean that its usage isn’t “true” or “accurate” in a given case. Again, I take the common sense meaning of ego to imply egotism (self-important, self-interested, conceited).
If you step back you might see (what I think I see) that the common definition of ego is really an operational one, i.e., it describes what a person is doing, not being. The label is used because, presumably, a person is acting with an inward bias, unthinking of others and only for personal gain. In trying to illuminate the different meanings of ego I am not defending that type of behavior, but I am instead trying to show that the term ego is often confused and thought of as synonymous with “service-to-self” behavior rather than understood as a neutral mechanism.
Of course, calling the ego a “’neutral’ mechanism” is a metaphysical viewpoint in itself. And, often, it is not a popular one. By “neutral” I mean that the ego may not be detrimental to a person in and of itself. The ego seen as a “negative” mechanism is, as I understand it, integral to several major belief systems. In Hinduism and Buddhism both, the ego is a thing to be cut off or “extinguished.” And, if one examines the sacred texts, it is clear that their definition of ego is connotative and not operational. Or rather, the connotative (characteristics of the thing) and operational (action-oriented) aspects are seen as equal–through extinguishing “ego-actions” one extinguishes the ego. However, it is difficult to speak about connotative definitions of the ego in the context of Hinduism and Buddhism (and some New Age Christianity, like the kind inspired by “A Course in Miracles” ) because they identify the ego as an “illusion.” Can an illusion really have parts and characteristics that aren’t also just illusions? …But I digress. That problem is really, I think, a semantical one.
My point here is: that if you accept BOTH definitions of the ego (the common-sense one, ego as defined as service-to-self, and the definition that the psychoanalytics put forth–ego as a “conscious mediator between the person and reality” ), then the association of both definitions inside the mind sets the stage for self-judgment. Attaching the operational qualifiers to the term ego, say the qualifier of a person acting in a primarily service-to-self manner, and at the same time, understanding the ego to be self-ness, might reinforce a belief in the human being as inherently bad. I admit I cannot clearly explain to myself the exact way in which this happens, but I think it is reasonable to suggest that the interplay of the two definitions of the term ego (and they interplay a lot in metaphysical circles) could generate a negative charge around the word in any sense that it used. Of course, the sender may not intend a negative charge, and the receiver may receive a negative charge because of his or her particular personal history with the term ego. Nonetheless, in a group of persons, with many using the term ego in its two basic senses–some of them using the term consciously, and some perhaps using it out of unthinking programming–it’s likely that the belief in the human being as basically bad may be reinforced by virtue of the confusion or unthinking-ness around the term ego.
Even in metaphysical circles that have supposedly convened in rejection of belief systems that advance the “human being as basically bad” idea, I see this pattern of thinking that the human being is basically bad through the individual and group conceptualization of the term ego. I view this interpretation of the ego as a rehashing of The Fall, Original Sin, etc. However, that is not say that I do not define the ego as potentially limiting or as a filter between ourselves and pure creation, I do–but what I see as critical is that the ego, the person, is not saddled with judgment simply for being an ego or person.
In conclusion, I call into question the term ego because, through general usage, it’s become insufficiently clear whether it is referring to a neutral psychological mechanism, actions with negative orientation, or a thing that is inherently negative. I call it into question because I believe, through conscious or unconscious manipulation, that the term ego has been used to enforce a belief in an inherent negativity in humankind. I don’t–at current–have or necessarily want to have a new, stipulative definition for the concept encompassed by ego–either the “neutral mechanism” or the service-to-self behaviors commonly called “ego.” I do, however, want to commit myself (and offer the challenge to any who are willing) to no longer use the term ego to further the misunderstanding of humans as naturally deserving of judgment. Furthermore, I put forth the idea that we can step out of the “Original Sin” judging mentality without having to imagine ourselves as dual or as multifaceted with one part of us that is unworthier than the rest.
Is it possible to understand ourselves without judgment? Can we understand the concept implied by the term "ego" as something that is not a hindrance, but just another part of ourself?
You can't change a tiger's stripes,
but you can avoid its teeth.
Sorta, kinda, but I realize the concept has validity, so, I haven't tossed it out just yet. 
I don't believe spiritual truths need to be presented in such complicated, convoluted, dry boring wordy ways. Too many sources over complicate stuff. Spiritual truths should ideally be simple and straight forward. Intellectuals LOVE to muddle it all up to sound like they're all smart and important n' suff. 
