2. The ego-level

[Manuel]

What is the ego? Is it sufficiently clear from the book? How can we find it out? How can we fight it?

[Manuel]

I have noticed that Fulton Sheen calls the ego, at least twice, "the false ego." I am intrigued, for this term is typical of Hindu philosophy, although in a slightly different context. Below the "false ego" they don't signal an "I" (as Sheen does), but they go directly to the "atman," the presence of God inside us (or as they would rather say, an emanation from God). In fact they are merging the I and the Divine, which makes their philosophy anti-Christian.

Although he does not mention this, I wonder whether Fulton Sheen had studied Hindu philosophy, and was reacting against it in his book, or if his use of the term "false ego" is just a coincidence. Does anyone know?

[Marlicia]

Manuel wrote: "What is the ego? Is it sufficiently clear from the book? How can we find it out? How can we fight it?"

What I am getting out of the book so far is that the 'ego' is almost like a mask of sorts. It is the person or character we don in order to fit into society and with the world. It is formed by outside influences and not by God. I'm still digesting, but that's where I'm at so far. :)

God bless...

[John]

Manuel wrote: "I have noticed that Fulton Sheen calls the ego, at least twice, "the false ego." I am intrigued, for this term is typical of Hindu philosophy, although in a slightly different context. Below the "f..."

I don't think he is using the term in the same sense, but rather as a false-self, in opposition to the "I," the true self in alignment with God. In place of the true-self's submission to God, the false-self worship's itself or other idols that amount to the same thing.

We tend to think that our culture has fallen dramatically from the "good ol' days," but +Sheen shows us that the signs were fully visible even then to those who had eyes to see.

[Manuel]

John wrote: "We tend to think that our culture has fallen dramatically from the "good ol' days," but Sheen shows us that the signs were fully visible even then to those who had eyes to see."

Yes, I had the same thought. But you can find the same in Chesterton, even earlier than Sheen. His "All things considered" was published in 1908 and also hits the target even now.

[Jill]

I find his definition/description of the ego a little inconsistent. If it's the superficial self, the way we want others to perceive us, that wouldn't be as selfish, greedy, lustful..., would it?

I like his contrast of how egos vs. I's encounter each other, billiard balls glancing off each other in contrast to Thou's in communion and fraternity.

[John]

Jill wrote: "I find his definition/description of the ego a little inconsistent. If it's the superficial self, the way we want others to perceive us, that wouldn't be as selfish, greedy, lustful..., would it?

..."

I think that the ego reflects how we perceive how we wish to be perceived so we are selfish but see ourselves as merely strongly protecting our interests, we are greedy but see ourselves as successful and we are lustful, but see ourselves as being sensuous. We see the lust, greed and selfishness in our neighbor, but not in ourselves, even though the faults we clearly see in our neighbor are often mirror images of our own.

[Manuel]

John wrote: "I think that the ego reflects how we perceive how we wish to be perceived so we are selfish but see ourselves as merely strongly protecting our interests, we are greedy but see ourselves as successful and we are lustful, but see ourselves as being sensuous......."

That is why it is called false ego...