Difference Between Ego and Identity

It is of particular interest that identity and ego seem to be almost inversely correlated – the more one increases, the near polar opposite can be observed in the other. It seems to be the case that the more one accepts his own limitations and shortcomings, the less concerned he is with the way he is perceived, and vice versa. Why is this?

It appears to me that the more obsessed one is with their persona, their mask, the more they lose themselves into the character that mask represents often completely forgetting that they are a distinct individual. Similar to a method actor becoming so consumed by the fictional character they present to the camera that they cannot switch it off when the director calls “cut”, so this individual is consumed by the fictional character they present to their community. This can be very dangerous to the individual as well as to the community.

American professional wrestler and actor, Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, calls it “context,” and I think that is an excellent choice of words. He pointed out that if an individual in the profession of wrestling couldn't maintain his “context”, and forgets that he is enacting a script written for an audience, then he is likely to get lost in his ego when the other wrestling character beats his in the ring. This is a good example of how a person in everyday life forgets who they are because someone who doesn't know them insulted them.

Often we find ourselves so engrossed in the need for accomplishment that if we don't achieve a certain specific status by which we can compare ourselves to others, that we could find ourselves lost in depression. This man needs to get rich, that man needs to have a successful business, and that person over there must have a house and a family. If they don't get what they are striving after, then they feel displaced in society. I, myself, often find my thoughts and tendencies leaning in this direction. What about this is inherently dangerous, and what happens when an individual becomes identified with their accomplishments?

Understanding Wisdom

It is of particular note that when talking to an individual who has identified with their accomplishments one tends to compare themselves to who that person claims to be. The obsession over possessions and status becomes a contagion. This is important because their next step is to try to either create an image of being comparable to that person, or to attempt to obtain as much or more than that person in a relatively short amount of time. Personal gain becomes the impetus of the man's existence, rather than the capacity to add value to the lives of those around him.

Okay. More material things. Not inherently a bad thing. But, what of the man? Has that man worked to obtain the material possessions, or has he worked to better himself in his values and obtain a higher wisdom? Almost inevitably that individual has worked to obtain the material possessions, but completely ignored the necessity of growing in his values. Why? Because wisdom isn't a pretty watch or a cute truck. Wisdom, in fact, finds no utility in comparisons. Am I more wise than you? Who gives a damn? Is there wisdom? Is there anything new and beneficial that I don't know that can be learned in this interaction, and that I could pass onto another in hopes of bettering their lives?

True wisdom is not found on a continuum. The continuum doesn't exist with wisdom. A continuum is found in superficial things and things that are of significantly lower value. Narcissism, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, material wealth, financial capacity, health, intelligence, physical condition and conditioning, these things are all measurable using a scale. They are also subject to change with the circumstances and thus are of significantly lower value. Wisdom is not.

A person high in narcissism has failed to grow out of it and will, with some, obtain narcissistic supply, with others obtain worship, and completely avoid others. Most of these increase the narcissistic character that this person has created and gotten lost in. The people that the narcissist ignores reduce the narcissistic feelings, and thus lower the measure of narcissism. Narcissism is scaleable and subject to change with the circumstance.

Material wealth, or the holdings of material possession, is compared to those of another. One person will have a bigger house, cuter car, prettier watch, or more land. Another person might not have as much, but they have surrounded themselves with designer labels and will have nothing else around them. Still another might be homeless with a storage unit full of junk. Material wealth is both scaleable and subject to change.

Financial capacity grows and shrinks with the increase or reduction of income and expense streams. One month I may be able to pay all my bills and still fill my gut, while the next month I'm praying harder than the guy that wants out of hell. Meanwhile, a man I know who lives rather lavishly and owns several companies is always sitting on pins and needles because, even though he is secure and could go buy a helicopter if he wanted, he knows that he could lose it all with a phone call from any of the people to whom he provides his services and products. Financial capacity is both scaleable and subject to change.

I am generally in good health. I have been very blessed over the years not to ever have any major health conditions. The only one in my family to have never had a kidney stone, rarely get sick in general, only a few injuries that I have been mostly able to treat on my own, I mostly have only to deal with chronic back pain. Meanwhile, my brother – one of the most aggressive people I know – had the kidney stone, gets wiped out when sick, knee injuries, and generally on the edge. In both scenarios, it's only a matter of time before something changes. The flu hits Houston – I work in the public – I could get it or I might not depending upon how aggressive it is or whether or not I am dealing with a bout in my depression. Health is scaleable and subject to change.

Intelligence is highly dependent upon how well a person might use what knowledge they possess, and that depends upon their mood and capacity from one moment to the next. In one minute a person might be working on some marketing material for some company, and the next they might take out their frustration on a stranger just because they felt like it. One minute they might consider all facts before engaging in a conversation about a subject like gun control, while the next they might resort to name calling and character attacks. Or another person might not be able to alternate between the facts and the morality at all, and a genius could find himself in a particularly traumatic experience that completely and permanently removes his ability to operate in his former capacity. Intelligence depends highly on the circumstance.

I have a friend who rides his bicycle up to twenty miles a day, and does so rigorously. He's thin, strong, aggressive, determined, and focused. Then there are days when he might just sit back and read, watch TV, or listen to comedians all day. That never changes the fact that this guy is one that could probably outlast a bear in a fight. One day, in Katy, Texas, as he was riding by a certain parking lot entrance, a woman decided that he wasn't there (in all black, the middle of the day, riding the most high-profile bicycle in town), and she hit him. He's in his forties and has never been in a collision. This tore up his knee and it took him several months to get over the injury. After he was able to walk without limping, he got back on the bicycle, and it took him some time to build that knee's capabilities back up to the former condition. Myself, my butt hurts on those infernal machines and – as much as I enjoy the exertion – I cannot last more than a few minutes before looking for a place to say, “This was my destination all along.” Physical conditioning is scaleable and subject to change.

Wisdom is something completely different. It cannot be quantified. There is no measurement to which it can be compared. It is a well-known fact that children inherently have wisdom until it is socialized out of them by their parents, school teachers, peers, churches, and their communities. At this point, we (as former children) tend to operate in whatever socialized, conditioned, or even pathological behavioral patterns that were born out before us by our examples and role models. Usually, it isn't until we have reached near the end of our age, and have retired, that only a few of us will think back on our lives and the experiences that we've had over the years to try to find some principles that we were never told which could be applied to the life of another in hopes of making a difference in the path that they are destined to walk. Then our wisdom returns to us – and only to a few of us – and that very intensely. It is not subject to change, it is only abandoned. It is not scaleable, it is constant. And it waits patiently like the one loyal woman that we ignore in our pursuits of the fleeting fun that only serves us pleasure for one night. The quiet, thoughtful, functional substance of wisdom, overshadowed by the noisy, mindless, superficial fashion of the ego.

When a man identifies with his accomplishments, he abandons wisdom in pursuit of the thought of what others will think of him when they look at him. He adds very little value. He takes only what will benefit him. He serves very little, if any, function in his community and it is not him to whom the pained would turn when the suffering is too great.

When one suffers, he finds very little solace in money or the things that money can buy. This is because no money can buy inner peace. No money can buy a sense of self that transcends the difficulties and suffering of life. No money can make a man complete. And because he lacks the wisdom to pursue wisdom, he accepts the temporary high of seeing commas in his bank account as a soothing to his tired soul, and aims to perpetuate that high as long as he possibly can – until he goes home.

When that man goes home at the end of the day, he rarely goes home to a family that wants him, but instead they want the success that he has achieved. His identity is so intertwined with his accomplishments that even his wife and children see those accomplishments walking through the door at the end of the day. His wife sees the house, the car, the fur coat, the Rolex, and the plastic that she injects into her body walk into the house, and like the other things in the house, take “its” place where “it” belongs. His children see the toys, the iPad, the cars, the Disneyland vacation, and the status of being better than their friends walk in the door and take “its” place where “it” belongs.

A man once told me that when he goes home, his child asks him, “Daddy, did you sell anything today?” His wife asks him, “How much did you make today?” Sad. They don't tell him they love him. They don't tell him how awesome it is that he's there. They don't tell him that they want to go fishing. They tell him that he is the money that he provides them to do the things they want to do. The saddest part, he says he's perfectly fine with this arrangement – as he looks to the ground – because he's better at making money than I am. In the end my child will come to me when she is hurting and I will teach her how to understand her problem and confront it, while his child will go to him when she is hurting and be taught to suck it up and work harder – and she will always look at my child with curiosity.

When I talk to a person who has identified with his accomplishments, I am instantly sized up against him. I didn't buy a house last week. I don't have a nice truck. I don't wear a Movado. I don't have a Louis Vuitton phone case. Instead what do I have? Not enough – according strictly to him. I have an apartment, which is a roof over my head. I have a nineteen year old car that gets me where I want to go when I need to get there. I wear an Orient that tells time. I have an Incipio phone case that protects my phone. I appreciate what I have because it serves the need and does so very well, and I probably would never trade it in for status-oriented things. This doesn't say that I am this great guy. This says that I have the sense of self that says that what a person has does not determine who they are, and what someone else thinks of me does not change who I am.

There is a colorful word used on the street to describe people who get pushed around – “bitch”. But to whom do we associate this concept? Usually, we attribute that word to an individual who has allowed someone to speak down to him or attempt to spread rumors about him without consequence. They'd look at you and essentially say, “Bro, you just gonna take that? Don't be a bitch!” I got punched in the face by some really unsavory folks. The guy that hit me called me a bitch, but with his dukes up he was backing away from me. I never fought back, not because I was scared, but because I recognized several things: 1.) it didn't hurt that bad; 2.) it didn't change me into something else; 3.) them talking didn't turn me into anything else; 4.) I wasn't the one backing up; and 5.) if I did go into combat with this larger, more experienced person, that would forever change how I see myself.

As I walked away, and they kept hurling their abuses at me, I stood taller not because I felt like a big man, but because I was teaching myself what a man would consider worth fighting for. To this day, the comments I get from the witnesses to that experience are centered not around me being a coward, but around how someone could take a physical assault and walk away with his head up.

This type of scenario has played out several times in my life. Each time, I get asked why I don't knock them out. My answer: because their inability to control their emotions does not change who I am. They yell and scream because someone called them a name – just like a little bitch. They curse and fight so people won't think a certain way about them – just like a little bitch. They allow the people around them to change how they view themselves, just so that they won't be seen as weak by those very people.

It's of interest to me that this type of inability to stand on one's own seems to manifest itself in every culture that I have encountered over the years. On the street they don't want to be called a bitch, in the bank they don't want people to know how small their accounts are, in academia no one wants to be seen without a degree. We seem to be unable to think about anything other than what others think about us. Then we get angry when someone uses that to their advantage. We look at those beneath us with contempt, at those above us with envy, and at our peers with ungratefulness. What if none of that had any effect on who we are as individuals?

I speak and some will listen while others don't. Okay. Some will call me a fool, call me stupid, or call me an attention whore. Okay. Some will say that because I haven't made millions of dollars, then I have nothing at all to say. Okay. Some will say – and have said – that I look mean and shouldn't use the moniker, “The BlackWolf”. Okay. None of that affects me, and none of it changes who I am. If what I say is true, then it is true. If it is false, then it is false. None of that is affected when someone calls me a name, or points out a weakness or an inadequacy. I am who I am, not what I do.

Substance Vs Superficial

In the movie Batman Begins (2005), Bruce Wayne is told by Rachel Dawes something that defines his sense of self. “It's not who we are underneath, but what we do, that defines us.” That is a very well-thought out, carefully worded, and skillfully crafted . . . lie. Here's why.

A statement like that takes the man out of the picture and replaces him with his actions. Bruce Wayne is no longer Bruce Wayne, but now the crazy guy with mental and emotional issues who dresses up like a bat facing perpetual physical threat to compensate for his emotional cowardice.

If we really take Rachel's words to heart, now we have to consider how that affects who we are. How do we feel when someone refers to our actions or vocation as our identity? You work at a register in the pet store. Someone you're socializing with on your off day refers to you in front of their friend as “this guy with the glasses at the register. The ugly one.” You'd rather be called by your name, and you state that, but they continually refer to you in third person and with derogatory terms. Not only would you feel insulted, but you'd feel that this person doesn't value you.

Here's the problem with Rachel Dawes' advice: When Bruce finally hangs up his cape and cowl, when he finally returns to his bedroom and has passed on the baton to whomever should come after him, who is he at that point? Was he Bruce Wayne? Or, Is he Bruce Wayne?

No, Rachel, you're wrong. The better advice to give Bruce would have been, “When you stare into the abyss, be careful that the abyss does not stare back into you. Don't get lost in what you do.”

Who are we? Are we our actions? Our memories? Our families? Or, are we our values? What do you consider your identity?

Consider this: If I were to stop calling myself The BlackWolf, that would change absolutely nothing about me. I would still retain my knowledge, my capacity, my value structure, and my life. I would still be who I am. Nothing of me would change.

But, what if I changed my name to David Smalls? What then would change? Again, I would retain it all, and remain – at my core – me, although with a new label. Nothing of me would change until I start changing the way I choose my values. Without my moniker, I value honor, wisdom, Truth, knowledge, compassion, and decency. As The BlackWolf, I value honor, wisdom, Truth, knowledge, compassion, and decency. The only thing different is the name by which I call myself. Although I still struggle with my ego, as is common with the members of The Wood Family, the condition of the meat inside the can matters far more to me than the color of the label.

So, the next question is: am I a Wood Family member, or am I a distinct individual? Well, let us consider that the family, although an absolutely essential part of the development of the man, is simply a gathering of blood relatives. Do I represent them wherever I go? I don't think so. Although my personality does carry the effects of the environment wherein I spent my formative years, my values are my own and selected by me alone. As such, I choose for myself my own path.

There is no law written anywhere that I absolutely must carry on the familial pathology. So, since I am not bound by law to do so, then I can choose whatever associative process I deem worthy of my self-approval. I could continue to get offended by the actions and words of others who know nothing of me, or I could ask myself why I am offended. The choice is mine.

Why am I Offended?

Notice here, that I ask myself why I am offended – I do not simply stop being offended. Why? Because there is a point where a man is within his rights to be offended. The question is whether this particular offense warrants such a response.

As a primal behavior specialist, I know that humans are the only animals that can arbitrarily alter their instinctual associative impulses without a motivator/compensator. It is not absolutely necessary for my survival, or the survival of my line, that I write this blog. Nor is it absolutely necessary to learn to write, or drive, or act in a movie, or sing, or design graphics, or start and run a business, choose a religious belief, learn to think, operate a computer, smoke cigars, or even learn magick, but these and many more are all things which I taught myself – some to the extent that they became natural – for the simple fact that I wanted to know. No motivation, no compensation, simple curiosity.

With this principle in mind I know that at any point I could simply choose not to be offended, but what benefit is that to me? I have to come to a point where I understand the difference between taking offense and being unfairly treated. There comes a point where the two get so confused that the reality of the situation is morphed into a fantasy. I have to find that point and – so-to-speak – unscramble the eggs.

Mind you, this is not as easy when dealing with a familial pathology as it is in dealing with poor socialization. With poor socialization, all you have to do is unlearn the typical textbook reaction that you were taught by your teachers and environment. With a familial pathology, I am dealing with isolation from society, the absence of non-pathological role models, physical abuse paired with (definable and quantifiable) brain washing practices, and constant narcissistic abuse for – not simply the first 15 or 16 years – but the first twenty-five years of my life.

I was taught to be offended, and that at non-offensive things.

So how do I proceed? First, instead of simply choosing not to be offended, I have to understand why this item or issue offends me. Simply choosing not to be offended carries with it the risk of being walked on by people around me who see me as the guy that no one can offend. I need to know why I am offended.

So, once I have asked myself why I am offended, then I can examine my associative responses to this stimulus. Am I dealing with something that threatens my actual sense of self, or am I dealing with an internal association that connects this act with a perceived threat to my essence? If the former, then why does that bother me? If the latter, why do I perceive this threat?

If this is an actual threat to my sense of self, then I need to better understand my sense of self. What, again do I value, and in what order? Is my ego anywhere on that scale? As covered before, I value honor, wisdom, Truth, knowledge, compassion, and decency, pretty much in that order. I don't see ego there, and with Honor being the only multifaceted trait in that list, I know that there is no ego in honor. Therefore, I should not value my ego, therefore I should not take offense.

If it is an internal association that connects this act with a perceived threat to my essence, now I need to find in my memories where that threat happened and deal with it emotionally.
If I cannot find that threat, then I am left with two possibilities: either it didn't happen (in which case I return to the issue of my ego), or I simply don't care enough about it to keep it in mind. Either way, any scenario wherein I get offended on the aggregate does not involve that threat, so I can simply drop that offense.

So, returning to the question, “Why am I offended at this?,” I can quickly come to a point where I know that having an answer, or not, quickly determines whether or not this perceived offense is an actual threat to me, or a simple threat to my ego.

So, what about identifying with accomplishments is so inherently dangerous? It comes back to the question of whether we think our ego is who we are. As I proceed over the next few postings, I will discuss a conceptualization of The Mask that demonstrates the penetrability of the persona and how dangerous it can be to rely on perception to navigate the self.