Ambigamy

Insights for the deeply romantic and deeply skeptical.

by Jeremy Sherman, Ph.D.

Tolletalitarian: Tolle's trouble distinguishing between self-assertive and self-centered

Tolletalitarian: Tolle's arrogant treatment of ego as all bad.

Published on November 18, 2009 by Dr. Jeremy Sherman in Ambigamy

Eckart Tolle says "Recognize the ego for what it is: a collective dysfunction, the insanity of the human mind."

That's a bold assertion. Maybe it's true but it is worth examining if it wouldn't be egotistical of me to do so. It raises questions like how we come by this dysfunction and insanity? If it's that bad why does it persist? And most importantly how do I know when a statement like Tolle's is a responsibly reasoned assertion and when it’s just an ego talking?

In fact, how do we ever know whether a behavior is responsibly chosen or merely self-serving and egotistical? When is someone’s choice to be interpreted as evidence of careful discernment, and when is it shortsighted inconsiderate and irresponsible?
For most of us, the intuitive answer is “I don’t know how to define the difference, but I know it when I see it.”

In other words, use your intuition.

That’s fine except when intuitions disagree which happens a lot. In most conflicts one party or both intuit that they’re being careful and discerning and that the other party is being shortsighted inconsiderate, and irresponsible. When intuitions deadlock is there any greater source of accuracy about who is being egotistical and who is being clear-headed?

Starting with the Enlightenment and growing through existentialism and postmodernism it has become increasingly difficult to believe that there is a great judge or absolute source of truth to which we can compare intuitions to see which is better. As a result, dueling intuitions escalate, each asserting their intuitions about why their intuitions are more accurate.

Of course, there are plenty of people who will say that there is a great judge or absolute source of truth to which one can compare intuitions. But when you ask them how they know this, again it is based on their intuitions.

When you make a point that someone else discounts as just your dysfunctional ego talking, you’ll be tempted to reassert your point. If you do reassert, it can either be interpreted as you standing strong in your responsible convictions or simply as you desperately doubling down on an egotistical gamble, and there’s no absolute way to know which description best applies to your situation.

Find a Therapist

Search for a mental health professional near you.

Find Local:

Ego as self-assertion and ego as self-centered are not distinguishable in any objective way.

Ego is a contranym, a word which means two opposite things. I love a good contranym. For fun here are a few others:

Custom means conventional or unique.
Disposed means removed or available.
Dust means to remove dust or apply dust.
Grade means an incline or to remove incline by leveling.
Handicap means an advantage in sports or a disability.
Temper means to soften or strengthen.

Ego has come to mean either self or selfishness. It’s either the natural and useful power of self-assertion, or the toxicity of self-importance. It’s self-awareness or self-centeredness. One word; two opposite meanings.

I’m sure Tolle is referring to the negative version of the ego, however I find him especially oblivious to the importance of distinguishing good from bad ego. He is not humbled by the challenge of trying to figure out where you’d draw the line. He gives examples in which self-assertions turn out good and bad but at best these define by outcomes, and since outcomes haven’t come out yet, you can’t use them as a way of distinguishing in real time. As a result, his arguments become circular: “Don’t assert the part of self that makes bad things happen because that makes bad things happen.” I agree with him. I just don’t think it amounts to much insight or information. It is consistent with a truth I boldly (or egotistically) hold dear: Never do today what proved harmful tomorrow. Actually I hold it ironically--I mean that ironically because what proved harmful tomorrow can’t be used to evaluate something today.

And if his position is not merely circular it’s supremely egotistical, amounting to the declaration that everyone should assert the part of the self that he personally predicts will make good things happen. All other parts of the self are dysfunctional and insane.

Without being careful to offer a clear way to differentiate in real time between self-aggrandizing ego and the natural, useful, and necessary kind of ego, he invites the worse kind of egotistical abuse. Armed with Tolle, any time you are confronted by an intuition different from your own, say its just someone's dysfunctional and insane ego talking and you’re off the hook. I’m not sure how that differs in method from the methods employed by the worst tyrants in history.

It's an invitation to Tolletalitarian.

But that might just be my ego talking.

Be sure to read the following responses to this post by our Bloggers: