Self-preservation
The instinct of self-preservation is inherent in all living things. In all living beings, it is unreflected, only in humans is it conscious – more or less. This instinct is the basis for all their actions. Xenophon writes that ‘living beings are deliberately endowed by a creator god with a desire for life and a fear of death’ (see Töpfer, Georg: Historisches Wörterbuch der Biologie, Band 3). He goes on to say that, in order to anchor this drive, ‘vital functions such as nutrition and sleep are associated with a feeling of pleasure’.
This principle is also demonstrated by the body’s self-healing powers, which are present to a certain extent. As for the Neanderthals and their ancestors: what would they – and we – be without the drive for self-preservation? Animals and plants also strive for their own preservation and have all kinds of defence strategies to do so.
Every steppe lion is born with the survival software. It searches for food, reproduces, plays, learns, rests and fights against internal and external competitors. It cannot break out of this behavioural programme; it is hard-wired with it.
What distinguishes humans from lions is that, beyond self-preservation, we carry a second programme within us: that of survival for others, of service, of unselfishness. This quality by no means refers to the seemingly selfless devotion to partners, parents, children, friends, etc. Because this is primarily nothing more than extended self-love and self-protection: the members of a lion pack devotedly take care of each other, but by no means of others. In this respect, genuine love of one’s neighbour is a fundamentally selfless concern for all one’s ‘neighbours.’ This is emphasised more or less clearly by all religions, without exception. Christianity refers to this as love of one’s enemies (Matthew 5:44) and illustrates it in the parable of the Good Samaritan. However, the practice of indiscriminate love for one’s fellow human beings, with their attention to strangers, accident victims, migrants, etc., shows human development in the form of compassion, sacrifice and mercy, but it nevertheless almost always remains on the emotional earthly level of consciousness; it has no connection to spiritual perception, i.e. to spiritual insight.
In the case of the Samaritan, his internal motivation is not mentioned, but it is not yet a matter of spiritual development that goes beyond compassion, emotional sympathy, and includes the conscious spiritual realisation of the hand in the glove. If, as a soldier at the front, I take care of a wounded enemy – as in the Trench Scene in the film ‘All Quiet on the Western Front’, for example – that does not mean that I recognise the spiritual kinship between his and my inner spiritual guidance and implement it consciously. Only then would the path to genuine self-preservation be taken, which can only be achieved by preserving all (!) others.
However, humans, the only mammals with the ability to evolve, have combined their animal heritage of self-preservation with boundless exaggeration from the very beginning: they have refrained from selfless devotion towards other humans, they have – apart from their family and often not even there – considered everyone and everything else as a means to an end, even in relation to the planet as a whole. He has learned to exploit his own kind, to suck them dry and to aggressively fight any competition. This basic trait of human behaviour is shown in the opening scene of Kubrick’s film ‘2001 – A Space Odyssey’ by the fight between two hordes of early humans for the waterhole. This excess will be referred to below as ego or egocentrism. This distinction is already hinted at in Matthew’s Gospel through Jesus’ commandment to “love your neighbour as yourself!” In this way, the Nazarene rules out any extension of the self-preservation necessary for existence. But the everyday person would reject the admonition to love any other person as oneself as absurd. That is why Paul bitterly remarks: ‘But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him.’ (1 Cor. 2:14)
The successful survival of the individual, group and species of man consists of this very love of one’s neighbour, this ‘second’ programme, which only man carries within himself. It is obvious that if everyone were to use all their strength not only to ensure their own survival but also to ‘seek their own good in the good of others’ (Tolstoy; Chapter 1), to look after the preservation of all their fellow human beings, especially those who are helpless and, above all, hostile, that would be the only assured self-preservation for all. This is immediately and immediately apparent.
In the practice of everyday life, one can check this as an individual directly in his foreign and above all hostile environment, in relation to the concrete consequences; even if such a decision can only be sustained on the basis of a spiritual foundation.
As for this link between individual and overall well-being, the example of the influx of migrants is not necessarily about expanding it. Rather, in the case of true love of one’s enemy, stranger or Samaritan, it would be appropriate to take care of their well-being in whatever form, fundamentally and sufficiently: living conditions must be created for them at the personal, collective and national level so that they have decent and adequate livelihoods. This often occurs at the personal level, but worldwide, like state development aid, it is a drop in the ocean. Especially in the relationship between industrialised and developing countries, there can be no question of love ‘…like yourself’. The collective national ego does not allow for such a Samaritan practice of love. It follows that this ‘love of yourself’ is futile without a simultaneous development of spiritual awareness. In this respect, this path always takes place individually first, and there will probably have to be a great deal of suffering for a very long time to come in the form of pandemics, world wars and climate catastrophes.
The only ray of hope is the certainty that at least those who have knocked and (!) been heard are granted an everyday life that is protected in the eye of the surrounding hurricane. They live in the realisation of the characteristics ‘not worrying’ and ‘not being afraid’, in their practical fulfilment of the Sermon on the Mount in the sense of ‘they shall be comforted’ (Matthew 5:4). This is not only shown by the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15), but above all by the reports of the authors who were ‘comforted’ by the consequences of their ego crucifixion.
Many want to contribute to the survival of humanity. The popular slogan for this is ‘Make the world a better place.’ However, the world is not getting better, but is nevertheless moving towards self-destruction. The reason for this is that this goal cannot be achieved horizontally on the material level: ‘I cannot do anything on my own…’ A solution is only possible with the vertical orientation, through ‘… the Father in me.’ Then, through inner guidance, the earthly rescue routes are shown, which then ‘only’ have to be put into practice. This guidance accompanies the fighters at every turn. (Christianity calls this informational implementation from the spiritual into the material world with its effect and mode of operation the Holy Spirit.)
Entrusting the process of salvation to the inner voice is the principal approach to salvation within the plan of creation as a whole: after expulsion from the spiritual dimension (Gen. 3:23) and then through experience and conscious evaluation of the suffering of the material plane, perfect return. This excursion into matter brings the expansion of world knowledge: ‘arise, “thou art”’ (Maharshi). All this is conveyed by the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15): ‘the father’s fortune … lost and found again’
All this has been proclaimed by the wisdom teachings. But they are not heard, people remain stubbornly on the horizontal plane. The reason for this is Maya, the universal delusion of all people (see chapter ‘Maya’, chapter 23), which has skilfully and successfully obstructed the only prospect of liberation from suffering throughout the entire history of mankind and continues to do so. Maya is the universal veil that lies over the consciousness of human beings. It skilfully and, above all, effectively conceals the true nature of the human being, his divine essence. Maya successfully realises the human being’s behaviour as a mammal with far worse qualities (‘more beastly than any beast’; Faust I, Auerbach’s Cellar). It tries to cement people’s ignorance of their own spiritual identity and is extremely successful in doing so, namely by skilfully distracting them from all spiritual endeavours and cleverly directing them towards material incentives. Homer’s Odyssey and Goethe’s Faust are the most obvious examples of this. In the modern world, and always, those who live in prosperity do everything to maintain it; many even want to increase its excessiveness. In any case, however, everyone avoids the spiritual path, the admonition of the wisdom teachings to ‘seek the kingdom of God’, the spiritual consciousness. Those who live in poverty or misery want to reach them. This also applies to the Hindu, Islamist, Buddhist (Aum movement in Tokyo) or Christian evangelical extremists who want to achieve their goals by force of arms, which directly contradict the Sermon on the Mount or the corresponding other wisdom teachings in every respect.
Human beings do everything with material consciousness, and so do their religious organisations, because Maya, with the instrument of orientation towards the diversity and multiplicity of material life, successfully prevents them from spiritually understanding the voices of the few enlighteners through the centuries. It succeeds although their enlightenment, that is, their attempts to push the cloud away from the sun (Ramakrishna), leaves little to be desired in terms of clarity.
The most effective means of Maya to maintain material or anti-spiritual consciousness is currently social and technological progress. Through this, Maya distracts with blinding success from suffering and misery, disease, social brutality and violence, job losses, pandemics, fascisation, murder and war. It continues to succeed in concealing the fact that people continue to envy, lie and cheat by being aware of progress. (That Maya is nevertheless an absolutely necessary part of the one creation: see chapter 13: ‘Why is there evil in the world?’ The consequence of which is Jesus’ appeal not to resist evil.)
According to all life experience, it is the case that it is usually only after the middle of life, that is, after all the essential stages of building up life, such as finding a job, a home and a partner, starting a family, etc., have been completed, that a more or less large-scale desertion of living together occurs and only after severe and most severe losses does the spiritual meaning of human life come into the realm of consciousness, although it is rarely recognised as such. But more often than in the past, man can learn through civilisational influences, through almost always painful impulses and consequent spiritual efforts, to recognise and tame the ‘animal within’, the ego. Then he can play to his unique selling point among mammals, his ability to mature for higher development, so to speak, ‘encourage’:
‘Virtue needs encouragement,
malice can stand alone.’
(Wilhelm Busch: Plisch and Plum)
But at present, an expansion of consciousness in the sense of love of one’s enemy (for a realistic view, see Chapter 17) has no chance at the supra-individual level, as can be seen from the migrant issue in Europe.
‘Sometimes I ask myself: How thin is the layer of civilisation that we have in our dealings with each other?” (Federal Minister of the Interior de Maizière on the language of hatred in connection with the 2015 refugee crisis: DIE ZEIT No. 51, 2015)
‘Dying daily’
The means to reduce the overpowering ego and thus the only (!) way out of suffering is ‘daily dying ’ of the ego. This is the only concern of all great wisdom teachings. This does not mean physical wasting away, but rather the suppression of the lower self, the instinctual soul, by means of insight into the spiritual identity of all people. In this way, the higher self, the spiritual soul, comes to the fore more and more.
In order to develop this alternative, education and a civilised framework within an enlightened and humane legislation play an important role, as I said. These have existed for many generations, and there is no doubt that there has been significant progress on the material level. However, at the same time, there is the problem that there can be no question of a fundamental change in the human self-preservation instinct towards a more dedicated and true love of one’s neighbour.
This can be seen, for example, in the use of absurd terms such as ‘Middle East powder keg’ in its complete madness, because the powder keg is the human self-preservation ego-instinct soul, which, since the appearance of Homo sapiens, has reliably provided for all kinds of powder kegs in all areas and fields of our world, without exception. Whereby it is not so easy to overlook the fact that these barrels go off every day in some corner of our planet. The Middle East is everywhere, not only in the Crusades, the Thirty Years’ War, Auschwitz, Nanjing, in the Cambodia of the Khmer Rouge, in Srebrenica, in Sudan, in Ukraine, etc. etc.
Only on a spiritual basis, and thus not on the same horizontal material-earthly level of consciousness of reason, is it possible to break away from the consciousness of being ‘more animal than any animal’ (Goethe: Faust I, Auerbach’s Cellar): This can can be clearly seen from the fact that, despite all technological and social progress, the admonitions of spiritual teachings and teachers have not even begun to be heeded throughout the millennia; people continue to lie and cheat as before. Even on the assumption of a complete abolition of poverty and misery, they remain spiteful, proud, arrogant, suspicious and jealous. This can be seen in the daily lives of the rich and beautiful.
Using the example of Christianity, and here in particular the Sermon on the Mount, the essence of the entire doctrine, one can see that, for example, Christians, and above all their representatives, have actually not succeeded in realising a single one of their commandments – not even to some extent. This is also the fate that has befallen all other wisdom teachings whose identical admonitions have been trampled underfoot: ‘Do not worry’, ‘Do not categorise according to good and evil’, ‘Do not judge, do not condemn’, ‘Do not resist evil’, ‘Forgive everything and everyone unconditionally’ or ‘Love your enemies’?
Of course, love for one’s enemies is not only found in Matthew (‘Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you!’ ,5,44), but as already mentioned, in all spiritual wisdom texts:
‘A stranger who resides with you shall reside like a native and you shall love him like yourself.’ (Judaism: Old Testament, Leviticus 19:33 f.)
‘Repel the evil act with the better one. Then the one with whom you live in enmity will be like a close friend and supporter!’ (Islam: Quran, Surah 41:34)
‘He who comprehends the meaning of life as that which is inherent in everything does not revile his self in the other self. He thus walks the path to higher ground.’ (Hinduism: Bhagavad Gita XII, 28.
‘The wise are equally kind to the good and the bad.’ (Taoism: TaoTeKing 49)
‘By not being an enemy, enmity ceases; this has always been the way of things.’ (Buddhism: Dhammapada I, 5)
If you look at the everyday behaviour of Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims or Christians and their leaders, there is no trace of love of one’s enemies. On the contrary: as far as Christianity is concerned, examples such as the adaptation of the clergy of the denominations to the Nazi regime, the notorious silence of Pope Pius XII on Auschwitz or the mass sexual crimes of church representatives show the distance to the ethical ideals mentioned above. You can also ask yourself about the Sunday sermons, to what extent they demand ‘not to divide into good and bad, not to resist evil things, to forgive everything, but also to love your enemies’ and to what extent the practical implementation looks like. Which chaplains in a Russian or Ukrainian trench, or even Western European priests, called for this, let alone how it works?
Their ‘anxious adaptation to worldly values’ and their character as ‘interchangeable institutions of public welfare’ that have ‘submitted’ to the rationalism of the age are like ‘clubs that you pay dues to.’ The churches should have a voice as fighters for a better world, but they are ‘… only one of many and one that is less and less heard.’ In contrast to the ethics commission, they have ‘no exquisite answers’ ready and have forgotten that they, as part of this world, ‘have their essence in what is opposed to this world’ (All: DIE ZEIT 49/2020, p. 62).
To qualify this, it must be said that Jesus, for example, did not explain the purpose of or the consequence of the love of one’s enemies, which cannot be taken for granted. But the experience of all spiritual seekers shows that from the moment you practice love of your enemies on the basis of knowledge of the connection with the spiritual unity, your enemies disappear from your personal (!) environment. Extended beyond the individual reach, this ultimately leads to the total collapse of egocentric views such as: ‘Those who have colleagues no longer need enemies,’ divorces, child abuse, hostile takeovers, ‘Great again,’ ‘First,’ etc., etc.
The unconscious self-preservation instinct with all its submenus is responsible for everything that people do to themselves, to others and to the earth. The ego as an expression of the self-preservation instinct wants nothing but itself and, in the final analysis, revolves only around itself and its own well-being. The well-being of everyone else is ultimately only of interest if and as long as it is useful to oneself. This even applies to the best and dearest loved ones. Because if one’s own existence is threatened, the mask falls and the ego emerges.
The ego cause: separation
The connection or unity between God and man is torn apart by the self-preservation programme because the ego cannot imagine being preserved by inner spiritual guidance. It has no experience of this from childhood on (see below). It is the hurdle between the spiritual and the material human being. Symbolically, the seduction to preserve one’s own strength is represented in the creation story by the snake, which seduced Adam and Eve into self-will and un-dependence, thereby triggering the expulsion from paradise and thus the separation from divine care and provision.
This detachment from the context of perfection – but at the same time from unconsciousness – was the step towards going one’s own independent way, the step towards autonomy. The striving for autonomy and the associated separation from the spiritual authority within, which previously led, protected and provided, are the hallmarks of the earthly human being, who abhors any kind of dependency and cooperation. (The Nazis called this ‘autarky’. Currently, the term ‘we first’ is rampant. However, the credo ‘me first’ applies not only to presidents, but to every ego.
The worst dependency for the ego is the one from the creator, see Faust I. Since this is out of the question for the ego, it has lost its secure basis and now mistakenly believes that it has to see how it can now cope alone and independently. Since everyone else is also unconsciously fighting to stabilise their unstable ego at the expense of others, conflicts to the death as well as alliances to overcome them are a fundamental part of the life of each and every human being.
The effect of the selfish ego can be clearly seen in every politician, every church leader, every CEO and in almost every marriage: at first they are there for each other, then they live with each other and finally they live alongside each other (because they need each other), and all too often they even live against each other. What is missing is selflessness and unity consciousness. Only spiritual identity can produce it, and that has been lost sight of.
As a result of the separation, the original unity with the Creator, the carefree dependence of the child on the Father, has been lost and with it the dialogue with the inner Son of God, with the High I. It is, so to speak, the dis-connection, the severing of the (spiritual) umbilical cord, the loss of the higher actual parental authority.
That is why the little, animalistic ego suffers from its immense fragility and incompleteness. And that is why it always wants to be special, to be the centre of attention, to be noticed, because it feels more valued that way. Its need for importance is immeasurable. That is why marksmen and military personnel wear a lot of colourful metal pieces on their uniform chest. That’s why people take countless selfies, preferably with celebrities. A particularly impressive example of this boundless craving for recognition is the actions of the male nurse from northern Germany who administered lethal injections to hundreds of patients, only to then apparently competently resuscitate them and thus be able to shine in front of the medical staff. The craving for recognition is a desperate attempt to compensate for the inferiority complexes that are inherent in every human being.
Outer development of the inferiority complex
As a child grows up, it experiences adults as being large and superior, and understands itself as weak and, despite all the care and objective security, as being at the mercy of others because it cannot assert itself and cannot resist either. In order to remain stable in the face of the impressions that wash over them from the outside and to be able to develop their self-esteem, e.g. with stronger children, they learn to mask themselves so as not to appear completely defenceless. This happens at the latest in primary school. They feel weak inside and show strength on the outside. This happens in very different ways from one individual to another, for example through volume or a display of security. This way, the weak points can be hidden, because the child experiences that otherwise they would quickly and unerringly be found and attacked by the others.
Since the child cannot look inside other children, there is no way to recognise their comparable condition. Therefore, the child usually feels weaker and superior to the others. This is where the feelings of inferiority come from.
The more performance-oriented or authoritarian the conditions in the family and in society as a whole, the less likely it is to admit any weakness. In this basic psychological makeup, drives, affects, sexual impulses, anti-social impulses, fears and feelings of inferiority dominate. But you don’t spread them out in front of others, so as not to lose the protective shield of the mask of sovereignty. This also applies in an understanding, tolerant or even ‘laissez faire’ education. No child, no adolescent talks about their feelings of cowardice, fear, envy, greed or avarice.
Everyone tries to hide their fearful humanity under their mask. This is particularly successful for those who then use cynicism, insinuating remarks and crude provocations to pick at others and in particular their weaknesses in order to hide their own extreme sensitivity.
Projection
A classic behavioural element of supposed self-protection is projection, whereby one reacts to one’s own inadequacies and imperfections by deliberately focusing on precisely such flaws in others, with constant criticism, grumbling, reproach, etc.
The earlier this armour is built up, the more it hardens and loses its ability to love, empathise and connect. Then you feel attacked much more often than is actually the case. A typical example is the young inexperienced teacher who takes every laugh from the back benches as directed at him and then reacts inappropriately aggressively. If the subject of baldness or a paunch comes up, the person with these characteristics immediately perceives it as an attack and feels exposed. People’s self-image, whether conscious or not, is characterised by instability. We should not be deceived: most people who appear particularly self-confident, superior and sovereign are inwardly characterised by existential fear, enemy images, mistrust and feelings of inferiority. A classic example is the speed merchant who upgrades his car to a racing machine with high-level tuning and then races recklessly. The weaker the self-esteem inside, the higher the horsepower.
Children’s defiance or adolescents’ anorexia has its roots in the fact that adolescents seek to assert themselves against their parents or others, or withdraw into isolation in the event of failure. This is a protest against not being understood. It is also a survival strategy for individuals who are cut off from their own soul power and find themselves in abysmal loneliness. This detachment is the actual reason for the essential feelings of inferiority in humans, those of the ‘cut-off branch.’ This unconscious complex of feelings of the weak and unstable ego is one of man’s greatest enemies. It expresses itself – in order to save itself – compensatory as an ego behavioural programme, in whatever form, evasive or aggressive.
As a rule, the instinctual soul with its executor, the ego, makes life hell for us through arrogance, vanity, existential fear, self-isolation, depression, arrogance, impatience and craving for recognition. (That this is the meaning of the matter, i.e. its meaningful task, see the chapter on what evil is for.)
Psychological profile of the ego drive
The ego consistently deactivates processes that could enable self-criticism or self-knowledge. This is because such processes would endanger self-preservation or self-stability as understood by the ego. Many people can’t stand to lose, whether it’s at ‘Ludo’ or at the defeat of their football club, but especially not when it comes to their own defeats in relationships or in their professional lives. People lie, trick, deceive, engage in bullying, commit breaches of trust, etc. in order to maintain their fragile position and not endanger it. Thoughts of the greater good are alien to them; their thinking extends no further than the edge of their wallet. How many people can truthfully say that their income tax declaration is 100% honest? And the more you earn, the greater the temptation and the opportunities to reduce your taxes to an indecent minimum. However, through special circumstances, such as spiritual development, the forces of the divine soul can be developed and set against the animal instinct, i.e. the soul of the drives.
The ego programme in us is constantly comparing ourselves with others, just to achieve or maintain our own self-worth. (See the evil stepmother in the fairy tale Snow White). Every person is special, but not in comparison. The index finger does not compare itself with the middle finger. And the biblical injunction, ‘Be perfect,’ does not say, ‘Be like so-and-so.’ Constant comparison is also the basis for envy. This archaic subprogramme comes into play, for example, when large numbers of refugees are provided with basic security and substantial sums of money are spent on financing a makeshift roof over their heads.
This is why our lower self tends to run down and agitate against others, because in doing so it elevates itself above them. Debasing, despising, and making contemptible is crucial for supporting the shaky sense of self, it is indispensable for self-aggrandisement. Almost every swearword contains attempts at devaluation, often with animal comparisons.
Connected with this is the allergic reaction of the ego to any kind of disparagement of its own. Even a dissenting opinion is perceived by the ego programme in us as an attack on its self-preservation and it reacts more or less aggressively. For many (men), these behavioural patterns are complemented by a conspicuous self-love: a narcissist only knows himself, cannot bear even the most delicate criticism, fact-oriented debates are not possible, and the others are always to blame.
Both personality traits are accompanied by the fading out of any self-critical behaviour. The ego must be blind to its own misconduct, otherwise its consciousness would come dangerously close to the fact of its fragility and would endanger self-preservation. To avoid this, it is important for one’s own stabilisation to trample on others. This is symbolically processed in Matthew in the story of the splinter and the beam. This is also the reason why there are immigrants who are against immigrants.
The fall from the original unity and thus from the perfect world led into our world of inadequacy, lack and danger.
Because and as long as we have lost the connection to our self, the high I, the spiritual soul, we constantly unconsciously feel our vulnerability and attachment to shortcomings. We therefore do not admit our own mistakes and are reluctant to take responsibility for our own misconduct, as in almost every car crash. We cannot do it either, or only to a very limited extent, because the programme of self-preservation largely prevents it.
Socialisation identifies us with our outer self. We see our persona as our true self and hold the glove for the hand. No one has made us aware of our uniqueness and attractiveness and our inner divinity. In church teaching, Jesus was always presented as the only embodiment of God. As a result, his teaching that the Son of God dwells in every human being (‘The kingdom of God is within you’) – like the hand in the glove – was ignored and covered up. Above all, however, it was fought to the death at the stake. Thus, the divine authority within us was veiled, the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount with its forgiveness and love of enemies was trampled underfoot, and the mammalian nature was absolutised. Because education only identifies us as a person and not with our true self, we become fragmented and thus wrongly educated. This results in insecurity and fear. Furthermore, parents confuse their care with love. How could they, since they themselves have usually not experienced true love (see chapter on love below).
Due to the mistakes we make and see others make, this inevitably leads to an awareness of our shortcomings and to inferiority complexes. Thus insecurity becomes our constant companion.
This unconscious but distinct feeling of our own inadequacy is the reason why the ego programme generates behaviours that are intended to enhance our own value in every conceivable way: On a personal level, the ego wants to feel, to be perceived, and therefore talks non-stop. Now, silence is the realm of intuition, where the language of inner guidance can come through and be heard. Preventing this is the deeper reason for the constant stream of words. Oscar Wilde remarks pointedly: ‘Blessed are those who have nothing to say and yet keep their mouths shut.’
In addition, the ego is reluctant to listen, because then it would usually not be about itself, but about others. It always wants to express itself, never to be receptive. It craves attention. A blatant example of this is the craving for attention of paedophile child rapists who put their crimes on the internet.
The ego wants to teach, gives unwanted advice at every appropriate and inappropriate opportunity. This, too, serves the purpose of self-aggrandisement. In difficult situations, e.g. in marital conflicts, the (male) ego wants to ‘discuss’ to the end, but this does not serve the purpose of factual clarification, but rather to win the battle in order to restore superiority.
To maintain their own stability, which in reality is actually instability, each ego bends the facts in its favour, embellishes them or lies about them. In extreme cases, this results in a bubble of ‘post-factual’ self-reality, which they build up to protect their personal sphere. All too often, this results in aggression, as can be observed towards refugees all over Europe.
The ego is narcissistic. A narcissist is just a more pronounced form of the ego. A narcissist is empathy-free and talks non-stop – preferably about himself. His need for recognition is boundless. There are people who literally have never in their lives begun a sentence that does not start with ‘I’ or ‘my’. The narcissist needs and uses others as a stage for his appearance; he wants us to give him our attention, time and strength. If he were not given this stage, he would be lost.
The narcissist’s imagined self-admiration and self-praise are sometimes referred to as a personality disorder, but it is a constitutive part of the human ego in general, to whatever extent. Because our ego, every ego, is addicted to recognition, self-promotion and attention. In everyday life, this is why we have tattoos, extravagant hairstyles, conspicuous clothing, an accumulation of necklaces, bracelets, etc. The narcissistic ego feels uncomfortable, nervous or even irritable when ignored. The need for attention stems from a deep-seated sense of inferiority, which seeks ways of compensating. Due to its inferiority complex, the ego is allergic to any kind of criticism. It constantly tries to belittle and offend others and is always quickly offended when it is criticised itself. Being rejected is almost the worst thing that can happen to the vain ego, and that is why it is always the others who are to blame.
The feeling of one’s own fragility produces a permanent striving for one’s own appreciation, which is typical of the ego. Men are largely ego-driven, while women are made up of equal proportions of ego and love. That is why men are weaker and at the same time more arrogant in order to conceal their fragility. Everyone knows that the less competent and the more insecure the ego type, the more they open their mouths to cover up their insecurity. However, everyone has their own mixture, and of course there are also very egotistical women and loving men.
Self-aggrandisement is dominant in the life of the ego. There are people who constantly praise themselves, and about whom the saying goes that self-praise stinks. It becomes more serious when young people play shooting games and in this way elevate themselves and become masters of the (virtual) lives of others. ‘There I am someone, I can give orders!’ And finally, playing God is one of the ego’s main motives, in an extreme form, for example, in the case of people running amok, because their actions almost always result from a deep crisis of recognition.
‘I was a nobody until I killed the greatest somebody on this earth.’ (Mark Chapman, John Lennon’s murderer).
In the natural sciences, the unconscious pursuit of god-likeness plays an important role. The image of God (Gen. 1:27) – such as the child in relation to the parents and thus not provided with the same possibilities – is not enough. It is about increasingly taking over the sovereignty of interpretation of our life processes. This can currently be seen in the creation of artificial life forms in the context of ‘synthetic biology’. A bacterium is constructed on the computer and then brought to life in the laboratory, i.e. the genome is gradually pieced together until it becomes capable of reproduction (Stern 31 March 2016). A goal like this was artistically explored 200 years ago in Mary Shelley’s novel ‘Frankenstein’. In the book, scientist Viktor Frankenstein is concerned with creativity, with the creation of an artificial human being from body parts and with a spark of life from a lightning strike. He wants to create life.
The reflexive avoidance of any kind of personal humiliation or what the ego considers to be such is part of this revaluation: There are probably only a few men who ask others for directions without prejudice. Some people go to great linguistic lengths to avoid the word ‘please’. How rarely do you meet someone who uses the appropriate request ‘I apologise’ instead of the insane but now common formula ‘I apologise’: After all, if you have harmed someone, it is not for you to decide whether they grant you forgiveness. Doing so would make you dependent on the other person’s decision. But dependency is about the worst thing that can happen to the ego. That is why it does not want to leave the decision to the other person. With ‘I apologise’, it retains control; in the other case, there is a risk that the other person could refuse to apologise. The ego doesn’t want to risk that, it would be a horror for it. With its reading, it could theoretically even beat up anyone and then tell them to their face that you apologise. The ego programme ensures that the person always tries to take charge of the apology and thus avoid the appropriate reaction of humility to his mistake.
The range of instruments for attracting attention and putting oneself in the centre is extensive. Many people literally do everything to ‘get on TV’. It serves to satisfy the nagging urge to somehow enhance the puny sense of self. Anton Chekhov wrote an extraordinarily bitter and ironic short story about this: ‘Joy’ (Радость).
The thirst for recognition is not only visible at the individual level, but also clearly emerges at the collective level and, of course, at the level of state leadership.
Among other things, the desire for recognition is expressed in such everyday phenomena as the mass consumption of SUVs. This concentrate of automotive unreason is exaggerated in every respect in relation to a normal car, but it has advantages for the ego: you sit higher, above the normal seat height, and thus above the others. And it reflects another ego characteristic in an almost ideal way: the compact design gives the unstable sense of self-worth the feeling of a fortress, of steel armour plating. This can compensate for some of the unconscious existential fear.
The person’s own self-esteem and the vulnerability behind it become clear from the fact that reputation, ‘honour’, fame and social prestige have a high value for the self-image and exert a great influence on social behaviour, which in many societies leads to extremes such as honour killings when family members transgress conventions and thereby violate the ‘reputation of the family’. Attitudes such as shame or honour are elements of the ego that could not be more archaic. Jesus exposed this clearly enough through his way of life, in that he did everything to distract from his person: ‘What are you calling good…?’
Exalting oneself over others or humiliating them for this purpose, sometimes brazenly, often subtly, is one of the main drives of the ego. It rants, harbours prejudices, complains, gossips, plots, criticises, reproaches, blames, condemns, etc. But suppressing, devaluing, defaming, humiliating, as well as arrogance and contempt are not the goal, but the means to the end of one’s own self-aggrandisement. Every time I shake my head at another person (in traffic, at a conference, during an election campaign, in a letter to the editor, in a social media post, in a parliamentary debate, etc.), it is a devaluation that has the sole purpose of enhancing me, of enabling me to rise above him. Without this constant behaviour, the ego could not feel or maintain its identity; it is its air to breathe. That is why conflict, discord and resistance are a constitutive element of de-spiritualised coexistence.
The ego in its egocentric tunnel vision quickly becomes intrusive: it pushes to the front, talks non-stop without letting anyone get a word in edgewise, makes tactless or racist remarks, interferes uninvited, constantly lectures, etc. It does not recognise this, however, because a kind of submenu exists in the self-preservation programme that prevents it from noticing its own mistakes. Otherwise, the programme could not continue to exist. This is illustrated in the story of the splinter and the beam.
If the ego behaves in an insensitive, reproachful or inconsiderate manner, it does not notice it itself, but the other egos immediately perceive it and strike back because they want to defend themselves. Of course, they do not recognise their own programme of aggression and retaliation either; but they recognise it in the other. Therefore, the first ego feels attacked and blows up: ‘He started it.’ The quarrel escalates and the conflict is there. The trick is that the ego, because it is blind to its own misconduct, is able to turn its perpetration into a sense of victimhood in no time at all, which gives it the legitimacy to strike back, even though it unconsciously started it. This is a central tool of the ego to conceal its perpetration. A satirical treatment of this principle can be found in Loriot’s sketch ‘Kosakenzipfel’.