The "ego" is a creation of the ego.

[Electric.Sight]

Who made Sigmund Freud the master of psychedelic travel? Apparently he was quite into the blow.

Could it be possible that the "ego" is really all in our heads? We lose our "sense of self" when traveling deep, however what is self? and if we are still existing how can we lose it? We have to be able to relate the psychedelic experience to self in order to process what's going on. If "I" don't exist, how can "I" be experiencing anything at all? It's true that psychedelics can distort the sense of self beyond recognition, but it's my belief that a sense of self still has to exist.

Beliefs of the self and others change constantly, I don't think this has anything to do with the "ego" it's simply growth. I guess I don't see the difference between being full of yourself and being full of not being full of yourself.
If the ego exists, then non-ego is just a different belief of the ego.
But if neither exist then there is only "self" and self changes as self requires.

What do you think?

 

[blue_velvet]

I think as long as you live as a human, your ego never dies. Perhaps when you experience a lack of "I"ness, you are merely tuning it out almost completely. In the homeostatic sober state I can feel the Other, although it is exceedingly mild. Likewise, when you lose sense of who you are, the boundary of "I," perhaps it merely seems that way. How does one know they have experienced ego death unless they were there?

"Ego" can be interpreted as many different things, much the way "self" can. It's a semantic argument, but if our universe is comprised of language, it may be important to get this sorted out. Enter psychedelics.

 

[cker]

We are all an important part of the whole but it's so hard to see our part objectively since we are blinded by our own perspective. Giving up ego allows a neutral viewpoint and can open a lot of possibilities. Losing your identity isn't a sure sign your ego is gone. Your ego is gone when the concept of your identity just isn't important. Edit: Why is it so damn hard to say something un-stupid about my perception of perception?

 

[TheAppleCore]

Personally, psychedelic experience never in any way brought to mind Sigmund Freud's concept of id, ego, and superego.

And I think that 99% of the people that use the term "ego-loss" do it without even knowing what they're talking about. These people haven't familiarized themselves with Freudian psychology, and after analyzing the psychedelic experience, come to the independent conclusion that one just so happens to perfectly describe the other. They trip, and that becomes their own, subjective understanding of "ego-loss".

 

[cellux]

Dunno. They say ego is an illusion, something that has no inherent existence, we just dream it up. In the end, there are only phenomena and their interrelations. If there are no two steps to everything (perceiving and boxing), just one (being it), then the entire question may go up in the air. When the follower becomes 100% synchronized to the followed, there is no need to uphold such distinctions anymore, and all the related baggage can be dropped in an instant.

 

[actualfactual]

How does one know they have experienced ego death unless they were there?

It has only happened to me once, but I watched my body being torn apart atom by atom and was terrified then blacked out.. 8 minutes later I "came back" into my body sweating terribly and the only memories I have are of a white light and some kind of energy?

My life has been changed ever since that day (for the better) and my world view completely upended.. I also completely stopped using all drugs and entheogens after that day, although I did try cactus a single time around 4 months later.

I've talked to people on various forums on the internet with very similar experiences.

This is the best way I've ever been able to describe it:

You do not cease to exist.
The boundaries that define you cease to exist.

Having no boundaries, 'you' become nothing.
Yet 'nothing' is still apart of 'everything', and thus 'everything' remains.

The experience: There is no You.
The revelation: There is only you.

 

[benzyme]

that's beyond ego death.
that's the so-called NDE.

ego-death can occur while still aware of your surroundings; everything may seem somewhat familiar, but your sense of self is dissociated. you are merely an observer.

 

[blue_velvet]

ego-death can occur while still aware of your surroundings; everything may seem somewhat familiar, but your sense of self is dissociated. you are merely an observer.

My experiences with ego death, or at least what I assumed was ego death, have all been with Salvia. In those cases I forgot who, what, and where I was or that I had smoked Salvia. My surroundings were gone. Essentially, it was the destruction of my sense of self. It seems to me that a dissociative observer state is a redefinition of the ego rather than the obliteration of it, but that's just my take as former DXM user.

 

[Global]

I believe in the loss of sense of self in the ego-death experience where the ego is in fact absent. For myself, the experience is more like you're sort of brain-dead watching a crazy movie. You're strapped in for the experience, with no ability to narrate to yourself anything including what you're seeing, why you're seeing it...nothing. At least that's how the experience has presented itself to me. I kinda get where you're going with the idea that there always has to be "someone behind the wheel" so-to-speak or something along those lines, but I would disagree with the statement that there must always be an ego and there must always be some kind of "I".

 

[Electric.Sight]

My experiences with ego death, or at least what I assumed was ego death, have all been with Salvia.

I hear ya! Salvia's power to alter the recognition of who we are is surpassed by none, at least in my current experience. Everytime I smoke Salvia I forget absolutely everything I know, but that could just be that what I think I know is completely irrelevant to the Salvia state of mind.

but I would disagree with the statement that there must always be an ego and there must always be some kind of "I".

What I'm saying is that there is no ego, only self, or "I". When the self becomes distorted far beyond recognition, the self still exists only as something new. This new self can be completely alien and totally unrecognizable, but it's still the self. It's a different part of the "self" that can only be accessed with certain tools, but it's still the self.

 

[Global]

I suppose that could be true. I would just be reluctant to say that such a dramatic distortion of self could still be aptly referred to as the "self".