So what is normal?
Perhaps an even more significant question: ”Is the current “normal” healthy?”
We have to look at the current nature of ego as not healthy, not normal. As individuals, most of us are not all that aware, nor integrated, in what I would call mindfulness. By mindfullness I mean a nonjudgmental state of awareness of one’s thoughts, emotions, or experiences on a moment-to-moment basis—being self aware of one’s own individuality.
This is tricky stuff to one seeking knowledge, understanding, and development—let alone for someone, the majority actually, who don’t want to look, avoiding inner reflection at all cost, as a matter of defensive rejection.
I guess this to be especially true for intelligent people who are often all wrapped up in self importance, arrogance, narcissism and the other pathologies of Ego.
Ego is not in and of itself pathological, it is necessary as a focus and guide to a living being. The question is, ”What is a healthy and functional ego that is useful and in harmony with the life principles of existing?”
Ego pathologies are pervasive throughout all humanity. It looks to be a generality, an un-evolved characteristic of humans. Healthy Egos are a minority.
This is another evolutionary “target” in a continuous stepping toward a healthier collective norm. There are obviously many obstacles in its path and that is what dominates in the behavior and character of the collective condition of ego awareness.
The “principal” of ego governs the tribe, the collective, in the neural composition of the biological brain. If one looks at the evolutionary thread of leadership in the animal kingdom, including the human animal, it is the strong, aggressive testosterone driven male that continues to be at the core of what constitutes character of ”leadership”. This is the behavioral “normal” in the neural structure of humanity as well.
The question becomes: “Is this healthy?”
“Is this deficit serving humanity in the care and existence that is necessary for its guiding human survival?”
“Would ego awareness be more relevant to conscious existing?”
And finally, “Are we buried in a principle of the past that is pathological in the present?”