WMN: t3_372yuk_t1_crjo5t2

[TITLE]

CMV: I don't believe a person can be truly compassionate before having experienced a prolonged state of egolessness.

[myfunnies420]

I have a general feeling about whether a person has experienced living without ego or not by observation of where they place the importance of their own wants against the needs of others. From this, it is my belief that a person cannot be actively compassionate in every day life when they have not experienced the falseness of self because the ego is the only self they are truly aware of. Compassion being defined as being able to possess a love for all beings that is as great as that for the self and the closest people in their lives. Truly compassionate being defined as actively compassionate in every day life for all those that they can have an effect on.

[hannaguist]

situational compassion just tossed your logic right out the window. a person can have true compassion if they better know the situation or have been in someone's shoes.

[myfunnies420]

Easily resolved. That is a form of compassion that is focussed around their own ego as they can connect to their emotion during that experience. Those same people can only be referred to as truly compassionate if they're just as compassionate with those in situations they haven't faced themselves. It actually reinforces my point.

[mylarrito]

But why do you believe this? It doesn't exactly seem well founded or explained in your post. Why can a person who hasn't experienced egolessness be truly compassionate? Why has your mushroomtrip or whatever made you able to be more "truly" compassionate then someone who hasn't? Are you (or others who can be truly compassionate) actively more compassionate then everyone else? Or is your quality of compassion better? Are there people who do more compassionate things then you, but have not experienced egolessness? Are they still "worse" then you even if they do more for some reason?

[GnosticGnome]

What counts as living without ego? Does taking care of your baby brother count? Does religious worship count? Does Outward Bound count?

[rt79w]

Have you been enlightened?

[myfunnies420]

I've had a experiences that closely met what I have heard and read to be "enlightenment". I would not want to describe myself as "enlightened".

[rt79w]

If it was through meditation I would advise going further. Introspection is the key.

[myfunnies420]

At first it was by accident, outside any meditation framework. Since then meditation has allowed me to probe and enter some interesting states, making various observations.

[rt79w]

Must have been drug induced. Carl Sagan would approve. Either way it is a good thing to keep up.

[myfunnies420]

No consumed drugs, just brain chemicals from thinking a lot and life change I guess. Edit: Through some private messages with this user, I came to realise that emotional trauma when I was leaving everyone and everything I knew and loved helped catalyse my first experience.

[swearrengen]

I don't think I could value compassion, or love, from someone who doesn't have an ego or self. And I wouldn't value love/respect from someone who loved/respected everyone equally - it would be completely impersonal and therefore meaningless and value-less. It would be like being treated for my non-uniqueness rather than uniqueness. (And that's what the mystic wants - to destroy differences. Reminds me of the Invincibles "if everyone's super, no one will be!). One of the evils of mysticism is the idea that the self and ego are false/illusions/evil by nature and thus need to be erased/lost/destroyed. In one fell swoop, the mystic teacher has damned people with ego/self/pride as evil. If believed, the mystic raises his own moral stature in their eyes. Note the scientology technique of breaking down the ego of it's new students by getting them to admit to their evilness and to admit they can't trust their selves. When you give your ego up, you *give it up to someone else's control*. The default moral setting of a child's ego/self can not possibly be "evil" - it's innocent. The rational value to have is to seek not it's destruction but it's growth and prosperity, to make the self and ego true, good and healthy. This way, when you experience pride (or guilt) it's because it's earned and therefore *deserved*. There is nothing false about earned pride/guilt. That's healthy. It's also justice. Compassion for others for being human is a *lesser virtue*, one that people with healthy egos don't need to cultivate because the healthy self/ego is *naturally benevolent* to other humans - he recognizes his own shared human identity *in* others and wishes them well. But to cultivate compassion for others at the expense and death of your own ego/self is irrational. The ego/self is our individuality, the source of our decisions and happiness. Killing it without judgement as to the good bits and bad bits is the essence of evil!

[myfunnies420]

Thank you for your response. It is a bit loaded but I'll try to address your the key points as best I can. I didn't know of any practices where permanent ego death and the giving of part of our selves to the control of another (which is a pretty nonsense sentence) is the ultimate aim. Buddhism, Shintoism and Hinduism all aim to unify the heart and the mind, albeit in different words and ways. Is it the case that Scientology is about dividing the two? Attempting to deny the most powerful parts of our brain seems unwise. My focus was more that the awareness gained from the experience of the silence of the ego and identity is essential in creating a "lens" that allows for thought that isn't centred around the self (the "I"). And as you may have exposed in how I've phrased this whole thing. I'm asserting that anything that starts with "I" is sympathy rather than empathy. You're not taking on the pain directly, you're imagining the pain in terms of yourself. "I feel bad for them." "I am glad that is not me." "I wish..." Are all examples of sympathy rather than empathetic compassion. It is a love of self rather than another.

[swearrengen]

That was gracious of you - I did lay it on a bit thick! I can not see how either being sympathetic or empathetic, or having love or compassion for someone, can be done without reference to (or in isolation of) one's own "I" or ego - as it is one's I/identity/ego that *does* the loving and is sympathetic or is empathetic. I have a pride-ful ego when I do x, a shameful guilt ridden ego when I do y. Likewise, my ego exists in a state of sympathy or empathy with another when my imagination recreates and understands their values/evaluations, which allows me to think/feel what they are thinking/feeling. In the case *where* a person might have an irrational ego that does not value what's real or true or it's capacity to imagine or think and instead whose thoughts are merely a reaction only to it's own emotional state - that person could well benefit from the practise of "silencing their ego". But such a person could even better benefit from valuing reason over emotion as the proper means to knowledge, and from learning that emotions are a *consequence* of values which can be chosen (and changed) using reason. As for the case where a person already has a healthy and rational ego, the belief that suppressing it or quietening it leads to greater value can be downright dangerous, making them doubt the validity of their selves and their values when they were perfectly fine!

[myfunnies420]

[STA-CITE]> I can not see how either being sympathetic or empathetic, or having love or compassion for someone, can be done without reference to (or in isolation of) one's own "I" or ego - as it is one's I/identity/ego that does the loving and is sympathetic or is empathetic. [END-CITE]Ah, bummer, I forgot that "love" is such a slippery term. There are for sure multiple forms of love, there is a concept that split the word into two core categories as love with or without attachment. Googling "love without attachment" brings up a lot of interesting results. The idea is that usually when people say love, they mean with attachment, eg... I love cheese, I love my mother; you love these things because of some value or relationship to your ego, ergo your ego has a love for them. Love without is considered the pure form of love, and it certainly doesn't come from the ego because it has no value associated with the object and the id has nothing to gain. It is possible to use the "without attchment" form for all the conscious beings we love with our ego, and old spirituality based beliefs tend to suggest that this is a healthier form of love. For that reason, I think we may be talking about a different form of love, and I sincerely apologise for not being clearer by what I meant by this word.

[swearrengen]

"love without attachment" - to be completely without attachment is to have no relationship at all between the subject and object, between the lover and the loved... I'm trying my best to imagine it... there is a sense in that I love everyone on earth in an abstract fashion - for what they represent, fellow humans who are alive and struggling to live and thrive - but that's because I share common values with them, being a human myself. So it's not without attachment or without relationship - and the proof would be that if I had to give my life (in some hypothetical battle with Aliens!) so humanity could survive, I would. To love without attachment - wouldn't that mean no action was required if their existence was threatened? Love without action seems rather cold... and meaningless. Sometimes the phrase refers to letting someone you love be free of you: if she loves another man, and you know she will be better off with him, then maybe you let yourself disappear without a fuss from her life and love her from afar "without attachment". But that too is an action based on a relationship that cares for the state of her existence. So love without attachment doesn't seem like a noble thing to me. What is noble or not noble would be the type of attachment, not the lack of.

[myfunnies420]

This guy provides a description that seems [near enough correct for me](http://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-to-love-someone-without-attachment). So it is still with relationship, but you're not in that relationship for your own gain nor theirs, you are in a loving relationship at that moment with that being because you simply are. I tried to write an example, but it is long and might not help. I'll just speak from personal experience. Without the fear and need that comes with the ego, I can be much warmer, much more adventurous, and truly honest. I had trouble with all these things before. A close personal relationship with someone becomes a long set of amazing moments, each experience is new and amazing and I'm thankful every time, but once it is in the past, it is gone; I smile back fondly with warm memories of the past, but it does not dictate my next moment. What you've described above is the far more social normative definition of warm/cold and love, but the other type of love works just as well using the same metrics when examining a personal relationship between two people. The best thing about love without attachment is it enables a very effective way of loving yourself in a really honest manner. I worry that this is starting to come off a bit preachy, if I was in your position I may have stopped reading by now. Just two small notes. 1. You can try this form of love unto yourself as an experiment, it will take a little bit of mindful meditation to get to a state where your mind is sufficiently self-aware and enough of your directives are coming from the prefrontal cortex to do it, but it is pretty easy to achieve. 2. It can help in forming new relationships as people are naturally drawn to people that use this kind of approach to loving self-guidance, and it helps in avoiding bad relationships.

[rt79w]

Are you suggesting people never question themselves if they have healthy egos? What determines a healthy ego? Furthermore, what exactly is an ego if we are one physical being and not a being within a being?

[swearrengen]

A healthy person can question themselves just fine and it's a process of discovery and growth (a strengthening of the ego) rather than self-doubt and fear (a weakening of it). The default (correct) assumption of the healthy ego is that it's self is good. If you destroy this by teaching that the ego is by default an evil thing, then you destroy it's motive, it's confidence and desire to act. What determines a healthy ego? If a child is raised in such a way that their self evaluations of being good are *true* (just/fair) - then their ego has a healthy start. But even before such evaluations, the belief that the self is good is, I believe, the default assumption growing up as a child. It's easily warped by parents who *irrationally* tell their kids they are either selfish/ good for nothing/drains/bad/evil etc *or* irrationally tell their kids they are perfect princes and princesses no matter what their actions. A healthy ego in an adult is one that acts rationally and has correctly evaluated itself to be good. To be good as an adult is a consequence of possessing certain virtues such as integrity, self-honesty, rationality, reason - and valuing what is real and true above all else. It means desiring only what it can earn or achieve, not what it can steal. It means wanting justice for itself - to be rewarded (or punished) for good or bad choices/actions. It means having pride in one's self - not more and not less than what is merited. An individual has an "I", and really that's it - ego, id, identity, self are really just different perspectives or highlighted characteristics of the same object (though different philosophies would beg to differ).

[jzpenny]

[STA-CITE]> And I wouldn't value love/respect from someone who loved/respected everyone equally - it would be completely impersonal and therefore meaningless and value-less. [END-CITE]Certainly it can be one, but is rarity the only source of value? The abundance of sunlight can't really be said to make it less valuable than starlight, right? [STA-CITE]>Compassion for others for being human is a lesser virtue, one that people with healthy egos don't need to cultivate because the healthy self/ego is naturally benevolent to other humans - he recognizes his own shared human identity in others and wishes them well. [END-CITE]Is it human identity that warrants empathy, though? What about empathy for animals, or aliens, then? Why do we have to be a thing to wish that thing well?

[Thomas-C]

If we are to take something like Dunbar's Number seriously, that is, to assume there is a physical limit of our ability to understand the social connections between people known to the individual, then it follows that other socially-dependent concepts, like empathy and compassion, also have their limits, in that they can only be applied in their totality to a limited number of things. You are physically incapable of understanding and having compassion for *every single living thing*, rather, in order to have the compassion of the type you've defined, the individual must create for themselves an idea or representation that stands in place for that complete understanding. They must substitute what they do understand, which in this case is the "love" they have for themselves and those they do know, to fill in gaps for what they are incapable of understanding. What that means is that the person who is feeling compassion for all living things, as a matter of physiology, is in fact *not* doing such, as much as they are creating a heuristic for "compassionate" behavior. They love *the idea of "all living things"* because they cannot understand what "all living things" actually represents, much less have feelings for. This process is wholly dependent on the ego - a lack of self concept means lacking the ability to do that substitution. However, that leaves unanswered the question of whether a temporary suspension of the ego is necessary to create an effective heuristic for compassionate behavior. I argue "no". There is nothing to suggest, on a conceptual level, that the forming of such a pattern of behavior necessitates experiencing something like the "ego death" often attributed (though not exclusive) to LSD, Ayahuasca, dissociatives, etc. It would seem to be the case that a supreme ego is necessary, one which is able to substitute for a lack of knowledge of others the knowledge of itself, and act as though it were interacting with a being of the same makeup. Temporary suspension may be *helpful*, but you haven't demonstrated any reason for thinking one is incapable of doing this kind of "ego substitution" without this experience. Rather, one could be a kind of narcissist/solipsist who believes all people are them, and exhibit the same behavior for which your view seems to aim.

[myfunnies420]

I am very impressed by your response, thank you for taking the time. You have really nailed it. You're completely right that I am arguing the need for a sort of "ego substitution". My only reason for believing that it is related to the experience of ego silence is from observation of the people that have demonstrated a notable level of compassion. You're completely correct that I haven't (and am unable) to demonstrate that it isn't possible to gain this skill without some sort of suspension in ego; what I have said at the start is too strong. And with most absolute arguments, the correct answer lies in there being a correlation, but not necessary causation. I don't really like to use Freud's terminology, it feels too flimsy and simplified. I'll probably award you a delta soon, see what happens on the other threads. Have you got any reading material that you would like to suggest for me regarding the neuroscience and philosophy of this area of the brain, I would appreciate it. Thanks.

[Thomas-C]

Thank you. I really like these kinds of discussions. I agree about the use of "ego" - I stuck with the philosophical definition, meaning "thinking thing", or "self concept". Meaning that one who has a stronger sense of self would be more capable of using their own idea of themselves as a template for how to regard those with whom they have no social connection. As with most things, there's not so much a distinct point at which one becomes capable as there are extremes which would not be capable - a narcissist would likely be incapable because they don't consider anyone else; someone with incredibly low self esteem would lack the sense of "love" necessary to make an effective heuristic. Having experienced those sensations folks describe as "ego death", I can understand where it would be incredibly helpful - obviously no language I know could accurately describe this feeling, but the effect is an almost instant appreciation for the relative unimportance of oneself. Even the best human beings are tiny things with finite power and influence, but it's easy to lose that perspective in the face of everyday experience. By having that feeling of insignificance, it's as though one can instantly relate to anyone - the heuristic is almost made *for* you. The reason I disagreed is because I'm convinced there are multiple kinds of experiences which can lead to this same outlook. Facing one's own imminent death, for instance, gives many people an appreciation for one another they previously lacked, but that experience isn't one in which their self-concept is actually eliminated/suspended (they are instead perhaps more aware of themselves than they have ever been). Similarly, experiencing even second-hand something like a natural disaster, war, famine, etc. can give people that same sense of "relative unimportance" without them being in that wordless state of non-identity. Their sense of self is made secondary to something, but is not "removed" as it seems to be during something like an LSD trip. As for literature, I'll look through what I've got. The one which comes immediately to mind is Yudkowsky's [Creating Friendly AI](https://intelligence.org/files/CFAI.pdf) (2001). It has a lot to say regarding identity, namely that an artificial intelligence may wholly lack a self concept because of differences in how they are made - our evolutionary history has resulted in many concepts and behaviors which are generated seemingly automatically in us, including a concept of self. I found it valuable because it made me rethink what it takes for certain perspectives and behaviors to take shape in the ways we typically understand them. Seeing what such a "selfless" thing looks like might prove interesting for you.

[myfunnies420]

[STA-CITE]> Ego death. [END-CITE]I was speaking to u/rt79w, and it became clear that my first experience was primarily due to emotional trauma. And it was similar to the people that I have met that have had the experience in near-death situations. After a bit of looking into it, I don't know if I've really experienced "ego-death", because I would never have described my experiences as "feeling as large as the universe", mine have always been more like the self falls silent, I like to call it "ego suffocation", but there is an actual term for it that escapes me at the moment (sorry). This is just a preface to the next section, In which I quote you: [STA-CITE]> The reason I disagreed is because I'm convinced there are multiple kinds of experiences which can lead to this same outlook. Facing one's own imminent death, for instance, gives many people an appreciation for one another they previously lacked, but that experience isn't one in which their self-concept is actually eliminated/suspended (they are instead perhaps more aware of themselves than they have ever been). Similarly, experiencing even second-hand something like a natural disaster, war, famine, etc. can give people that same sense of "relative unimportance" without them being in that wordless state of non-identity. [END-CITE]This would coincide with my original hypothesis, as all these experiences would fall under the umbrella of "egolessness", as I can personally attest and I have observed in others. Which sort of puts us in a funny spot as your original point that we cannot state that there isn't someone that has no concept of thinking without their ego but can still be truly compassionate. (Here's a ∆ btw) [STA-CITE]> Seeing what such a "selfless" thing looks like might prove interesting for you. [END-CITE]I really like this thought, there is definitely implications in this area. I was thinking privately about someone who has known their ego and the influence of the emotions of others on themselves vs something or someone that has never had that personal experience (true sociopathy). I don't think such a being could have a sense of what it is to be afflicted by extreme emotion, just like how I have trouble imagining the colour red. But this is all too hypothetical for me at this stage.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Thomas-C. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Thomas-C)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][/r/DeltaBot]

[LordLeesa]

[STA-CITE]>Compassion being defined as being able to possess a love for all beings that is as great as that for the self and the closest people in their lives. [END-CITE]I don't believe anyone who is not either mentally disturbed or deficient is actually capable of doing this, and I wouldn't want him to be. This isn't a functional or desirable definition of compassion.

[myfunnies420]

Are you able to explain why? I'm very open to criticism, but you'll need to give me a structured or demonstrative argument behind your belief.

[LordLeesa]

Am I able to explain why that's not the definition of compassion? I can explain what the definition of compassion actually is: "sympathetic concern for the sufferings and misfortunes of others."

[myfunnies420]

Sympathy isn't the same as compassionate empathy. I'd say that the dictionary isn't designed to handle philosophical topics and isn't of a lot of use in these situations.

[LordLeesa]

It's not possible to discuss an idea, philosophical or otherwise, unless the persons doing so use the same language with the same standard set of definitions for each word in that language. If you don't want to use specific English words as defined in the English language dictionary, I'm pretty sure it'll be impossible for us to discuss any idea meaningfully.

[EthniK_ElectriK]

Thats pretty much like your argument.

[Accipia]

Why does compassion need to be universal in your opinion? Am I not compassionate for jumping in the water to save a drowning person, simply because I don't care as much about a bug on the other side of the world as I do them at that point?

[myfunnies420]

You can have more influence on the person in your immediate presence. I don't think it takes a very compassionate person to save someone from drowning, so I wouldn't say that makes you a compassionate person in general. It just makes you a person.

[Accipia]

You didn't really address my question. Why did you define compassion as being universal (all beings, equal amounts)? Is it not possible to be compassionate to a (possibly very large) subset of beings?

[myfunnies420]

Your mind can only focus on a few at a time, the point is to show the some love and compassion to the person that robbed you and killed your dog as the person that supported you and helped you in a dark time.

[coolasafool462]

you can't save everyone, you do the best you can. it doesn't mean you can't be compassionate towards all beings

[Accipia]

I'm not saying that people can't be compassionate. I'm providing a counterpoint to, or asking questions about, OP's view that you are not compassionate until you love every being everywhere to the maximum degree.

[coolasafool462]

OP is using 'compassion' in place of 'universal compassion'. what you're talking about is being selectively compassionate. both are types of compassion, it sounds to me like they were just defining their terms, or at least one of them

[Accipia]

[STA-CITE]>OP is using 'compassion' in place of 'universal compassion'. [END-CITE]That's exactly the question I am asking of OP. Is he?

[coolasafool462]

oh okay, i thought you were asking rhetorically to make a point. my b

[wjbc]

Are you suggesting that in order to identify with the humblest among us you must first have been humbled? I.e., no one identifies with the homeless like someone who has been homeless, with those in prison like someone who has been imprisoned, with someone who has been raped like someone who has been raped, etc.? Because that's a pretty demanding standard for compassion. I think it's possible for someone who has led a blessed life to feel genuine compassion for someone who has not. Sure, it may not be of the same quality as someone who has actually lived through exactly the same horror, but then again not everyone who lives through horror has the same experience. I've met people who were born into poverty and had no compassion for the poor because they thought everyone should be able to pull themselves out of poverty the same way they did.

[myfunnies420]

Nah. I don't think a person has to have been in a situation to have compassion for those that have been. I'm suggesting to be actively compassionate in every day life for both the rich and the poor, measurements made need to be made with no ego. Not something easily possible until a person has had some experience (and possibly practice) of thinking without the ego.

[coolasafool462]

i don't believe in a state of egolessness, especially for westerners. again, awareness is the more attainable goal, absolute states are distractions

[rt79w]

Luckily the act of believing something does not add to its weight in reality.

[coolasafool462]

if you have a very narrow notion of the words 'reality' and 'believe', then I'm sure that's true

[rt79w]

I don't like the word belief or believe as they are defined. They are like assumptions. Reality is a topic I hate talking about because it has no real answers as to what it is. It is always dependant on the experience of the user. I simply imagine reality as being defined as that which we perceive. Since it is impossible to actually understand it any further without being outside of reality.

[coolasafool462]

all words fall short though, all we can do is our best in using them to convey our meaning effectively

[rt79w]

Funny how language helps and hinders at the same time.

[coolasafool462]

i think that the goal is unattainable. we do our best to act compassionately if we see the virtues of it, but to strive for absolute compassion is a distraction, much like attaining enlightenment. awareness is the true goal, but to also be aware that you aren't always going to be perfectly aware

[Yawehg]

The fact that this definition of compassion might be unattainable doesn't mean that it's incorrect or useless. It's like Kant's categorical imperative. The CI can stand even if it means that no truly moral act is ever found.

[coolasafool462]

in what way is the idea of a truly moral act useful?

[myfunnies420]

We are indeed limited in our hardware, absolution is unobtainable generally speaking. But temporary achievement of true compassion is what I was claiming is unobtainable if one hasn't experienced thinking without using the lens of the self.

[coolasafool462]

i think one of those limitations is that of the ego. the western mind in particular has a very strong sense of ego, but i see no reason why a compassionate mind cannot contain one. do you have good reason to believe so?

[myfunnies420]

Indeed so. I wrote about this below so I'll just copy paste this for now. Please let me know your thoughts on this, I appreciate your dialogue. The silence of the ego and identity is essential in creating a "lens" that allows for thought that isn't centred around the self (the "I"). So I'm asserting that anything that starts with "I" is sympathy rather than empathy. You're not taking on the pain directly, you're imagining the pain in terms of yourself. "I feel bad for them." "I am glad that is not me." "I wish..." Are all examples of sympathy rather than empathetic compassion. It is a love of self rather than another.

[coolasafool462]

if you like this way of thinking, and you haven't heard or read him already, J. Krishnamurti is a wonderful source

[myfunnies420]

Thank you, I'm always on the lookout for philosophers that may have already answered the questions I ponder. Edit: I have read some stuff from the World Teacher before, he is a very interesting person if nothing else.

[coolasafool462]

I think that that is a language trick. Language forces us to establish a subject separated from an object by a verb in order to relate two things to each other. After all, if you look at empathy the same way, similarly you would say, 'I know what it feels like to feel that way.' But this is not the true experience, only a conceptualizing of the experience. Before the words comes the feeling, and before the feeling there is no phenomenon to feel or to speak of, because no separation exists. This is how it always is, regardless of whether one is aware of it or not. But the awareness is most beneficial, because it starts you on a path towards being aware of the true prize, which is freedom. And when one is free, compassion is the natural state of your relationship with other beings.

[myfunnies420]

There are parts of your brain that are especially built to feel what another person is feeling, I believe that can give you a sufficient supplant for your own ego in terms of feeling. So I think there is a difference beyond the syntactic (which I agree is often a barrier when talking about this in English, I cannot comment on other languages). With the "I" thing, this is what I was attempting to comment on, are you replacing your ego with theirs, having their needs, their wants, in place of your own and then reacting according to this new sense of need; or are you simply cognising what you're observing and relating that to a known experience? That is the key difference I am trying to drive at. Does that block of text shift your mind at all? Edit: You're 100% right about: [STA-CITE]> And when one is free, compassion is the natural state of your relationship with other beings. [END-CITE]I can see you've had some experiences yourself. Follow up question (that is off topic) for you: Do you think that it is possible for an individual to obtain freedom and inner-peace permanently? No answer necessary, unless it would please you to give one.

[coolasafool462]

[STA-CITE]>are you replacing your ego with theirs, having their needs, their wants, in place of your own and then reacting according to this new sense of need; or are you simply cognising what you're observing and relating that to a known experience? [END-CITE]I'm not sure I see a real difference between these two phenomena. Both seem like superficial ways of addressing the needs of others. In one instance, it sounds like the thought is 'what, from *my* experience, would I feel that I need if I was in their situation?' where as in the other, it appears that the thought is "what, from *their* perspective, do they feel that they need?' These thoughts *may* help to inform you of their actual needs, but I doubt it, because as you have somewhat alluded to, the source of both of those questions are ego-driven, and whether you use their ego or your own, you are still bound by ego. Ego is a part of us, but ego should not hold the reigns. This is the difference in my thinking in terms of ego. It exists, and we should not abuse or be dismissive of it, but we should treat it like what it is, not what it wants to be or what we may want to allow it to be.