The four facets described in the article are qualities that can be practiced, especially mindfulness and perspective taking. So long as the practice is done deliberately and evaluated honestly, I think a quiet ego is an unavoidable result. (A hint: look out for spasms of defensiveness or other hypocrisy in yourself, since these are exactly the parts which deserve more attention.[1] Don't miss your responses to noticing these things, either. Also look for exactly what in the world you identify with, and what process is involved in this identification, when you refer to 'I'.)
For something more from a particular tradition, "Mindfulness in Plain English" is a reasonably good start.
One confusing thing is the use of the word "ego," by the way. A good working definition is "a belief that the self is more than a mental construct," and so "loud ego" refers to putting this belief at the forefront of one's life. Note that this has nothing to do with believing in a self, the construct of self most certainly exists[2] and is useful (though likely not in the way you think it does or is). This is in contrast to Freudian 'ego' which is, as I understand it, the mediator between superego and subconscious. Like, as an analogy, your stomach is an important organ, but it has its rightful place. There's no need for structuring your life around, elevating, and identifying with the stomach as the seat of conscious experience. (Though we do structure our lives around eating. The stomach, digestive system, and body still need food to exist after all...)
[1] A related feeling which I'm sure people in the knowledge business would recognize is that unpleasant sensation of coming into contact with something confusing. If the goal is understanding a subject, then this is a good indicator for the things which could use more work, but it is surprising how resistant we can be to realizing it: it's as if confusing things sometimes become invisible!
[2] I'm ontologically uncomfortable to be categorically claiming this, but it seems true enough to me.
@kmill on [1] Shame is a curious blend of aversion and ignorance. The dynamic of shame is such that it will actively hide things from you. This "hiding" results in an apparent invisibility (ignorance, that which you ignore).
It's possible to strip out the reaction of shame from confusion. At which point, it will feel like a mental block where things just don't have much clarity and things are not connecting, but you're no longer treating it as something to hide from others.
Comments
The four facets described in the article are qualities that can be practiced, especially mindfulness and perspective taking. So long as the practice is done deliberately and evaluated honestly, I think a quiet ego is an unavoidable result. (A hint: look out for spasms of defensiveness or other hypocrisy in yourself, since these are exactly the parts which deserve more attention.[1] Don't miss your responses to noticing these things, either. Also look for exactly what in the world you identify with, and what process is involved in this identification, when you refer to 'I'.)
For something more from a particular tradition, "Mindfulness in Plain English" is a reasonably good start.
One confusing thing is the use of the word "ego," by the way. A good working definition is "a belief that the self is more than a mental construct," and so "loud ego" refers to putting this belief at the forefront of one's life. Note that this has nothing to do with believing in a self, the construct of self most certainly exists[2] and is useful (though likely not in the way you think it does or is). This is in contrast to Freudian 'ego' which is, as I understand it, the mediator between superego and subconscious. Like, as an analogy, your stomach is an important organ, but it has its rightful place. There's no need for structuring your life around, elevating, and identifying with the stomach as the seat of conscious experience. (Though we do structure our lives around eating. The stomach, digestive system, and body still need food to exist after all...)
[1] A related feeling which I'm sure people in the knowledge business would recognize is that unpleasant sensation of coming into contact with something confusing. If the goal is understanding a subject, then this is a good indicator for the things which could use more work, but it is surprising how resistant we can be to realizing it: it's as if confusing things sometimes become invisible!
[2] I'm ontologically uncomfortable to be categorically claiming this, but it seems true enough to me.
@kmill on [1] Shame is a curious blend of aversion and ignorance. The dynamic of shame is such that it will actively hide things from you. This "hiding" results in an apparent invisibility (ignorance, that which you ignore).
It's possible to strip out the reaction of shame from confusion. At which point, it will feel like a mental block where things just don't have much clarity and things are not connecting, but you're no longer treating it as something to hide from others.