As Freud's influence spread, the word "ego" started appearing in spiritual discourse.

If "ego" has any meaning, it would refer to something like "the characteristic patterns of an individual in an attempt to stabilize patterns of selfing".

"Ego" is used in three deplorable ways:

• "The ego", as if patterns of stabilizing selfing are an entity, like a possessing demon.

• "Ego", as if these patterns have well-defined shape and are similar across individuals

• "Egoity", as if these patterns are a semi-intentional action

Three erroneous presumptions are of discernability, centrality, and disease:

• Discernability: that patterns of stabilizing selfing are discernable

• Centrality: that these patterns are of central importance

• Disease: that these patterns are severe matters that must be dealt with.

The framework of considering patterns of stabilizing selfing as discernable, central, and as disease yields cultures of authoritarian spirituality.

Relaxing and transforming these patterns may be a rewarding activity (it is for me), but it is a craft activity, like breakdancing.

In sum: introducing "ego" into spiritual discourse has led to a particular obnoxiousness, most visible in the affliction of those who bemoan "their ego" or "their egoity" and in the teachers who criticize "ego". It is a sign of rot in any spiritual discourse in which it occurs.