> I say ego is independent. I agree. but I find the concept of "ego" problematic. The concept arises from Freud, and I think the author's explanation of ego a

> I say ego is independent. I agree. but I find the concept of "ego" problematic. The concept arises from Freud, and I think the author's explanation of ego as a boundary is a fair presentation of Freud's conception. And Freud's model is fairly convincing. It has a lot of explanatory power, but it doesn't make many testable predictions; it might be so, but it might not. The word "ego" is used a lot by Buddhists, and I think the way they use it is unhelpful; they use it mainly to mean the belief in a permanent, abiding self. But they also use it to mean selfishness, the desire for power and so on. I take it to refer to the psychological structures we build to protect us from psychological threats. In that sense, I think it's useful to think of the ego as a boundary. So I accept the idea of ego as a protection mechanism. But I think it's a natural and unavoidable response to interacting with a world full of psychological threats; I don't think your metaphysical beliefs are going to have much effect on such fundamental self-protection instincts. On the contrary, my view is that your metaphysical beliefs will be a reflection of your psychological attitude to the world around you. I don't think that faith makes you a better person.