Egocentrism

Return

Related to anthropomorphism, but whose consequences are far more counterproductive to any effort of objectivity, egocentrism is the tendency to reference oneself as the center, and perhaps even the purpose, of all things else. We also exhibit a species-level collective version of egocentrism with the same narcissist symptoms.

A historically classic example of egocentrism was the commonly accepted belief that the Earth-- since it is our ‘home’-- was the center of the universe, around which everything else revolved. Many academicians faced scorn, ridicule, and worse for daring to suggest otherwise until the sheer weight of demonstrable science finally swayed the educated, and eventually the masses.

What an elegant way of noting that we tend to believe what we want to believe. In today’s world, we are no less egocentric. Historical and traditional belief systems, attitudes, and our fundamental perspective of our self-defined importance in this universe betrays our determination to view nearly everything in terms of ourselves.

For instance, consider the notion of land ownership. How many of us embrace the idea that we ‘own’ this planet-- lot by lot, parcel by parcel, province by province, region by region, country by country?

This perception of ownership extends to any and all other concepts of property as well, whether tangible or intangible, such as personal property, intellectual property, control of plants and animals, and so on.

Even celestial bodies are not safe, despite attempts to protect them by the United Nations that in 1967 sponsored the ‘Outer Space Treaty’, whose purpose was to enjoin any nation from declaring ownership of celestial bodies by declaring them to be a ‘common heritage of mankind’. However, Mr. Dennis Hope, an American  entrepreneur, noted that the treaty obligated the signed countries, but not individuals. In 1980 he claimed the moon and created the ‘Lunar Embassy Commission’. In the years since, he claims to have earned a small fortune selling millions of moon-acres to interested parties, including three ex-U.S. Presidents.

Historically, many cultures and religions rationalize that even a man’s wife and children are a form of property that can be controlled, bought, and sold. The widespread existence of human slavery that exists even today in some parts of the world requires an acceptance of similar ownership principles.

Animals that live free in their environment are captured and kept in cages merely for our observational curiosity, or ‘trained’ as amusements in circuses and other public presentations. The phenomenon of indiscriminately killing living things-- in a manner completely unrelated to the need for food, defense, security, or materials-- as a ‘sport’ to which we are entitled can only exist by virtue of our flawed perception that this planet and all upon it-- including all life forms-- is our playground to do with as we please.

Vedanta, a spiritual philosophy that laid the foundations for Hinduism, shares many fundamental assumptions with the principles of Derivism. No surprisingly, then, Vedantism suggests that the concept of ownership exists only because one perceives himself as separate from the rest of the universe. To claim ownership of an object, then, is to assimilate it as an integral extension of himself.

The fundamental platform of Vedanta (and medieval Hinduism as well) is that only one ultimate entity exists, which they call Brahman, and thus the concept of ownership by any lesser entities is meaningless.

Derivism understands that ownership is purely an artificial abstract, merely a civil agreement among human beings to honor claims of exclusive entitlement of objects among each other. Our egocentrism, unfortunately, exaggerates that abstract concept to a sense of absolute entitlement of possession and use. Thus, we say, “It is mine!” Many of us in this modern world have had the luxury of enjoying this flawed view all our life. Any citizen of a troubled government, however, realistically understands all to well that ownership is a fragile abstract that can be easily, casually, and instantly swept away by the absence of enforceability, the whim of law, or the lack thereof.

Even most-- if not all-- languages betray how completely we insulate ourselves from ‘all things else’. In English, there is ‘everyone’, and then there is ‘everything’ else. There is ‘anyone’, and then there is ‘anything’ else. This dichotomy clearly demonstrates our egocentric perspective of reality that there is the one (that being any of us, of course) and then there is any other thing (that being all objects that are not us, of course).

Without a doubt, our heaviest burden in trying to comprehend the larger questions, to gain a higher, more encompassing perspective, is the difficulty we have in realizing that we are no more-- and no less-- special and unique in this universe than anything else; that our particular level of existence and participation within the universal concept is no more-- and no less-- essential in the greater  scheme of things; and most importantly, that the universe does not exist apart from us. We are not in the universe-- we are an integral part of the universe. Nor is any part of the universe  ours to ‘own’-- or ignore-- at our egocentric whim. Not only is any part of the universe not ours, but in fact the universe owns us in the sense that we are a part of it, not apart from it.

Universal concepts require a universal perspective. Egocentrism, by its very definition, is the antithesis of an all-encompassing viewpoint. It is the grand self-delusion that so severely limits our ability to step outside of ourselves to see the larger picture.

Return