The Ego as a Side-Effect: Why We Only Think We’re Incomplete
Most Western philosophy treats "seeking" as something essential to human consciousness. Sartre, for example, said that consciousness is always "for-itself" — always projected toward something, always incomplete, always reaching.
But here's the twist: what if he wasn't describing an ontological truth at all? What if he was just capturing the psychological atmosphere of his time?
If you're born into a culture built on the separation between the sacred and the profane — where meaning is imagined as something "above," "beyond," or "after" life — then of course consciousness will feel like it's always chasing something. You're conditioned from birth to believe that what you truly are isn't here yet, that fulfillment is external, that value is elsewhere.
Under that paradigm, the human being naturally experiences itself as lacking.
And that feeling of lack becomes what we call the ego.
So the whole structure ends up like this:
You assume the sacred is outside you.
That creates the sense of being "profane," incomplete.
That incompleteness generates the constant search.
And the search gets mistaken for the nature of consciousness itself.
Sartre took this culturally-produced restlessness and treated it as a universal law.
But what if it isn't?
What if consciousness doesn't inherently chase anything? What if the "seeking" is just a side-effect of believing you're separate from what you already are?
In other words:
the ego might not be the root of human existence — it might just be the shadow cast by a belief system.
When the idea of separation dissolves, the compulsive search dissolves with it.
And what's left isn't some grand metaphysical mystery — it's simply awareness being itself, without running after a finish line that never existed.
