Nice replies everyone. It's really interesting hearing your guys' thoughts and experiences with this.

I just read that link that Jammy posted. It's a wonderful read (despite the clear fact that english was not the author's primary language, and it begins to fall appart near the end.). While reading, however, some big questions about the nature of 'self' and the 'ego' arised. I'll number them for clarity in both your reading of them, and your response to them (if you choose to respond that is).
[list]
1. Happiness. Let's say you lose the ego. You are taking away societies views of misery... does this mean that no misery itself will exist? And IF SO (because it does seem like that's what Osho implies: indiference)- wouldn't you be taking away happiness as well? excitement? pleasure altogether? These things won't mean nearly as much to you as they would if you had that "want", and they fill it with that feeling of "success". They will also be devalued because they won't have misery to contrast them. How can you feel any pleasure, any happiness, if you do not feel sadness as well? If there is ANY inclination of pleasure from the state that you were previously at, then removing whatever caused that would cause a declination. If there are any levels, any changes in feelings or emotions at all, then it is impossible, in that sense, that if you can feel happiness to not be able to feel lower than that... and even feel sadness. You would just stay the same always. You would be indifferent. Right?

2. Humor. Would humor exist? We are taught what is funny and what isn't. This is very noticeable across different cultures, whos senses of humor actually vary quite a bit. Since we learned humor by observing, would destruction of the ego result in destruction of humor altogether? What IS humor? Are there universal things that we just simply find humorous? Look at a baby for example... they laugh at a parent when they make silly faces and noises. Then again, is that actually humor? Or is that merely pleasure arising from the attention that they are getting. And the pleasure and "good feelings" cause their emotions to swell up, resulting in them laughing?

3. Care and compassion, Apprection, Love, and Loss. Would we feel any of these things? Let's say someone you love dies, a lack of an ego would result in complete indifference. The ego creates a dependance a reliance on that person... ok, that's simple enough. And if you lose them, you would be completely shattered, you would feel bad... yes I understand that as well. But without the ego, I just wouldn't give a shit about anyone else? I wouldn't care if my family or friends died? In a sense, no. You wouldn't care because if you drop all wants and attachments to everything, you'd be indifferent. But I just can't stand the idea of not caring at all. This is understandable, however, because of course I'm looking at this through my ego, and it clashes with it... Obviously any clashing with the ego will result in unpleasant feelings. In order to feel any "good" emotions towards someone, a lack of that person would need to result in a lowering of your level of your feelings.

4. Pleasure and discomfort do exist without the ego... for example you put a lamp over a cat, and it could roll around, enjoying the heat. If you take it away, it might try to follow the lamp. These are physical feelings however. Can animals feel mental pleasure? Let's say that they can't for now (I know some people will argue against this, but for the sake of this question just go with it.). If mental pleasure for us is the idea of fullfilling a desire, then, removing the desire would result in a complete lack of mental pleasure like this. Wouldn't this just mean that we are just like animals? Isn't the ego what makes us human? Passion, excitement, inspiration, all of those things. As well as pain, and sadness. You can't have one without the other. And to get rid of them all would just turn us into zombies. Sure we'd still be conscious, and aware of everything that happens around us. But we wouldn't care about any of it.

5. This question is more of a slight contradiction (at least I see it as one, and this is where I might need correcting) that I found in the writing.
Originally posted by The Author
When the ego is dropped, you will notice it gone, and you will realize that, and laugh at the sillyness.
Okay... this doesn't seem right to me. I'd assume it would be different: you would just see it, you would be aware of it, and that is all.. nothing more. To look upon it as being silly is a trait of the ego! Nothing is actually SILLY. "Silly" isn't a property that something can hold. It is completely fabricated by our minds, by our egos. You make it so by thinking that it is.

6. This is just an idea. All of these things I mentioned are things that I think would be lacking without an ego. We do NEED things though... right? these societal views DID have to come from somewhere (evolving and spawning from basic human instincts and needs, of course). A lot of these things reflect human nature themselves, and are there form the start (or would they be?). Perhaps by destroying the ego, we are not actually destroying the basic emotional needs, perhaps we are destroying the evolved and built up version of them, that has been built up over time. Or no... this confuses me, because this conflicts with what I've read. Aah! So confused!

7. Wouldnt the desire to get rid of your ego, be an act of the ego itself?
[list]

Feel free to pick and choose questions to answer, I do realize that there are quite a few of them. Also, keep in mind that these are not arguments, they really are JUST questions - I'm trying to understand this better. Regardless of whether you know anything "for certain", just share your views. I'm sure that a back and forth sharing of ideas could help us all better understand this... and better understand ourselves.

Cheers,
Dylan