Jim,
I think he meant it not to offend somebody, but he referred to spirtual arguments, philosophies claiming that our idea of our ordinary everyday-self is just a construction, is an illusion. That also is why I referred to that reply of his myself above, in the way I did (#49). Ideas about the illusory nature of self and ego as expressed in for example Christian mysticism and Buddhism, point at something important, which nevertheless is easy to be misunderstood and taken as something luring people on a false track. Radical constructivism, Buddhist psychological models, Christian mystic "heresies" - all that are two-sided swords that can both cure or cut all too easily. Many people walk into the many traps left and right of these things. If I assess right what he wanted to aim at with his words, he is right in so far that we in the West indeed base on a osychology that overrates the meaning and reality of an individual ego.
However, just declaring the ego void and meaningless, also does not cut it. It serves a vital purpose.
It's - difficult... while at the same time it is not difficult at all.
