That's true, it's only assumptions. I assume you have ego because I have it, because I think a lot have it and here as well. It seems to be such a norm.

The problem was that the issue we were talking wasn't whether I have ego but whether I have a single concept of "I" or self identity. I actually don't have an attachment to a single concept of self identity but I consciously use different one's at different times.

We go to those that are enlightened, they do not come to us.

That seems like a familar sentiment, but if that's what you believe in what brought you here? Why do you think you took a journey to this place? Are you aware of the reasons that brought you here? If so, what do you think they are?

Is there anybody who you consider enlighened and whom you meet in person to learn from them and spent actual time learning from them?

That seems like a strawman.

It's a general pattern to which some people fall victim. To what extend you fall victim to it might be more questionable.

Maybe it was because of the word "enlightened/unenlightened/enlightenment"?

It's because of seeing the state of total detachment as the goal. I don't see it as a desireable state to sit in a monastery in a state of compassion doing nothing. I see it as a more desirable state to be connected to the world. I like having a mind. It's useful for dealing with the world.

I also consider the word enlightenment to be no secular word. It also mixes a few different notions. It mixes the state that a person has who can lead a good meditation. Then there's the notion of ego-detachement. There's letting go of karma and reaching a samadi experience.

While we are with the samadi experience, in hypnosis circles there a state that get's described this way called Esdaile state. Esdaile was a doctor who did amputations without anesthetica. I'm not sure to what extend he succeeded putting patients in that state but it's funny to think of the state of eternal bliss being used for the practical prupose of being able to to amputation surgeries.