Experiences have led me to a “phenomenological discovery” that confirms the Buddhist notion of Anatta ( the lack of a stable irreducible subject ). However, the absence of a “core self” does not invalidate the existence of my ever-changing ephermal self. If anything, I feel the ego is more dynamic and treated with “objective discernment”.

Illusory as it maybe (in the metaphysical sense), having a sense of self is necessary to meaningfully act in the world. An ego-less person would be troubled with changing masks and playing characters to act in the world. But endurance is needed for long-term action and requires a denser psychological stratatum that can persist through time.

At minimum, I must elevate my perspective and self-interest contextually in order to act with meaningful conviction.

For the young person (like me) who seeks to produce in the world, I think it is wiser to mend one’s ego to be elastic than to lose it.

Wrote an answer about this a while back:
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Jung-say-individuation-is-a-task-better-to-be-undertaken-in-the-second-half-of-life-What-would-happen-if-a-20-year-old-decides-to-embark-on-the-path-to-individuation?srid=3hSO