The Self-Centered Vs The Self-Interested

Well, I took a few days off and now I've gotten myself back to writing. Had to find some positive, mood-enhancing music to get moving, but I'm moving and my brain's falling into flow, so I think I can make a very strong attempt at making today a very strong, positive day. I said in the last post that I wanted to talk about selfishness and, specifically, how I didn't see it as a unequivocal "bad thing" for people to be. I've given some time and effort over to figuring out how exactly I want to do that, and to be honest I struggled a bit. Still am. I feel the resistance of the Collective Unconscious before even starting, the push back of minds not even presented with my argument. And maybe that's part of the problem. We're all so looked into our ideas of how things are and what they are and how they work and blah blah blah that we're completely hostile to the implication that maybe something we've always frowned on isn't actually something worth frowning at. It's funny that being wrong is easier to be than to admit to being wrong. The "wrong-ness" doesn't change, but owning your own "wrong-ness" in front of others just bums us out so much that we avoid it as often as possible, probably whether we realize it or not. Makes you wonder how we can ever hope to apologize or forgive in a culture unwilling to accept a fault or mistake for what it is. Because how can you learn from something and hope to avoid it if you continue to delude yourself about its very nature? Something to think about, huh? Anyway, not today's point. Selfishness!

In order to start this discussion I think I need to talk about where I got the idea originally. I've always been accused of being selfish and/or self-centered. It bugged me for a long time, but into my mid 20's I took a look at it and heard the criticism people were giving me and came to a conclusion. I really am selfish. It was part of my personality, an integral component of the flawed nature through which I experience existence. Despite thinking heavily about others: their wants, needs, etc., I still acted mostly in accordance with what worked out best for me. I didn't do it out of malice or cruelty, it just sort of happened without much conscious awareness. I did have what I'd consider brief, shining moments where I self-sacrificed for someone else, but on the whole M was concerned with M, and that was that. When I did do things I didn't really want to do, I did it to avoid being hassled. But, looking at that now, the not wanting to be hassled was all about me too. When I was realizing all of this, how evil I was at the core of me, I was ill-prepared to handle the revelation. I was in a poor state emotionally and mentally, and in that environment of confusion I floundered and made no growth or progress towards harmony. Later that same year, I picked up Atlas Shrugged, because I had heard it was just one of those books everyone had to read. So I began that colossal undertaking of a book. I liked it, despite some of the points and details which I didn't quite enjoy, the overall experience was quite amazing. It also proved very pertinent as we were just starting into the economic crisis and I still find myself a bit taken a back with how well that book compares to events occurring today. But that's not the focus of today. Atlas Shrugged was the first time I was presented with the idea that good, worthwhile people can be selfish and it wasn't a bad thing. 

The notion for me was revolutionary. The idea that something like the black mark on my soul of being self-centered could in fact be completely acceptable was liberating. So I explored the idea and embraced the philosophy fully. I think about me first, the rest of you second, and I am not ashamed of that. Now, there are a few short-comings of the way it was presented in the book, for example it assumed that it would work mostly in a situation where everyone was super motivated and worked to their full potential all the time. This meant that no one really helped each other, everyone worked for their own good and since everyone was doing it all at the same time, everyone technically benefited. I'm not sure that's a feasible idea, but it's a good goal to aspire to. All of humanity working to the fullness of their potential, transferring all their energy from that place of inspiration into this place we call existence? Sounds great, something to strive for. Anyway, in my life the philosophy of acknowledged self-interest worked in some peculiar ways. I made no attempt to hide the fact that I wasn't going to do anything socially that didn't interest me, and in response I got to do a lot of things I wanted to do far more often than most people. I justified it easily enough, people wouldn't cater to me if they didn't want me there, so their wants are taken care of.

Eventually I fell in love and had to attempt my new perspective in a new situation. I had to understand what love really is, what it can be, and how it changes your thought processes. To me, love is that thing which motivates you to work towards the good of others. Love makes you want what's best for someone else. However, you still get a lot out of it, not the least most notable, the warm and fuzzy feeling of being happy. But love's a contradiction to my philosophy. How can I be focused purely on self-interest if I'm interested in what's best for someone else, even at my own expense? It's here that I think I made my next, big epiphany. Love, in all its glory and splendor, cannot truly be appreciated by someone who isn't thinking about themselves. Hear me out, I promise it sort of makes sense. No one goes into a (healthy) relationship solely to make someone else happy. Your motivation is never "I want to give that person everything and not even get the satisfaction of enjoying it in the slightest!" That doesn't make any sense. You go into it because you want to. You want to be with that someone, you want to make that someone happy, you want to make them smile, you want to give them all sorts of good things, you want to sleep with them....all of it....for YOU! You are the central figure in all of YOUR thinking. Your consciousness is the first stop on your trip of interacting with existence. Love happens to be the emotion, the value, the intangible, un-quantifiable greatness to life that factors into how you view things that makes you want to think of others just as much as you think of yourself.

But the catch here for me is always the you...or the me, in my case. I labor under the belief that all of this is meaningless without the Self. The Self is the thing that lets us relate to all of this, decides what to place value on and what to enjoy, determines our direction and dreams, the Self makes us ourselves. It's like that old saying that you have to learn to love yourself before you can love someone else. I think that may be entirely correct. You'll never find happiness anywhere in life if you're constantly avoiding the things you, yourself, want. You'll never understand love if you can't love the single most important person to your life, you. You have to be the start of all change, the prime motivator in every action you take. At the core of everything, you are you. It's all about you. And I think too many people are afraid to admit that. You can't live your live for someone else, it's not actually possible. In all things experienced, they're all experienced through the Self, the you. We're all beings of Self, I'm not afraid to believe that.

So how, then, do we relate to others you may ask? Through love. Like I mentioned early, love is that thing which allows us to raise the value of other people to near equal heights of ourselves. If you're having difficult with the idea, try this: think of someone/something you love more than anyone else in the world and then try and think of someone/something else that will love your subject as much an in the same particular way as you would. Can another truly treat this object of your affection the same precious way you do? Can it ever be the same? Can that object of your interest ever be truly happy without you?! Let's not get too dramatic. But, as an personal example, I want to have kids some day. I want to have kids because I want to have kids. I already love them, without even knowing them, and I know I will try my hardest, every single fucking day to ensure they continue to have a positive experience with life. But, I want those things. I want to be able to give those things. I want children not for the sake of my children, but for the sake of completing my life, my experience, for the sake of growing my own soul with love. 

So, we're all wicked, selfish people who only want want want for ourselves?! Well, maybe some of us. Here's where I draw the distinction with some clever (or not so clever) word choices: self-centered and self-interested. A Self-centered person only thinks of himself/herself, only wants what's best for himself/herself, and does all of this because of their inability to empathize with other people, to feel a true sense of what love is. A Self-Interested person thinks mostly of herself/himself, wants what's best for herself/himself and those closest to her/him, and understands and empathizes with people in a larger sense due to her/his ability to empathize and having a good handle on what love means and what it can do. I know this comes off a little self-aggrandizing, but I think the distinction really boils down to an inherent ignorance or lack of ignorance. Those ignorant of others will continue to think only of themselves. Those who make strides to truly empathize and understand others remove themselves from that ignorance. Because, despite being creatures of Self, how miserable would it be to be all by ourselves? We're a collection of self-minded beings attempting to coexist in the same space, simultaneously toiling for the good of ourselves and those closest to us. 

The goal, for me at least, is to eventually not be a being of Self, but to be a Self-less being. Selfless is an interesting term when you think about it. We're all inspired to be selfless people because it's such a great thing to be. But look at it, posted down below there. Not bad, but when you get a chance, look up the definitions of "Self" and then "Less." Those two words should not combine to form so glorious an altruistic ideal as "selfless." I don't want to have little or no concern for myself, because without me I have nothing, because if I didn't exist, I would be nothing. I'm an ascension minded person, I've always been intrigued with the idea and am still trying to puzzle ouf my own journey through the needle's eye into a state of higher consciousness and energy. I kept hearing, over and over again, that eventually I'd have to give up the self in order to accomplish that. Believing what I do now about my Self, it certainly seems like a weighty sacrifice, one that would truly en-lighten me. But for now, I'm going to think about myself and the good I want to bring into the world for my own sake before I have to give up entirely those things that matter to me.
Self.less

adjective

having little or no concern for oneself, especially with regard tofame, position, money, etc.; unselfish.