This post is really three seperate rants/issues all converging into one general theory. I don't really know how I'm going to go about organizing my thoughts. Hopefully, in a future form of blogging, we'll be able to incorporate the Matrix way of learning and just be able to instantly absorb all information. Because, really, these thoughts don't lend themselves to a nice and neat A-to-B-to-C way of thinking.

Starting from (what i believe to be) the top, I think human existence is dominated by a feeling of insignicance. The fear of mortality, of being alone, of not mattering all creates an overwhelming feeling of insecurity. Insecurity may be the only real feeling that one can possess. It might be the driving force in all of human action. The only difference is how each individual deals with their insecurity. The defense mechanisms that one develops, the vices that control them, and so on and so forth.

Now, from what I understand about Carl Jung's theory on the counter-ego / shadow generally only comes from the lyrics of a song. Granted, it's the greatest song of all time and people's interpretation of the song has litterally changed my life, but still, take everything I'm about to say with a huge grain of salt. Perhaps some day i'll have the time to read more about Jung's theory, but today is not that day. But, that being said, I think that his counter-ego only addresses the negative things about one's pysche. The negative stuff that we have to hide from our conscious to protect ourselves. Thus, the idea that people are self-destructive in an attempt to deal with their own securities is a pretty unoriginal theory. The girl who dates a lot of guys in order to make herself feel pretty, the person who intentionally treats people poorly b/c he fears being rejected, it's all textbook and cliched.

What I want to examine is whether any of the non-self-destructive (read: good) things about our daily lives are also a defense-mechanism to deal with our own insecurities. Thus, the ulimate question is posed as this: Is there anything "real" in human nature other than our counter-ego? Does anything cast Jung's shadow, or is the shadow the end all, be all, of all existence? Is it impossible to find meaning in anything?

Ok, so technically it's not an "ultimate" question b/c there are many subparts.

The seinfeld episode where the old lady, with the pony, dies was on yesterday. The gang (ugh, i hate referring to Kramer, George, Elaine, and Jerry as the gang, but i was too lazy to type out their names) was at the coffee shop, doing what everyone does when faced with death. "are we wasting our lives, what should we be doing, etc etc." Elaine asks if having coffee is wasting life. "can't people have coffee?" And of course, as was Larry and Jerry's intention, this scene got me to thinking along the Nietshce way of thinking.

If you start with the assumption that nothing really has meaning other than as a defense mechanism, then it's easier to explain why humans spend so much time focused on the insignificant. For example, I spend an extrodiary amount of time focused on Baseball. I derive great pleasure from it, and it's more of an obsession than a hobby. But, rationally speaking, i know it's insignificant. I was "destroyed" when the yankees lost to the redsox, but obviously i'm logical enough to know that it really had absolutely zero impact on my life or the world around me.

And i'm also rational enough to understand why i care so much about baseball. B/c in the end, i know it's just a diversion that i use to get away from the real problems of society. Being liberal is a very tasking existence. I know most of you will think that i go overboard w/ the emails, rants, etc etc but trust me when i say that how much I care vs. how much i SHOULD care are two hugely different quantities. Of course I get riled up when I learn of more injustices that plague us daily and how this country (and world) is in a downward spiral. but boy, aint that Jeter overated defensively?

And while it's easy to realize that my passion for sports isn't "real", the next question is whether any hobby/passion/interest that anyone feels is equally unreal. Is wanting to get married, have 2.4 kids, and the white fence real? Or is what people trick themselves into thinking what's important to them. How many people marry b/c they've really found their soul mate compared to how many people get married b/c their in their 20's and it's the thing to do? I forget the numbers, but it's something like 60% of married men and 40% of married women cheat. So, if i'm understanding things correctly, people view marriage as the institution that completes their existence and gives their life meaning, and then use infidelity as the way to fill the void that their empty marriage leaves.

Take any interest that you think is geniune, whether it's in music, someone else, having kids, sports, friends, knowledge, etc etc and ask if it's "really" important. There are extreme examples of course (someone with a huge stamp collection, someone with 20 cats, whatever), but our our interests any less absurd? So you like to listen to great music, and go to shows in the city where you discover original music? Does that really matter? And why does it matter? b/c during those 3 hours you are at the show you are happy? Is that really happiness or just the absence of misery?

I guess what i'm asking is, in order for happiness to be geniune, does it have to be based on something that is real (read: significant). B/c, in the long run, i don't find any real significance in anything. So, if it comes down to a "but it makes me happy" argument, isn't that the definition of superfical and insignifcant? And even if the thing that makes you happy is more _____ (can't think of the word. not 'complex'....hmm, maybe 'meaty') like raising a family, or being an activist, i'm still hestitant to make the next connection that it's important.

I'm starting to really believe in the cliche that there's no such thing as a selfless act. I think that some people are better at distorting their own selfishness. The person who spends so much time caring about something "noble" is still, when push comes to shove, spending their time and energy focused on something. And, getting back to my original theory, i think focusing on something, ANYTHING, is just a defense mechanism so one doesn't focus on their own insignifcance. B/c, and maybe this is just my own ego out of control, i really think that that's the ONLY thing that people really care about.

But what do i know?