the Observing Ego: a narrative of my existence, part 2

Life is not about finding yourself; it’s about “creating” your self. I realize now that I am in a constant state of self-monitoring, while at the same time unfazed by peoples reactions to who or what I have become. In addition to being ultra postmodern, I am also a combination of my compulsions, my idealistic “self” and my natural rebelliousness. When an old person gets really close to me, I want to hug them. Sometimes when I’m talking to an old lady at the store or in a bank, I imagine myself caressing her delicate bony shoulders while she reminisces of 10 cent pies and motor vehicles you have to crank by hand to get started. When I shake hands with a really old fellow it is so much more than visualizing myself gripping a flaccid skin bag full of clothespins. It’s a poignant reminder of inevitability; a glimpse of an unavoidable future. I have always believed that the certainty of death would influence people to be less narcissistic, but instead I think it does just the opposite; aided by a relentless campaign of social conditioning. In the mid-eighties, some genius came up with the term politically correct to describe the language used by politicians to keep from alienating potential voters. Isn’t it ironic that most of them typically end up alienating voters anyway by a much more sinister means? I’m not politically correct. I guess that’s why I’m not into politics.
If I am giving a description of someone who is fat - and I describe him or her as being fat, in some people’s minds I am a total jerk, even though that is the proper medical term. Having too many fat cells means you're fat. Overweight may not make sense depending on the individual. Obese is more of an affirmative, as in “Was he fat? No dude, he was obese!” It’s as if the word itself has a ghastly connotation. Don't get me wrong, I use the same language in reference to myself; ie "I'm too fat for my stylish clothes, so I have to wear MMA workout jumpsuits". I am completely discouraged by my mother from using this type of language. She assures me that I am hurting peoples feelings. I understand what she means, but it is hard to empathize because I have become detached from any feelings of guilt. Let me explain what I mean. For instance, I am an extremely arrogant person.
However, I don’t have a vain bone in my body. Vanity in men is extremely repulsive to me. In my experience, vain men cannot be trusted. It is fair to say that the result of social conditioning has influenced my point of view. For example, humans are the only species of animal in which the female is seen as more beautiful. Look at a peacock as compared to a peahen. Look at a male lion. His mane is symbolic, as if it were some kind of crowning feature. Set in juxtaposition the human male is bland and drab when contrasted with the female. I happen to believe in a concept called intelligent design so I do not think this is an accident. I embrace the aesthetic inequalities between women and men, whether it’s right or wrong to think this way. Overall, women should be prettier than men. Under no circumstance would I want to be the pretty one in a relationship. Of course I don’t feel I have to worry about that. I have always felt that I was at least a little funny looking. I don’t think I’m necessarily “ugly” or resemble monkey nuts at all but I don’t think I’m movie star quality.
This is another point of discontent with my mother as it probably is for most mothers. Although I know she wants me to be a good person, I think she believes through her silent dogma that trace elements of greed and arrogance and perhaps even vanity may actually lead to virtuous acts because they combine to build strength of character in the face of extreme adversity. This would seem to be a direct contradiction to my system of values; that spirituality, karma, positive energy and the true spirit of Christianity builds character with no inclusion of negative energy. I will always believe that to be true, but what you must remember is that you cannot measure concepts like virtue and sin by their textbook definition alone. You must measure them by their intrinsic value to the individual. One man’s greed is another man’s ambition. One man’s vanity is another man’s self-opinion. One man’s arrogance is another man’s confidence and so on. Philosophers and psychiatrists previously referred to this practice as selectivism.
My biggest problem in social situations is that I am a complete anti-idealist. It is almost impossible for me to accept bits and pieces of virtue and sin in order to string them together to form some type of cohesive idealistic model. Instead I seem to embrace the particulars of these concepts entirely in order to justify my behavioral patterns. I see both my arrogance and my awareness of it as a necessity. Perhaps another man’s vanity is just as much of a necessity to him. If that is the case, then my distrust is based partially on self-reference criteria, which would actually make sense. In regards to self-consciousness I am in the unique position of not being concerned with the opinions of others but extremely concerned with my self-opinion. I am only self-conscious when I’m alone. According to most philosophers’ theories, this means that I am a highly introspective person. Sigmund Freud referred to this as “the bathtub self”. When I am by myself I am extremely cognizant of my being which includes my appearance. My appearance to “whom” however is the reason for my introspective thoughts.
I am one person, but I am more than one persona. I am I, I am also me and I am myself. The concept of “self” is what is known as the observing ego. Suddenly “talking to your self” doesn’t seem so strange does it? It also makes much more sense that “thinking aloud” which makes no sense at all. I still seem to present a slight contradiction in that I have complete self-awareness without being concerned about the judgments of others. It is almost like putting on a tuxedo to stay home and watch television.
All of the sudden I realize why. I have built an idealistic version of myself in my mind and my self-awareness is based solely on that. From this point of view I could be considered some type of idealist, but of an esoteric nature. If that sounds too convenient that’s probably because it is. However, plausible deniability has never appealed to me because I don’t care what people think anyway. If I want to start a religion that no one else can join or even hear about, so be it.
My observing ego belongs to me and it may observe whatever it would like. I don’t feel that I need to justify that, but I can easily explain it. Since I was a child, I have been creating a mental state of inherent resistance to social conformity. I have a default setting in my brain that causes me to “go my own way” on several key principles and concepts of sociology, interpersonal relationships and self-consciousness. Now, I don’t mean that I wish I were some reclusive weirdo who doesn’t believe in electricity or some “crank” that builds his own house in the middle of the forest without any tools and eats whatever he can find or kill. Although, I could do that if I wanted to. I mean, don’t let the smooth taste fool you. I’m hard like a brick - and fast, like one of those big mountain cats. You wouldn’t even know where I was until it’s too late. But what I’m talking about is an automatic sense of complete individuality. It is almost as if every other person on earth is my reverse barometer. Even if I seem to have a few things in common with more than a few people, I put a twist or spin on them somehow. My look, my behavior, my speech, my attitude – all uniquely individual yet tailored as much as possible in order to meet the minimum requirements or criteria for basic human interaction.