"Truth resides on the other side of this question, just waiting for you to explore it."
The debate rages on with regard to the question, “what is happiness,” and if it exists, “how can we experience it more often?” The whole debate is bogus, and, actually, quite comedic, because the premise for the debate rests on the fiction it is something people experience, don’t experience, lose, find, achieve, fail to achieve, etc, etc. If the premise is bogus, how can conclusions be valid? If the premise for the debate isn’t valid, all conclusions are strangely inept, inadequate, mysterious, and endlessly unresolved. The conclusions remain false until we, at least, play with the possibility the premises for the debate are false. Once you retrieve that insight, you realize why the debate will never go anywhere. As long as the premises are false, the probability of ever seeing the truth about the concept of happiness is zero. Truth discloses why we are more than willing to put up with ambiguity: we don’t want to know the true origin of happiness if it involves changing our view about reality. Reality features us defending our view of reality as job one in life.
The problem is, we are willing to endure false, ambiguous conclusions, in defense of the lie the premises for the debate are valid. The truth is, we don’t want to retrieve the fact the premises for the debate are false because life, as we define it, is predicated on the fiction life is all about people. If truth includes the fact that’s not true, then “hell will freeze over” before we identify who has or doesn’t have ‘happiness,’ and what makes its presence, as an experience, so ‘mysterious.’ The mystery disappears the minute you identify who ‘experiences’ it or not, and what runs the ‘experience.’
Time accurately displays what kind of self you defend as real to defend the fiction you are the person you portray in ‘our’ reality. The self we invent falls somewhere between a positive or negative self, a ‘good’ one, or a ‘bad’ one. If the self you keep in place as real is a positive, okay self, the outcome will manifest as ‘happiness.’ For those who enjoy a ‘positive self,’ the cup is always half full. Once they evolve a ‘positive self,’ it defines who they insist they are: a “happy person.” You can fill time with negative, disaster talk, and nothing can knock them out of the positive space they occupy, not even with talk about “death.” They don’t fill time with high level seriousness. They are appropriate, but their positive stance in life defines who they insist they are. They can listen to those who fill time nested in “The Victim Parody,” but they don’t slide into seriousness. The ‘positive self’ locks them into a positive view about everyone and everything. They don’t discuss ‘happiness,” they are what it is, day in and day out. They are sympathetic to those who fill time living the life of a ‘negative self,’ but they don’t judge it negatively; they try to get others to “look on the bright side of life.”
Once we lock into your rendition of the self, the unconscious mind will dictate who becomes part of your inner circle. Those who advocate violence, for example, find other selves who advocate violence. A gang is united by the negative self they all share in common. Marriage is mostly about ‘finding a compatible self to live with,’ either in defense of the negative self, or to promote mutual happiness. The self we invent defines the space we occupy.
We aren’t born with a self. Genetics aside, the self we invent represents the set of conclusions we assemble to define the part we get to play, for a lifetime, or until we challenge the authenticity of the self that runs our behavior. If you arrive at the conclusion you have a ‘bad self,’ this becomes the gyro that dictates how you fill time with the self you invented. The self we invent structures the rules that run the computer from that point on, or until we challenge the authenticity of the data that runs us. Did your parents actually ‘abandon you,’ or is this a conclusion you reiterate in defense of the lie the self is real, and not invented? Because you are ‘adopted,’ does that mean your mother carelessly ‘gave you away,’ or is this a conclusion you can occupy from now on to defend the fiction the self is real, and that the one you insist you have is ‘worthless,’ as depicted by “low esteem,” and ‘unhappiness’ as a way of life?
Happiness is a function of the self you keep in place to play the part of a certain kind of person, somewhere between okay and not okay, and everything in between these two extremes. Once this dynamic comes into focus, you realize that a ‘happy person’ fills time with positive behavior and positive feelings because it is run by a positive identify, featuring a ‘positive self.’ You can’t defend the lie you are a ‘happy person’ while stuck in the lie you have a ‘bad self.’ This is a contradiction in terms, and the brain, as a computer, displays a fierce loyalty to defend the data that runs our behavior, regardless of whether the data are true or false. We are at the mercy of the data that runs the identity we occupy, day in and day out. When was the last time you successfully talked a seriously depressed individual out of their unhappiness? The stance we assume in life is run by the self we keep in place as our piece on the game board.
If you get to this point in discovery, you begin to wonder why the brain works so hard to keep everything really real? If our identity is kept in place with the self we invent, then how can we be who we insist we are? Truth resides on the other side of this question, just waiting for you to explore it.