"If the self is only a concept we defend as a fact, then its defense is pure comedy."

Servicing the Lie the Self is Real

Life is the arena that displays the sum of what we do to defend the lie the self is real. 'Ego jousting' should be included in the next olympics because it is what time is mostly about. Defending the lie the self is real is job one in life. Once you realize we defend it to defend the lie we have one, you realize why time is the venue for its defense. If we had one, for real, its defense would be viewed accurately as comedy. There is no need to defend something if it exists. What almost no one wants to know is that we defend it because we know, at some unconscious level of knowing, that it doesn't exist, so in order to defend the lie we have one, its defense is virtually mandatory. Because it doesn't exist, defending it takes vehemence, conviction, bravado, and a host of metaphors that defend it without revealing what is being defended.

Its defense shows up as beliefs, opinions, judgments, assessments, points of view, criticisms, all servicing the lie the self you have has an exclusive inside track on what is real, valid, significant and superior. What is lost in a cloud of defensiveness is the hidden humor that goes with the realization that, because it doesn't exist, filling time defending the lie it does exist is a full time activity. If it existed, defending its existence wouldn't be necessary. On the contrary, defending its existence with such persistence is, quite frankly, suspicious. It looks like a case of "me thinks thou doth protest too much." Over-kill should be sufficient for the universal eyebrow to go up in astonishment. If the self doesn't exist, then how many arguments have merit? How many arguments have any place to go if the self doesn't exist? Language is lost in a sea of redundancy if all arguments have, as their source, the defense of the lie the self is real.

If the self is only a concept we defend as a fact, then its defense is pure comedy. Do we insist "my God is better than your God" because that's true, or because the lie the self exists depends on the endless reiteration for its existence. Is the God argument even about God, or is it one more disguised metaphor to service the lie the self is real? Almost no one wants to know the function of language is to service the lie the self is real, because if we knew that, engaging in that activity would be viewed accurately as circular and redundant. If something isn't true, when will reiteration prove it is true? The last thing we want to know is that we defend it because we already know its defense is indefensible. Fear provides indirect proof that the defense of a lie is indefensible. No one can prove what doesn't exist, exists, which makes its defense a universal charade.

Unfortunately, the defense of the lie the self is real often turns very ugly. Reality features how the defense of the lie the self is real often turns into a nightmare, like war, for example. What is any war really about? The last thing we want to know is that war is the ultimate defense of the lie the self is real. Is love of country about country, or does it document a self must exist to love or hate things? If you attack us, what will happen to us if we don't retaliate, or obliterate you in the name of survival? What seeks to survive: who we are, or who we insist we are? If the self existed, its defense would be unnecessary, which might make all wars seem, quite frankly, silly.

The real question (behind the question) is what makes the defense of the lie the self is real such an alarming topic? Why do we treat the defense of the lie the self is real as "The Main Event" in our reality? If permitted, it's worth wondering what would happen to us if it turned out to be true that there is no such thing as 'the self?' If the self doesn't exist, how much good comes from filling time with its defense, and how would you fill time if you didn't have to argue for its existence?