Egotistical. Self-centred. Selfish. These words have negative connotations, and for good reason. But perhaps reason is confused - confused with pre-determined semantics, and hence inherently tied to the emotion of language [1]. This 'article' sets out to re-examine the idea of "selfishness", the role the ego plays, and the sheer importance that the self entails in relation to interacting with the world around us.

To set the mood, I think a verse of the Tao T Ching is in order. Whenever something "profound and deeply insightful" is entered into, you can guarantee that the Tao Te Ching has beaten you to it. Hence:

"Those who know others are intelligent;
those who know themselves are truly wise."

-- Tao Te Ching, 33. [2]

This should immediately be followed up by some Chuang-Tzu [3]:

"To have been cast in this human form is to us already a source of joy."

The role of the self is a complicated, yet simple one. It is complicated because we see ourselves in one particular light - that of *expectation*. This expectation is the opposite of what many spiritualities and religions tell us to obtain - that is, "enlightenment" comes with the *sacrifice* of the self: in order to gain happiness, one must no longer think of oneself.

But this *is* complicated. Why? Because it is also counter-intuitive, and intuition is correct 99% of the time.

-- To reach a state of selflessness, one must first obtain a state of self*ish*ness.--

Let us recount the Chuang-Tzu:

"To have been cast in this human form is to us already a source of joy."

In other words, the form that we are in is the form that we are most happy in - this is a *truism* that brings with it realisation, and the achievement of the paradox that is selfish selflessness.

I can put it no simpler than this: Being happy with oneself removes the barrier to understanding. To understand other people, we must first be happy with ourself.

Consider anger. Anger is *merely* the smoke, whilst the flames are the pity one feels for oneself - a *lack* of selfishness. But this lack of selfishness is an ambiguous concept. For there are 2 leaders - firstly, the "self" which selfishness, in its "good" form, refers to, and the second kind of self - the self that is created in us and that we feel we must live up to. The *expected self*.

Discerning between the two is easy. It is made "difficult" through various biological concerns that mean *who we know we are* is smartly outpaced by *who we think we should be*. In this sense, then, we pay far more attention to this *externally* decided image of the self, rather than to the *internal* "vision" of that which we know to be true. We are, in effect, not selfish enough.

"Know Thyself". A short, but wise saying that carries more implications with it than its limited length would otherwise disclose. For if anger comes from the unhappiness within, then patience and the tolerance that is necessary for *understanding* rather than *blaming* are bred of the tolerance of the self that can only be achieved by the paying of attention that "selfishness" brings.

Blame and anger are external projections of an internal affair. Understanding, on the other hand, is an internal processing set free through the alternative state of internal affairs. In order to look after the environment, one must first accept that any judgement of the environment is nothing to do with the environment. Acceptance of others comes through acceptance of the self, and with acceptance comes contentment.

[1]: www.exmosis.net/node.LanguageIsCulture
[2]: www.wam.umd.edu/~stwright/...eChing.html
[3]: www.religiousworlds.com/taoism...t2.html