Happiness is. . .Curiosity. Being driven to explore. Creating something out of a mash up of materials. Being occasionally surprised by science and art. Finding the impulse to think about and do things other than focusing energy on social manipulation.
Although, I suppose being a social manipulator could be a form of happiness, and driven by a curiosity to see what happens when I do X. But thats a bit sociopathic and clinical. Most social manipulators do so because they are insecure, and are driven by a need for power. Or because it is the only way some people know how to be in the world. Sometimes this is defined as narcissism- being self-centered with little regard for the feelings or well being of others.
But what about people who are not interested in what is often the soap opera of life, necessary for a complex dart board of human relations (various levels of intimacy from the center out)?
What spurred this line of thought, you ask? I enjoy the show House. Husband claims (sometimes to insult me, sometimes to praise) that if I were male I would be like House. At first I laughed. I am not nearly that smart Also, the show can be silly. But I still like the character and Hugh Laurie acts the heck out of the role. I also realize that the constant sociopathic manipulation that the character participates in is something I just cant find time to do; there are way too many things Id rather be doing. For example, I am driven by a curiosity that I call itchy feet, the need to travel. Even if it is only to get to know every dirt road, fire road, black top and driveway in a 30-mile radius (or more when I did not live in a geographic fish bowl). I also read arcane, esoteric things (to my destruction- I ended up with a dissertation no one could understand much less help me with. Four advisors might have been part of the problem. But what is a student to do when the first one dies, the second goes mad and leaves, the third retires, and the fourth just does not know what I was doing?). I am rarely more interested in the people of my own environment than I am people I dont have to interact with. I can read people extremely quickly and usually am not interested in participating in what I find. I can be blunt, abrasive, insensitive, and unaware (or just dont care); but I am not intentionally mean or cruel (that takes way too much energy). If I want to bash someone about the head, they know it. I despise having to make small talk, and complex formalities. On the flip side, I am unusually loyal to the oddball handful of people I love. I have been told lots of things in the past several years by my friends, the most common theme being that I am not your usual type of person, you are a strange duck but I love you, that sort of slightly annoyed but committed interest.
So, ok, maybe a little like House.
I started this blog with a slant, an in-construction voice appropriate for the title. This one breaks out a bit. I only know three people who read it, so I dont worry about morphing into something different from time to time.
If being driven by a curiosity about the world with little interest in manipulating the people around me makes me happy, I can be called many things. I think the idea of narcissism has been given a bad rap- we think of people who were off-normal, passionate, and self-centered and had disastrous results (I listed some of the classic historical folks used as examples, but didnt want to taint the idea so I erased them). But arent the delusions necessary to be happy (read the happiness project stuff ad infinitum to see what I mean) a form of narcissism? Dont we disregard the feelings and experiences of others in order to maintain our world view? Dont we have to be slightly unrealistic about ourselves to just get up and eat breakfast in a first world country? If my self-involvement in my arcane interests and my rejection of social norms is a form of happiness, is it also narcissism? Is it, within a certain range, any different from the desperate, insecure and often boring machinations of many people? Can we all be called narcissistic? Or is it just those extreme risk takers, those megalomaniacs, those Wall Street bankers and people on the fringes who are labeled with the term?
I have come to reject much of what contemporary psychology uses as a basis for existing and functioning, so I use the term narcissism loosely. Getting a label only by degrees of clinical saturation (how much narcissism did you pee out today? Oh then you are ok; or not) does not seek to understand terms.
Anyway. My attention is drifting. It is late and I need to either get back to sleep or pick up one of the many books by my bed and read. Who cares what you think.