As previously noted, the primary objective of negative theory is to account for ego-related emotion and emotional disorder in naturalistic terms. In order to bring such occurrences into harmony with the utilitarian doctrine of evolutionary theory, higher emotional need itself must either be shown to serve some useful function or be shown to be a by-product of some other adaptation which serves a useful function. To accomplish this objective, it will prove helpful from time to time to draw analogies to programmed motivation previously considered.

From the standpoint of the amount of thinking and behavior which is not under the immediate influence of perceptions of programmed motivation, it is easy to regard such urgings as intruding upon one's "normal" thinking and behavior. However, from an evolutionary standpoint, it is perhaps more accurate to consider rational thought and behavior as intruding upon functions which formerly dictated behavior and which were absolute and unquestioned. In much the same manner, perhaps self-value requires reinforcement in man because it is an arational need which is increasingly in conflict with overall comprehensive conceptions produced by the reasoning process.

As a rule, every lower organism behaves in a manner which suggests that its own needs (and at times those of its offspring) are its only relevant consideration (no moral considerations). By this I do not mean to imply that lower organisms are necessarily endowed with a self-conscious self-concern, but only that in the transition to self-consciousness and rational thought (Homo Sapiens) there might well be an arational heritage of an absolute, self-serving, self-centered point of view. In other words, an inordinate conception of self-significance might well continue as a vestigial remain in members of a reasoning species awakening from an arational evolutionary slumber. Furthermore, in a reasoning organism, it is possible to conceive of how such an inordinate conception would serve an essential function and thereby become reinforced through natural selection.

In such organisms, survival would become decreasingly dependent upon motivation arising from absolute significance (value) placed on single events (the significance formerly attached to stimuli of programmed motivation would become reevaluated within the context of more comprehensive conceptions --- e.g., suppressing lower emotion) and increasingly dependent upon conceptions which permit the anticipation of biological benefits and detriments. Within these conceptions and in the absence of immediate programmed motivation, survival would eventually become the result of a conscious coordinated endeavor to survive, rather than merely a need to respond to stimuli with no overall view of the purpose such needs might serve. Within this more comprehensive context, former significance placed upon single events resulting in motivation would have to be replaced or continued by the significance the organism placed upon its own survival as an overall objective. The significance such an organism would place upon its own survival is synonymous with the significance it would place upon its own existence and in direct correlation with the degree of significance (value) it attached to itself.

Since nature repeatedly demonstrates that it functions arationally, it is unlikely that the amount or degree of self significance considered ideal would be determined by rational considerations, but only by considerations of what would prove most effective in motivating an organism to survive. The organism which would be most effective in achieving survival as an overall conscious objective would simply be that organism most motivated to survive, and thus that organism with the most inordinate conception of its own significance. The absolute self-centeredness of our prerational heritage would probably be ideally suited for such a purpose. It is the contention of negative theory that every properly functioning human organism is endowed with a self-centered self-conscious ego properly described by the term "egocentric".(6)

Only in a highly motivated reasoning organism would nature be assured that, in the absence of immediate programmed motivation, the organism would continue to think and prepare for all possible contingencies. Furthermore, only an organism which attached considerable significance to its own self-interest (self-significance) would be able to override the powerful urgings of programmed motivation when comprehensive conceptions would reveal this to be to its overall benefit (e.g., going to the dentist). In other words, the new conscious objective of survival from an overall view would have to be endowed with a value system at least somewhat comparable to the type of absolute unquestioned value formerly attached to single events and programmed motivation.

If one accepts the contention of negative theory that every normally functioning human psyche is egocentric, then accounting for higher emotional need and disorder becomes a relatively simple matter. It arises from a conflict between increasingly comprehensive conceptions of reality and one's innate inordinate conception or one's own significance. Since this conception is not rationally justifiable, it is a belief which needs endless reinforcement (higher emotional need). Furthermore, in much the manner comprehensive conceptions can override the arational significance (value) attached to single events (stimuli of programmed motivation), so too, such conceptions can and do at times override the arational significance attached to the ego itself. When this occurs, or is in danger of occurring, its effects are referred to as emotional disorder (e.g., anxiety, depression, suicidal tendencies, etc.)

Although negative thoughts and feelings (e.g., I am insignificant and there is no rational purpose to life) constitute primary ingredients in emotional disorder, in negative theory they are not regarded as a cognitive dysfunction. Rather, they are considered the result of one's rational faculties functioning all too well. The resultant unpleasantness associated with these thoughts and feelings is little more than nature informing the organism that it is functioning (thinking) in opposition to its survivalist objective, in much the manner one is reprimanded by physical pain when behavior is jeopardizing one's biological integrity. Unfortunately, our collective repugnance of negative thoughts and feelings has all too often been considered sufficient reason to regard them as invalid. What is normal and natural and what is reasonable or rational are entirely different matters, as our attitudes toward sexuality readily demonstrate.

If, as negative theory contends, emotional disorder results from one's rational mind functioning all too well, then some explanation for the relative "normalcy" of most individuals is required. Few psychologists have come to recognize that conceptions exist at various discrete levels or consciousness (rather than only a distinction between conscious and subconscious) and that these levels play a vital role in determining an individual's emotional stability. These different levels can be characterized by the difference between what one conceives of as "knowledge" (e.g., the knowledge of the vastness of the universe and the billions of people on the planet, information which although intellectually acknowledged, is totally incomprehensible to a finite human mind) and what one conceives of as "real" (e.g., data arising from one's daily experiences, which one directly perceives or is affected by and which one regards as the "real" universe --- i.e., the reality of one's job and family life).

Perhaps the simplest means of illustrating how conceptions can exist at different levels of consciousness would be to point to the manner in which a "normal" individual is usually capable of calmly and logically discussing the eventual occurrence of his own death. This manner of thinking about one's own death would seem in sharp contrast with that of the "emotionally disturbed" person who has just left the doctor's office having been informed of terminal cancer. So too, most of us "normal" individuals are capable of an intellectual acknowledgment of our insignificance relative to the sum total of reality and the meaninglessness of life, with little if any adverse consequences. However, in the emotionally disturbed person these higher realities have entered the oval office of consciousness in much the manner the cancer patient's death became "realized" through its close proximity to his "real" universe. This might occur as the result of a breakdown in one's external ego-support system (e.g., demoted in job, jilted by girlfriend, etc.); physiological dysfunctions which adversely affect one's innate tendency to think in a self-evaluating manner; or sufficient abstract thought to expand consciousness to the point where it overrides one's arational self-significance.

An individual who experiences self-devaluation from negative events occurring within his "realized" reality would rarely consider the resultant negative thoughts and feelings as the result of an expanded consciousness, but would more likely interpret these events as reflecting upon his self-significance in personal terms. However, the very occurrence of emotional disorder in Homo Sapiens (the species which reasons) as well as the need for an external ego-support system constitute symptoms of a deeper underlying conflict between reality itself (increasingly comprehensive conceptions of reality) and the human spirit (specifically, the egocentrism which forms the foundation of the human mind). It is the vague, nonspecific sensations which arise from a subliminal awareness of this conflict which motivate the "normal" individual to seek out a life which provides the most ego support. The degree of success or failure in this endeavor determines if this awareness remains subliminal or becomes sufficiently apparent to overwhelm the ego. This would include not only the apparent egotist, but the humble, selfless person as well, who simply constructs his self-value upon different criteria and who, in truth, probably derives a sense of superiority from his less obvious egotism. It would also include the hermit, whose personal pride emanates from his complete independence, and the housewife, who derives egocentric reinforcement from being the central figure (in wifely and motherly terms) in her family's life. In each instance the individual seeks a sense of superiority, uniqueness, or centralness based upon those conceptions regarded by the individual as most relevant in determining self-worth. Success in this egocentric endeavor is always due to the fortunate happenstance that events occurring within the limited context of the individual's "real" universe are always stored at a higher level of consciousness than the more comprehensive conception of reality which results as the accumulation of all of the individual's experiences.(7)

Stated in slightly more everyday terms, when you walk across the street and are about to be run over by a truck, an illusion exists. You are real, the truck is real, and you are truly about to be run over. The illusion which exists, and is the result, not of reasoning, but rather of arational influences acting upon one's reasoning, is that what is about to occur is a profoundly significant event (your being run over by the truck and hence, the annihilation of your consciousness on a permanent basis). A "normal" individual is simply one in whom this illusion is securely in place. An "emotionally disturbed" individual is simply one who is in danger of overridding this illusion. or has actually overridden it resulting in fragmentation of the egocentric ego (e.g., schizophrenia, psychosis, etc.).

The psychotherapy proposed by negative theory is little more than coming to clearly understand the cosmic joke. Evolution has transpired for billions of years only to arrive at a point where it looks back upon itself and becomes overwhelmed (in the form of human emotional disorder) by its own arationality. It proposes that in this age of increasing awareness (e.g., mass communication), for many individuals happiness can no longer be efficiently attained through the employment of one's intellect to serve one's will (which in man is the will to be significant), but rather through the employment of one's intellect to master one's will. This can only be accomplished by understanding one's nature, for understanding is the only strength of intellect

Happiness is held to be a "happy mean", neither giving up one's egocentrism (the result would be a life of emotional pain), nor blindly and obediently allowing it to be present in one's life without a clear understanding of its illusionary nature. One must come to understand (not realize) that feeling one is significant in the universe and that there is meaning to life is synonymous with being out of touch with reality. Nonetheless, one must do everything possible to insure that this "knowledge" not become "realized." This is accomplished by becoming knowledgeable about the rules of the game (e.g., blatant selfishness is usually self-destructive in its emotional effects) and by doing whatever possible to cause one's daily experiences to be a continuous flow of self-evaluating data. Since this is what all of us are already doing (usually in intense and deadly serious manner), the emphasis is not so much on what one does, but on how one thinks about what one does, no longer taking these activities and one's self quite so seriously. One continues to exist in the illusion, however, one is aware he exists in an illusion. Hence, when reality (negative thoughts and feelings) occasionally emerges from behind the smoke screen of daily activity, it is no longer seen as a personal experience in which "I alone am insignificant", but as a universal reaction of consciousness to its real identity --- in truth --- an experience to be proud of.