A Conundrum "The Problem's Primary Side Effect is 'The Problem'"

Case in point:

 

If I am narcissistic, and therefore care more about my image then my reality, I must at all times keep up a good image in spite of what reality may be.  The only saving grace is that I am aware of the problem have the theoretical ability to ignore my perception of reality and act or react differently then I normally would.

 

Does this mean I just "do the opposite of what ever I think is the best idea?" My basic why even ask why?  I can tell you that while the old saying of identifying the problem is the first step, but the second step seems to be the real bitch.  It takes hope, faith or even a little motivation to make that second step, which for me in the past has been driven by short term hedonism only.  I should try and think about the second step and how it will effect the long term.  I am not sure that I believe or even think about the future.  I find it brings in the conundrum too much.

 

I then remember the fact that thinking about hope as it pertains to the future for me. I start to believe my own bullshit about how things are going to be different regardless of the fact that I am unwilling to do anything about participating and I start floating away.  Just to live like that vision is the only reality that could possibility occur. So baam! I am right back in my own little fantasy world. How do I have hope without poisoning it with fantasy when the future I conceive and strive for is of my own making ( i.e. bullshit or not to start with) is obviously susceptible to my distorted perception?

--
Regards,

Ramsay