New Year or New Calendar for a renewed lifestyle?

Firecrackers, loud noise, wooing, etc all to welcome the new year. Based on an ancient Chinese superstition allegedly to drive away any evil? Of all the great Chinese sayings, people picked this one with the most absurdity to believe in. Who could have started this? Who else but the explosives raw materials' makers with piles of unsold inventory leftovers. What better way to rid an oversupply or impending expiration than to simply convert these for domestic application as firecrackers! It's all about diversification. If you had saturated the market or can no longer sell, create alternative applications or invent a new way of using a product and market it as such. And if you can't back it up on logic or reason, back it on superstitions. Wars are unpredictable yet explosives raw materials still have to be produced in anticipation of any eventuality. Should there be an oversupply or impending expiration, these raw materials can easily be absorbed by the firecrackers' manufacturers. If you had been in actual combat, you would have associate gunpowder fire and explosions to injury, pain and death, much less any merriment.

The year is simply a mathematical symbol for one cycle of calendar time. It is not so much the changing of calendars that alters life than the mindset which sets forthwith. One does not need any actual change of calendars to effect a change of lifestyle. But because the human mind is dead set to believe something provided tangible, it will seek a focal symbolism such as a new calendar to convince everybody altogether the possibility of any renewed lifestyle. In reality, with or without any new calendar, we can effect a change anytime our minds put forth an INITIATIVE. Without such, no volume of calendar changes will do. If only the calendar is renewed, you may consider to greet "happy new calendar" instead of "happy new year" .

Why relationships crumble?

Has this happened to you? One scenario you are on top of a relationship, the next thing you are out of it. You could have sworn, the blame was always theirs. Do you want to know why relationships crumble? Because people formed relationships with their own benefits as a top priority rather than what they could have contributed. Yet, neither would anyone be willing if there weren't any potential personal gain. The trick lies on how to balance the receiving with giving. It doesn't matter how much you think you have given. If you haven't gave exactly what the other needed, the balance is tilted and the relationship will eventually crumble on unstable ground.

Be honest. Ask yourself, what is the reason you entered into a specific relationship? Wasn't it not to benefit from? Isn't this the way economies work? We were conditioned even as a child to expect a reward or benefit for doing a favor. We engaged an occupation to "earn a living". Why not enter into relationships that could benefit us in return? But relationships formed with the purpose of self-benefiting are doomed at the onset. It may progress awhile, appear blissful and even subsist for a span of time, with all parties role-playing in a presumably "make believe I thought so" mutual game of pretense and pretext. But the inevitable and formidable shall happen, for it was doomed at the very start.

Of the various forms of relationships, the carnal is the most fragile. Reason - loneliness, obsession, lust and sexual urges have been the most hypocritical, misinterpreted, assumptive, impulsive and passionate desires or thoughts ever disguised as "love". This vicious fallacy was passed by one generation to another. Basically, people cannot isolate "love" from loneliness, obsession, lust and the need to procreate. Or, religion and folklore inculcated so much guilt into carnal thoughts and desires, hence the need to justify its pursuance with masqueraded or simulated love. On a physiological level, the involuntary carnal pleasures during orgasms incite deep passions and often mimic a mixture of strong emotions which the human mind confused as "love". If the passion is driven by carnal desires, it could be anything except "love".

In a random survey of people in and out of carnal relationships, a distinctive majority reasoned they walked out of a relationship because they wanted to have someone "their own". It is ironic and hypocritical that this same segment who required a monogamous type or conservative partner were very lax and promiscuous with respect to themselves having multiple partners. In short, they required their partner to be monogamous while themselves were not. A dual standard of morality. The survey showed how selfish, possessive and obsessive people can become when dealing with carnal type of relationships.

If "love" is self-proclaimed and bound by preconditions and assumptive wishes and desires, regardless of one's excuses, it couldn't be love but obsession. The need to possess and own had been a human (or devil's?) trait since - a false belief this could satiate the boredom of loneliness but ironically, makes one even lonelier due to an inability to comprehend true love even as one "possesses" the other. People entered into carnal relationships without acknowledging the real reasons beyond this pursuit. One must come to terms with reality - that carnal desire is a basic human need and it is hypocritical to masquerade or simulate it as love. It is only when the word "love" is no longer confused in the mind, can true love emancipate, definitely not by carnal passions, rather through sharing one's soul and time without preconditions nor wishful gains.

Relationships are sacred bonds. Be it as basic as the family unit, your friends, communities, institutions, even romance. This sacred bonding networks amongst other souls, reminding us that we are living and connected. If one could restructure your basis of forming relationships, from benefiting to giving, sharing without preconditions nor wishful gains, relationships would last. Always ask yourself honestly, "am i into this more as a taker or giver"?

Love of money root of evil?

Old saying goes "love of money is the root of all evil". Actually, not the love of money but stupidity may be the root of all evil. People say the devil dwells within a clever mind. But doesn't that premise sound inconsistent with the characteristic traits of the devil, assuming there is such entity?

If there is such entity as a devil, wouldn't it be the "cleverest" of all? A devil may not need any more clever mind to 'settle in'. Instead, what the devil may need is an idle or stupid mind. The normal human mind is part evil and part good. The devil may find no use for such. What the devil may need is a mind that is pure evil. And where else to find that but, one that is idle and stupid.

Craziness and relationships

Craziness is just a thin gray line bordering stupidity and ingenuity. We are each unique in our level of craziness. A little off or on makes one a little more of either. Overly crazy makes one stupid while overly ingenious makes one eccentric. One has to find the perfect balance. Your perception of where the balance is will definitely affect the type and outcome of relationships you attempt.

While cruising the city, you come across hordes of people in varied relationships. You asked yourself, what makes them tick? You must have thought, they have infallible, Kingsly qualities and personality traits? Believe it or not, they just happened to find the same people of their level in craziness. It doesn't matter how good looking, popular, influential, wealthy and educated one is, rather it is what level of craziness one's into that makes one attractive or unattractive to another.

Check out my article News and Advertisements

The anonymous name

Is there something as a "real" name? A name is supposedly a symbol or mark assigned to distinguish an entity. When you were born, your parents assigned you an "official" birth name. People say this is your "real" name. But what if you don't like your birth name? Can you come up with a nickname of some sort? What if your nickname got recognized more than your birth name? Will your nick become your real name?

The only things "real" are the tangible physical things created by our collective minds. A name is a symbol and intangible, therefore it cannot possess the characteristics of being "real". The most it can qualify is being "official", that is when the name gets registered in a public domain. People will remember you by any name they would use in associating you with. It doesn't matter if you will use your birth name, nickname or trade name. If people associate you with "Mickey Mouse", they will call you "Mickey" whether you like it or not. You may even get to be recognized by such but your birth name will still be the one recognized in "official" transactions, since this is the one registered in a public domain.

Since birth, you were mentally conditioned to love your name as much as a part of your body. Imagine so much conditioning for something you never got a chance to pick. Everyone was so conditioned that the first question you or anyone would ask another would be, "what's your name". And we were expected to reply outright by stating our birth names. Society had conditioned us this way because they were likewise. Wherever you are, people expect you to use a name to distinguish yourself. Question is, do you have to distinguish yourself at all times? Is it your obligation?

Actually, you don't. It is not an obligation but option to distinguish oneself. It is your right to keep silent and play mute. There are no laws enacted against silence. Let the burden of distinguishing befall on the interrogator. If you are in a situation where you don't like to be distinguished, simply say "thanks, but I prefer to be anonymous". After all, you can always invent a nick should they insist. They must be fallible to presume you would oblige.

Agnostic and Atheist

An agnostic is one who believes that the existence of "God" cannot be proven. An atheist is one who believes that there is not even such entity as "God". But what or who is "God"? How can one argue if something does or does not exist if one is referring to that which is not at all tangible? "God", synonymous to the words, good, goodness, godliness..are basically adjectives describing an entity in extreme positive or productiveness. If one is to misconstrue as if "God" is a tangible entity of physical existence, of course everything to prove its physical existence would fail because, "God" is intangible. Rational logic would not agree if one is to physically prove an intangible entity outside of its intangible qualities. It's like saying you are going to prove your wife is a 'goddess of beauty'. The only one who will know if your wife's beauty is indeed godly is yourself. Adjectives and descriptions are always subjective and can never be proven on a tangible basis. The reason there are agnostics and atheists is because people confused the word "God" as a proper noun or one supreme being of tangible entity. Reality is, "God" is simply a word used to describe all qualities symbolical to extreme goodness. People get confuse with these words because minds presume and are fallible.

Fallacy of a truth and the reality in a lie

Is there such thing as absolute truth or lie? Do you refer to any truth or lie as being absolute? Do you easily believe everything collected by your five limited senses?

Truths and lies are actually your perceptions of reality. A truth for one may be a lie for another. Within a perceived truth, you will encounter mirages of half truths and half lies. From what you perceived as a lie, you shall unearth cascading possibilities of partial realities. Perceptions are biased and therefore never absolute. A perception is an interpretation of anything by one's mind. One would conclude that interpretation as the truth and those on the contrary as lies.

The reality of one may not be for another. One does not become a liar because his perception differs from yours. If one believed in something you may have perceived otherwise, maybe he is just being truthful to himself. The greater evil had one made belief what he actually perceived as a lie. He may not be a considered a liar by you but is definitely one to himself. Also, if a majority of minds interpret something in contrary to yours, you may be perceived as lying should you speak your mind.

Can a truth be altered to appear as a lie and vice-versa?

Yes, anyone has the right to speak his mind as guaranteed by our Bill of Rights. It is up to you whether you want to perceive such as truth or lie. The person stating can always argue that it is his version of truth or opinion and that's his right. If you ever regretted believing something, you have only yourself to blame for perceiving such in error. You must be fallible. It is possible to make a smaller or greater number of minds interpret anything as a truth or lie. One who believes something as a lie or truth but intentionally makes it appear otherwise is also called a schemer. Scheming works because minds are fallible.

The symbol of light and the irony of it on birthdays

Light is the symbol for life. Have you notice that we would light candles and use the insignia of fire or light to symbolize continuing life? People would light candles and flame torches then leave them burning to insinuate the continuum of time and life. Imagine the same person would do the complete opposite by lighting his own birthday candles and blowing out its light in exchange for some material wish which he would have gotten anyway had he not wish for it. Next time you lit your birthday candles, try slicing your cake with the candle lit then serve the slice altogether, the cake for treat and candle for charm. Try giving thanks instead of wishing.

Do you celebrate your birthdays a year late?

When people celebrate their first events, they would relate to the first time such event was encountered. Such as 1st step, 1st bath, 1st anniversary etc. But on the actual day of your birth or birthday, our parents suddenly make the mistake of starting the count a year after our actual birth. Thus resulting to all of us naming our 2nd birthday as our first. Logically, the first something of anything would refer to the first time anything of that something first happened. So your first birthday actually happened on the day you were born but you only got to be a year old on your 2nd birthday. Needless to say, you only got to be 2 years old on your 3rd birthday...and etc. And for those who didn't make it to a year's time, they would at least have their first birthday occasion had their parents counted correctly.

What do the heavens and stars tell us?

"Heaven" and "paradise" are words use to describe an imaginary place or state of blissful tranquility. Do you point upward or skyward when pertaining to heaven? If you do, then you are actually pointing at the direction or infinity of space. And you would have been pointing to the opposite direction if you travel around to the other side of our spherical globe.

In some religions, "heaven" and "paradise" are supposedly places where one's soul will transcend upon after death. Absurdly, we often see commercial advertisements soliciting consumers to avail of their "heavenly" and "paradise" products or services as if unwittingly or subliminally teasing consumers to "die now so that one may avail".

Let's ponder a bit on astronomy. The "stars" one is supposedly "seeing" or "pointing at" the skyline may no longer exist if based on our 'time" or "perspective of reality". Light travels at the speed of around 386,000 miles per second, since these stars are supposedly located so far away from our planet earth, it may take hundreds of thousands or even millions of light years (the distance that light travels in space in one year time) for any light emitted by these stars to reach us, by which time you actually "see" the light here on our planet earth, the star could have already collapsed into a nova or black hole or who knows what? What one claimed to have seen as "stars" are actually the light rays emitted when the "stars" were still existing. If you saw the light emitted, you may not see anymore of the star within the short span of your physical life.

With vast distances or physical spaces within "reality", it may take more than a mind's current lifetime to perceive any such events of "reality". Even as many such events may in fact composed "reality", the perception of some may not be possible within a mind's lifetime. From above premise, we can infer that "time" or "perception of reality" is a distinct trait of the mind than of "reality" itself. What is "present" at some far away place may be considered as "past" or "history" when "perceived" by us or as an "impending future" just before we "perceive" it. Note: It is our "perception" independently of an event, which seems to shuffle between being "history" or "future", not the event itself. Conversely, what is considered "present" for us could likewise be perceived as "history" or "impending future" by some far away places depending on whether they had already perceived or just about to perceive said event.

I see it but do you? The heavens and stars has been telling us all the while, "time" qualifies as a "perception of reality" rather than "reality" per se. The "present time" or "consciousness" that we are experiencing or claiming, represents nothing more than our mind's current perception of reality, while the "past" represents nothing more than events that our minds had already perceived and the "future" represents nothing more than events that are yet to be perceived by our minds. We can infer that by increasing the distances between physical spaces of different occurring events, we can actually dissect into multiple perceptions (past, present or future) an event in occurrence independently of the event or "reality", in effect proving that the element of "time" (being a perception of reality) can actually be segregated from "reality" per se. The reason that we don't readily recognized the above is, we were all perceiving a presupposed "reality" from within one common place - small planet earth, not to mention our "physique" being extremely small compared to the entire vast universe of available spaces where events may occur.

Parallax: Everyone who live or had lived, claims or claimed that their existence belong to the true "present reality". Your great grandparents claimed they lived in the real present, you also claimed that, and so will your still unborn offspring. Since "time" qualifies as a "perception of reality" than reality per se, and perception being an intangible trait of the mind, we can logically infer that "time" is an intangible element of the mind and if there are no minds to perceive time, "time" may not exist.

Can reality exist without time? Could this be the "heaven" that one longs for? The state of a reality without time may be of a metaphysical nature external of the physical world, ergo that state just before "you" or your mind were or was conceived into an internal physical world. Without a mind to perceive time, reality for you may simply be a state of potentiality. A potentiality which gave "you" qualities to perceive time and space. While outside the physical state or world, you never "sensed" how much time you "waited" before you "acquired" physical existence because, there can be no waiting if there is no mind to perceive time, even with the vast universe of occurring events within the internal physical state or world.

Parallax: In order to perceive, one must possess the capability of perception. In order to claim the presence of tangible and "physical" qualities of reality, one must acknowledge that intangible or "metaphysical" qualities of reality may correspondingly exist intangibly. The human mind readily perceives tangible and "physical" qualities of reality because it exudes a "physical" body with five physical sensory receptors to perceive that which is "physical", but "reality" encompasses more than any mind's limited perceptive capabilities. Inability to perceive that which is intangible and "metaphysical" doesn't make the unobservable lesser of any reality.

In summary we can logically say, "time" is an intangible "perception of reality" by our minds or "time" is an element of the mind rather than of reality. For "time" to be perceived, minds must be created by an external metaphysical state to perceive the internal physical world. "Reality" can exist independently of its "perception" or "time". "Reality" is all that ever was, is or will, including metaphysical qualities unobservable by and preceding the mind. Such metaphysical qualities may have potentiality to transcend an internal physical world in which the mind can perceive, the latter being a product of the former hence termed "internal world", while "external world" would consist of all potential metaphysical qualities comprising to form the internal world.

Chicken or egg?

Which comes first? The chicken or egg? Is your mind inside your brain or the other way around? Is it possible that your brain, which is actually a physical mass, a creation of your mind? Is it possible that your mind may have created your concept of a physical reality which in turn comprises your body and brain? Is it possible that your brain was created by your mind to serve as a physical or focal point within the physical world it also had created? Is it then possible for a network of minds to blend and form the interactive reality or world which you are now experiencing? Is it possible that all things physical is just a by-product of an entire network of minds? Could this be the reason why time and space seems to be infinite, both being non-physical or intangible as the mind itself?

Parallax: The mind is the YOU which says, "YOU are an individual BODY amongst others". The mind is your perceptive reality of totality.

Imagine. Let "reality" be not only what the mind is capable of perceiving. Let reality be the 'totality' of all including those preceding and not perceivable by the mind. Let the tangibly perceivable be represented as "physical" while the intangible including those preceding and not perceivable by the mind be represented as "metaphysical potentialities". Let the "mind" be a metaphysical trait. Let some metaphysical potentialities transcend a physical state. Let some physical state consist a physical "body". Now, what do we have? A transcended physical state consisting of "space", "matter" and "body" intrinsic of physical traits (bound by the laws of physics) and the ever intangible mind capable of perceiving the transcended physical state as well as other intangible traits ergo "time", "consciousness", "will" etc. Let the body and mind altogether comprise your 'perceptive reality'. Let perceptive reality be that segment or subset of totality which the body and mind sense and perceives, not totality per se, as totality precede and extends beyond any mind's capability of perception. Your consciousness and physical condition, attitudes and opinions, including events unfolding or which you think had been or will be. Let perceptive reality be one's personal reality, a version of one's "own small world".

Parallax: Only YOU can prove to yourself the physical YOU is alive and reading this. Whatever YOU are thinking can only be affirmed by a transcended physical state that is within the same framework of your perception of totality. You may think - any distinct physical BODY may claim that YOU are alive and distinct - but that BODY cannot prove the claim because that BODY is within the same physical framework of your perception of totality. To prove the existence of the physical state which consist of your BODY, the affirmation must originate from the external metaphysical such as your mind, NOT another BODY existing within the framework of your mind. Only YOU can prove to yourself the external metaphysical, because only YOU can prove to yourself that your perceptive reality of the physical state is only a subset of totality.

Perceptive reality versus totality or reality per se. Let perceptive reality be variable while totality constant. Why? Something is variable if it is changing. If something is changing, it isn't whole since a whole is supposed to be the sum of its parts. Because perceptive reality changes with perception, we can logically infer that perceptive reality is variable. Totality is supposed to be the whole. A whole that is net of changes.

How does one "change" perceptive reality? Manipulating perceptive reality will require a "change of perception" which is often misconstrued as a "change of reality itself". Even as the "intention" and "claim" to have change are themselves a factor of totality. Hence, the "reality" or "world" one wanted or claimed to have "changed" is actually one's perceptive reality, not reality per se.

Can one effect a change of perceptive reality with impact to affect another person? As manipulation of one's perceptive reality may involve intrinsic traits of the mind's transcended physical state, changes of a physical nature may occur within the framework of another person whose perceptive reality may be coherent to yours. Take for instance this writing. My perceptive reality says I'm writing this blog for some readers to read. For my perceptive reality to be "affecting" another, I must be able to perceive at least another who read and comprehended what I wrote.

Take another instance one's perception of what is supposed to be an "event of crime". A crime can be committed if there is at least a victim to be victimized. From the perspective of what is supposed to be one's perceptive reality of an event of crime, a victim is necessary to make one's perception of this a part of reality. In other words, one must perceive that another person's perceptive reality is fallible or weak enough to become a victim before one can perceive a crime is actually committed by a criminal. The three elements involved herewith - perceptive reality of what is supposed to be an event of crime, who is supposed to be the victim and criminal respectively. In effect, the victim makes a crime and criminal real in one's perception of what consists an "event of crime".