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.