Photo by Wonderlane

Although it is a wonderful thought, unconditional love is something that not everyone can realize or practice. Not that it is unattainable or nonexistent, most simple lack the capacity to do so. They lack the state of mind that allows for something like this to happen. Of course we can all practice love to some degree. We can practice what we allow ourselves to, but the biggest limiting factor in attaining the ideal form of love is ourselves.

Most of us have so many other issues and inconsistencies in our personality and behavior, in our conscious and subconscious mind, that there is little focus left over for thing outside ourselves. Trying to love someone purely and unconditionally while dealing with all these other problems is like trying to whisper inside a nightclub. It’s only if we can sort out and rid ourselves from the other battles that we can truly experience love and all it has to show.

So many of the problems that arise in romantic relationships are a result of the participants’ lack of awareness. If a person does not know themselves or what they want, how can they expect to know the other person? If it’s too difficult to get to know the person that is constantly inside our minds, how can we know people we only observe? Without having a firm base in ourselves, we cannot expect to fully experience what’s outside us. We stay too involved in our own crises and feelings without the ability to remove us from us and love the other.

The trap too often for most is to project fears and insecurities onto the relationship and the partner. If we don’t have these sorted out already, then they simply pollute our connections and handicap our potential for true love. This true love does not only exist in relationships and romance, but with anything and everything. But none of it is possible without a clear mind and spirit. To add another analogy, it would be like exploring the world through dirty glasses. How could we truly love what we saw without seeing it in its actuality? In the movies and TV that surround us, our character creations seem to be constantly in search of love and constantly questioning why they have not “found love.” But the real answer is that it is because they cannot find it the way they are. They are incapable of it and will be until they have found themselves.

Photo by Zabara Tango

Is it possible to live a life without passion?  Can one go through life without a single passion for anything?  It seems that I’m encountering more and more people that don’t seem to know what they really love to do in life.  Most of my peers are college seniors, and inevitably, the most asked question of the times is “what are you doing after graduation?”  Most will reply that they are seeking a job in a field which corresponds to their major.  Some of these people will actually like their major and are excited about working in it.  The majority however, are going with the flow and either say that they don’t really like what they will be doing, or they claim that they do with feigned excitement.

Then, out of this group of people who are not really interested in their chosen paths, there are a few who will know what they are truly passionate about.  Out of those, some will plan on pursuing it at some level, and the rest will be to fearful to take a chance on what they truly love to do.  I can understand these people, even the ones that don’t pursue out of fear have something to live for, they can still cultivate that interest in solitude.  But what I don’t understand are the rest of the people that are uninterested in their paths, and also have no idea what they really like to do.

We as human beings have been able to use our innate cleverness to rise above the daily struggle for food and survival.  At some level, I like to think that all this progress was made to give us the chance to attain a higher level of satisfaction.  Satisfaction that is gained through pursuing to do with our lives what makes us happy.  The group of people that are choosing uninteresting paths are doing so out of necessity for money, for stability, for survival.  If we do this, then we’re just propelling ourselves back to what we already broke away from.  If we sacrifice our passion for stability, we might as well go back to hunting and gathering in the forest, because we are giving up our uniquely human opportunity.

The people without passion perplex me.  What drives someone to survive when there is nothing to greatly stimulate them?  Most people who don’t think they are passionate about anything might be overlooking important aspects of their behavior.  If we took a little time to question ourselves, we might discover a hidden interest we never noticed before.  Maybe passions are sought out.  Maybe we have to try out everything we can in the hopes of finding something that truly captures us.  Isn’t it worth it to take a chance on being rewarded our our work internally at the cost of a stable but suppressing job?  Or at the very least, cultivating a passion on the side while holding a stable job.  But with no passion at all, I fail to see what reason there is to keep struggling.  I fail to see the great benefit in my humanity.

Photo by Procsilas

It seems an especially difficult thing to love everyone, as some people might.  In my understanding of love, there would be no desire to change the thing that you love if you truly loved for what it was.  So if one were to love everyone, the problem I’m about to describe wouldn’t apply.  The problem is that people are so complex that it is impossible to find a person that could be deemed perfect in the eyes of anyone.  There are so many different sides to a person, that even someone we deeply respected or admired might have a side to them that would be unappealing to us.

As I see it, there are initially three possible attitudes we could adopt in our view of others.  We could choose to like everyone, dislike everyone, or be indifferent to them.  Each of these must be applied to everyone, because choosing to like or dislike only certain people would be to suggest that there is some level of perfection, or some level of inexcusable faults.  Also, if we were to choose only certain people, then everyone would choose different sets of people.  Even the person we might most despise would be liked by someone.  In this case we don’t approach any conclusive decision about the population because our own liking or disliking would be meaningless.

The problem I see with loving everybody is that if we really were to love everybody and accept people as they are, then we would not be right in trying to change them.  This creates a conflict because everyone holds certain values to be important, if we loved everyone, we would love even the people that embodied the opposite of our values.  If we are to accept everyone, then why hold our own values to be important at all?  If we are accepting of everything and do not seek to change anyone, why speak of such values at all?  Of course this is under the assumption I have made that loving entails unconditional acceptance.  This may not be true for others’ view of love.

So I decide to choose between like, dislike, and indifference.  This also became quite perplexing as I would waver between the three of these over the course of the last couple of years, depending on different experiences with people.  I still feel there must be some way to resolve this inconsistency.  I don’t think we can be indifferent completely because nobody is born indifferent.  People are driven to indifference through negative experience, and just the fact that this experience affects us defeats the purpose of indifference.  We are left with dislike and like.  Every person I know has sides that I like and sides that I dislike, so it’s hard to write anyone off to completely dislike or choose anyone to completely like.  My solution has become to like or dislike based on the sides within each person.  This way, there is someone to like in everyone, and someone to dislike.  This view also leaves room for change.  I can still hold my values and desire change based on those values in the sides that I dislike.  Right now, this is the best balance I can strike between complete liking, which I feel excuses too much, or complete dislike, which is too harsh.

This view is very much something I thought of recently, so I would be very interested to hear your own solutions or opinions so I can improve this idea or see the faults in it.

Photo by Richard0

Beauty is one of those concepts that has been questioned for thousands of years and yet its true meaning eludes us.  What makes something beautiful?  Why do we feel pleasure from it?  Why does perception of beauty differ?

I like to separate the things that we perceive as beautiful for only their form without any meaning that they might carry.  A lot of the debate about what makes art beautiful could be defined by this.  In this category, it is easy to see why the perception of beauty differs from person to person.  When our reaction is based on the meaning we see, it will always be different because everyone has a different mindset and so their reaction will be different.  The pleasure we may get from such things could be traced to the relationship of the meaning we perceive to our experiences.

The other category, of things that are seen as beautiful simple for what they are, is a little harder to understand.  A tree, the moon, the ocean, all these things could be pleasurable because of certain meanings, but I think they are also capable of being beautiful by themselves.  A person might have memories of the sea and so might like the ocean, but I’m inclined to think that someone that has never seen the ocean might still find it beautiful.  This sort of perception of beauty, where it isn’t based on any experience or bias, is difficult to grasp.  What is it about the ocean that is beautiful?  First, I can’t make the claim that everyone would like the ocean.  It is a matter of whether there are things that are just objectively beautiful independent of perspective.

Which things are beautiful in and of themselves and which things are beautiful because of bias is something that would change from person to person.  For me, sunsets are independent of experience, but the lawns at the University of Miami are not.  This might be different for someone else.  Maybe the fact that we have formed opinions based on experiences takes away our chance to like something for what it is.  When I look at the lawns, it brings memories of past experiences with friends.  If I was able to look at the lawns without recalling these memories, maybe I could appreciate them for what they are instead of what hey mean to me.

I feel that at some level, if we can manage to look at things completely objectively, we could see beauty in everything, just because they exist.  It is intriguing to look at leaf patterns and cloud formations.  Just like that we could let millions of other things intrigue us.  It’s hard to call this objective beauty because everything would be of interest to us.  If we can alter the way we perceive our world, maybe the question of beauty or no beauty wouldn’t arise.  This is the way I can somehow blend the idea that everything is subjective with the idea of an objective beauty.  How do you see it?  Subjective or Objective?

Photo by ASPatrick

One of Sigmund Freud’s most popular theories is that of the “id”, “ego”, and “superego”.  In this theory, he states that the id is our most basal state, it is driven by the pleasure principle.  This means that it seeks pleasure in the form of food and sex and avoids pain.  Later in his career, seeking to answer why humans so often engage in self-destructive behavior, he theorized the existence of a “death instinct.”  This was also part of the id.  Basically, he thought that eventually, the id becomes tired of the constant struggle for survival and pleasure and seeks to end its own existence.

This theory could explain why we are so drawn to escape from ourselves through movies, music, and books.  It could also explain the blatantly destructive behaviors such as aggressive behavior and war.  The theory is interesting because it offers a biological explanation for a lot of our negative behaviors.  It almost excuses our inability to change.  I say almost, because fortunately, we also possess the ego and the superego.  The job of the ego is to control the id.  So it follows that even if this death instinct exists and is some sort of biological trait of all human beings, then it is also in the biological capacity of all human beings to recognize it and choose to control it.

We can examine ourselves and see whether we take part in certain activities because they provide an escape or because we genuinely enjoy them in the present.  I’m sure almost everyone will experience at some point in their lives this death instinct because anyone who becomes aware of the cyclical struggle for survival will feel its pointlessness.  But the benefit of recognizing this is that once we are aware of the futility, instead of succumbing to our biological natures and seeking destruction, we can choose change the the struggle for survival.  We can choose to learn more about the world or who we are as human beings, or even if there is a purpose to us or anything else.  We may never find the answer to any of these questions, but in the process of contemplating them, we can live up to our own potential as humans.  We have the characteristics of animals, but we also have more that we can choose to utilize.

There is a whole universe of thought and ideas and possibilities that can never all be explored by one person, to choose to end the struggle would be to think that there is nothing else of interest left.  On the road of becoming more aware of ourselves, there is always a phase where it feels tiresome to keep on going once we recognize the struggle, I’ve seen it many times in people that I know.  This is the toughest part and one that has to be overcome in order to be able to think clearly and leave the struggle behind completely.  Our id will call for us to destroy ourselves, but we have to remember to use our ego and superego, our higher thought, to control it and put it back in its place.  It’s time for those that consider humans to be different or superior to animals to earn that distinction.

Photo by ShawnCampbell

The most successful ideology to spread across the world in the past century is consumerism.  While so many people argue about political ideologies and which ones are more successful, consumerism seems to have slipped by unnoticed since it can thrive in almost any political system.  Basically, it is the idea that a person’s happiness is directly connected to the amount of material possessions they amass.

To think that buying things is what will make us happy seems downright silly.  Sure materials can give you temporary pleasure or even long-lasting pleasure, but to equate this pleasure with happiness is wrong.  Most of the time, the pleasure gotten from buying things is not even a result of the intrinsic value of the object, it is a result of how it satisfies our egos.  The demand for luxury products is in large part driven by the need for people to feel superior to others.  The Lexus is better than the Toyota, the $2 million house vs. the $1 million house.  What do extra bedrooms have to do with our happiness?  Will I not be able to achieve contentment in my life if I don’t have leather seats in my car?

This idea can cause us to run blindly toward the objects we desire without paying attention to what we are doing to get them.  People end up working jobs that they don’t like so that they can pay for things they don’t need.  College students are studying subjects that will make them the most money so that they can get the best house and car.  If a person’s life is spent doing things without passion just to obtain these goods, in the end, life will have been a complete waste.  The happiness comes in the way we live every second of it, not just in the moments where we finally are able to buy that new flat screen.  We end up suffering to achieve these ends.

Every time a goal is met and a purchase is made, the pleasure dissipates quickly.  The new suit will not bring the same excitement everyday.  So then you have to find something else to desire, to work toward, to get the next high from.  With this ideology, we end up living from object to object, never realizing why it never lasts each time.  The idea of a life lived in a futile pursuit is horrifying, yet people are not horrified at themselves.  Desire and pleasure should not be confused with happiness, that is the first mistake.  Now, even the younger generations are being programmed to operate this way, along with other cultures who had escaped this thinking before.  There’s a reason why there is starting to be a shift in thinking toward Eastern philosophy in the United States.  Some are realizing that materials are not the source of happiness.  But all of this starts with questioning.  We must constantly question our motives and examine our definitions.  It is only with constant oversight that we start to shift our own minds.

Photo by hr.icio

One of the core beliefs that every person holds, whether they are aware of it or not, concerns a basic fact about human nature.  This belief will either be that human beings are self-interested and individualistic, or that we care about others by nature and not just ourselves.  Which side a person chooses will largely be determined by their experiences and upbringing.  The person who has been affected most by the selfishness of others or is selfish themselves, will choose to justify their behavior by claiming that humans are selfish by nature.  The person who has always been treated kindly and favorably by others will believe that human beings are good and caring of others by nature.

I am defining self-interested/selfish as prioritizing one’s own benefit above that of everyone else, even if it means breaking rules that they have set forth for themselves.  A caring person would be one that thinks of how their actions might negatively affect other people and follows their own rules even to their detriment.

I am more inclined to thing that more people are self-interested, but I don’t think this is a characteristic of humans as a species.  I think this is a learned behavior, something that can be changed, something that is not inherent in us.  There are people who do care about others genuinely, and there are people that don’t.  It is wrong to make an assumption about our race as a whole in order to justify one’s own behavior.  I am not claiming one view to be better than another, that’s a much deeper question of whether there are a set of morals to be followed.  What I’m more concerned about are the people that choose to represent themselves as something they are not.  Most people who are selfish will not want others to see it.  Some of them don’t see it themselves.  But if a person is unwilling to be honest about this belief with the people around them, or to themselves, then there is obviously some sort of conflict in their minds.

If we choose to hide something, then we are admitting to ourselves that it is an undesirable trait.  If we know that we are acting undesirably, then why keep doing it?  The true self-centered person will not choose to masquerade as a a caring member of society for the benefit of others.  So before we can even begin discussing whether it is right to be self-interested or caring of others, we have to first be honest about what we truly believe.  If people are trying to be perceived as caring and act selfishly, then they must choose which one they really agree with.  Most of the time, it is this way because they would like to have the benefit and convenience of being self-interested with the benefit of being viewed as caring.  To me this is an inconsistent behavior.  One of the first steps to becoming aware of who we are is to solve these inconsistencies in our ideals or beliefs about ourselves and the world.  An inconsistent person is one who will always be clueless about who they really are.

Photo by Stephen Brace

Lately I’m confronted with more and more people that act inconsistently with their goals.  The ideas they express in conversation remain as just that, they never seem to implement these ideas in their life.  Some of the time these people are not really committed to what they’re saying.  Maybe they’re taking part because they’re trying to project a certain image of who they want to be viewed as.  But I’m talking about the people who do believe in the ideas they express.

I have friends that constantly talk one way and act a different way.  When we have conversations, they will say how they wish it were this way or that.  They even know what they have to do to get there, but they just don’t act.  I think it just comes down to being lazy or afraid of the process.  Most people become too comfortable with the way they are to act on most of their ideas.  The people who do end up changing drastically seem to be the ones who experience some sort of jarring event in their lives that takes away their complacence.  I can understand how it’s easy to turn away from the work at hand by settling for the way things already are, but with that sort of thinking, any potential for learning and growing is eliminated.

It seems a waste that someone not follow through when they’ve already done the initial steps of thinking about what has to be done.  Changing oneself is never going to be very easy or comfortable, but if we constantly wait for what’s easy, we will never end up getting anywhere.  “That’s just the way I am,” this is one of the phrases I most dislike hearing.  I think it’s incorrect to define yourself as your behaviors and attitudes at any one point in time.  These things are ever-changing over the course of our lives.  Just the fact that they have the potential for change points to the idea that they are not your definition.  Your habits don’t decide who you are, you define what your habits will be.

If we can view our outer behavior as something that is dynamic and ever changing, then we make ourselves able to constantly change along with life, as we must.  If we start to attach our being with our habits, then we weigh ourselves down and have to face lots of work in order to change anything.  If we are dynamic and not defined by habits, then we will be indifferent to any change as it does not determine who we are.  It will be simple to cast off one thing and add another.  Our potential for change is determined by the way we define ourselves.

Photo by Hamed Masoumi

According to research by economists and psychologists, the level of happiness in the population has not changed in almost a century.  In spite of advances in medicine and technology, we are not happier than our ancestors.  Characteristics such as age, gender, income level, and health, do not account for a lot of the variance in happiness between people.  This kind of evidence inevitably leads to the question of why this things that have seemingly improved our lives so much, have not really increased how happy we feel.  It’s important to note first that happiness in these studies was determined by the responses of the subjects themselves.

The first thought I have is that if all these improvements going on externally are not impacting our perceived happiness, then maybe the next step is to go inward.  People tend to rate their happiness based on how much they have externally, so they are in a constant state of wanting more.  I think it is this condition that has persisted over the century studied.  I’ve felt this desire in myself as well.  As soon as a desired improvement, the next step externally, is achieved, we immediately think of something else we have to have.  There are always going to be a million things we don’t have, and this is why this type of thinking will never lead us to feeling happier.  In fact, it is this greed itself that prevents the subjects in these studies from rating themselves the maximum level of “happiness”.  If we always think we have to have more, then even when asked if we are happy, we’ll think “well I could be happier.”  This is why income level was not a good predictor.  The billionaires and the unemployed all want more.

The second thought is that most people’s definition of happiness tends to coincide more with pleasure than contentment or peace.  True happiness either is or is not, there is no “happier”.  So if we are to seek this peace within ourselves, then it is not going to come in the form of a new phone or a more convenient washing machine.  We must go within and sort out the conflicts within ourselves if we want satisfaction.  But none of this can even begin to happen if we first don’t realize our blind rush for “more”.  It’s not going to happen if we don’t realize that we are seeking pleasure, not peace.

Photo by Peasap

In any given day we make hundreds of tiny little choices that inevitably alter our future experiences. Each and every moment is incredibly important because it has so much power over your future self. If we are always making the more comfortable and known choice, we limit our potential for growth and future opportunities.

It is natural for us to gravitate toward the known, but if you think about the times in your life that have led to the most drastic changes in yourself, they have probably been triggered by a choice or event that wasn’t very known or comfortable. Think of yourself as one point on a giant web. The point is your consciousness and the web is your mind/behaviors/past experiences. Each time you reach past the web to connect to a different point, you grow the size of your web. Just like this, every time you choose to step outside of your comfort zone, you open yourself up to new knowledge and growth.

These choices don’t necessarily have to be physical activities or things you do, they can even be the way you think or react to a situation. It can be the way you treat someone. Anything that is different from what’s normal for you. This can be an interesting exercise because it allows you to gain new perspectives on your own life as you perceive your world differently. I wrote previously about finding your authentic self, this method of choosing things outside of your web can be a creative way of trying to learn about yourself. There is more opportunity for truth in unfamiliar circumstances than in the ones you have experienced a thousand times before.

The new is always important to us as we are curious creatures. The times when we are experiencing it are the times when we are really human beings. Think about why people love traveling so much. I try to take advantage of every opportunity to leave my comfort zone. Try it for yourself and see how you like it. Even if it’s a negative experience, it will still be more significant than the monotony of the old. Experiences are the pieces to the puzzle that is life, the more pieces you have, the better you can understand the picture.