“To analyse the psychology of political violence is not only extremely difficult, but also very dangerous. If such acts are treated with understanding, one is immediately accused of eulogizing them. If, on the other hand, human sympathy is expressed with the Attentäter, one risks being considered a possible accomplice. Yet it is only intelligence and sympathy that can bring us closer to the source of human suffering, and teach us the ultimate way out of it.”
Of all the misconceptions about love, the most pervasive is the belief that ‘falling in love’ is love. No matter whom we fall for, we sooner or later fall out of love, if the relationship continues long enough. This state of ecstasy is a part of a very subjective experience, but it is always temporary without exception. Moreover, the experience itself is sexually motivated to a large extent. The beginning of a budding romance is filled with crackling, erotic tension. It is electric, yet it can never last. That is not to say we cease feeling for the person, whom we fell in love with, but the honeymoon phase always ends and when the rose-tinted glasses come off, we are bereft of our illusions about who that person truly is…
Through pain-staking experience, we learn not all relationships are based on love. Many may have begun with a deep sense of mutual affection, whereas others never stood a chance. Inevitably, we must all face up to the fact that most relationships are based on some form of arrangement. Under the semblance of friendship, we use honesty in a selective, rather pre-calculated manner for the sake of personal gain. On the pedestal of undying romance, we idealise prospective partners to such a degree that we set expectations that can never be met. In the anticipation of marital bliss, we enter a life-long commitment to what may turn out to be a complete stranger…in so doing, the majority of our relationships are founded on our need for self-deception. As people grow used to each other, they form unspoken agreements. We make each other feel better through transparent lies. For example “No honey, that three strand comb-over totally hides your receding hairline. [Sorry, the almost complete lack of hair.]” or “No dear, that dress is not three sizes too small. [Sorry, but you cannot be a size zero and still be a healthy weight.]”
When a relationship lacks the necessary stability to survive free expression, its foundation will crack under the weight of what goes unsaid. In other words, it is short-lived, unless we accept that any relationship is hard work. We must be mature enough to understand we will not agree on everything and develop the tolerance to accept the opinions of others even when they oppose our own.
Marriage differs from other life-long relationships in one simple respect. It is a contractual arrangement, certified by the State, sanctified by the Church and audited by the Bank. Marriage is primarily an economic arrangement, an insurance pact. It differs from the ordinary life insurance agreement only in that it is more binding. Similar to a basic insurance policy, our contributions are mandatory to keep the arrangement afloat, but we are always at liberty to discontinue our payments, try another or go without. Continuing with the previous analogy, if we were to imagine how this kind of arrangement affects each gender, we will discover that what we endure is not so different anymore:
Historically, if a womans premium was her husband, she would pay for it with her name, her privacy, her self-respect and her very life until death. She would knowingly enter into a state of life-long dependency without the ability to separate. Nowadays, if a womans premium is her husband, she has the right to keep her name, protect her privacy, be as independent as she likes and spend her life with whomever she wishes [in most parts of the world]. Although emancipated, she earns less, but she no longer has to tolerate unwanted advances, arranged marriages, FGM or prove her worth by acting more like her male counterpart. She can stand up and speak freely as long as she accepts the consequences. Her freedom may have come at a great cost for the family unit, but it did not spell its undoing.
Historically, if a mans premium was his wife, he had to have proven he can earn enough to afford matrimony (by providing food, clothing, shelter etc.), handle the responsibility of monogamy, maintain appearance and social status in the community. Once proven, marriage heightened their social status, just as fulfilling the social expectation to father children afterward did. However, it did not end there, any indiscretion on his part would typically cost him all of the above. Nowadays, if a mans premium is his wife, he lives longer, spends more and on average has more sex. He still earns more than unmarried men, however, he is less likely to be employed. Particularly, when the job involves travel or relocation. Plainly speaking, businesses learnt that uprooting children dents their image, so they began to select single men for higher positions usually designated for a married man. It did not take long until they realised the benefits of hiring single men across the board. Before the corporate community promoted the single lifestyle, how many years the marriage of an employee lasted was a testament to their capacity for loyalty, dedication as well as commitment. With every additional year, they were viewed as more of an asset due to their increased reliability. In recent years, divorces are treated as though they are evidence of how devoted these men are to their jobs in place of their families [although corporations would never admit to anything of the kind].
Statistically, the effects marriage might not have radically changed, however, they have not improved by much either. Betrothed men still continue to outlive their unmarried counterpart, but also their own wives. Forced and arranged marriages are still more common amongst women than men, as is genital mutilation, including circumcision… Truth be told, the institution of marriage was perhaps never as beneficial [for all] as it was intended to be. Marriage has seen happier days, yet the vow of holy matrimony in an illiberal Christian democracy was never designed to be ‘liberal’ and there is nothing wrong with that. If it had been as liberal as it is right now, it would not have been the democracy that we know…It would have encouraged child marriage long before now, instead hiding its paedophilic nature behind # feet thick walls. It would have shared the secret documents in the Vatican vault, collected from all over the globe. Plainly speaking, it would be as uncharacteristic as willingly housing a substantial number of enemy combatants. Albeit, the Christian Church was forced to integrate long before 2006. It first began, when its followers took the texts too literally. In these extreme cases, devoted men and women violated the law of the land in favour of divine law. One case, in particular, in which a teenager killed his father, impregnated his mother against her will and then raped their child. Such intense biblical archetypes shook entire communities, for whom the Christian faith was not an optional denomination. The law was put into the position to choose between reason and blind faith based on an incomplete text translated from. Aramaic [that still contains more than a few mistranslations]. Although DNA had not been discovered, inbreeding was known to cause peculiar psycho-physical side-effects, so people began to question the Church and pastors had to come up with answers to quiet them. Ultimately, the justice system overruled the Church, which had already folded quite willingly at this point. Frankly, it had no interest in genetic anomalies, whose ability to contribute financially was non-existent. This is how we ended up with a more symbolic interpretation of the Bible. Their self-interest, for once, went hand in hand with their selfless service to the people.
At the core of religion, each belief system serves as a control mechanism of the people. For example, there is a recent fatwa, which forbids digging in the sand in certain regions of what used to be Persia. The reasons are fairly obvious. Islam is not the first faith to establish rules to prevent the discovery of alien life, spacecraft and the ancient pyramid network powered by Tesla coils. Christianity has done the same. If they had not, questions would have arisen that they are still not prepared to answer. More importantly, when a belief system only serves to control the people instead of providing them with the means to control themselves, then its purpose is flawed. Worship becomes a tool to subdue the masses, which uses marriage to keep couples from seeking to verify what they believe and realising the truth about themselves. [Heaven like Nirvana is a state of mind we cannot reach through lip-service or unenlightened devotion.]
After all, marriage is a contract, but it has seen worse days. It continues to prohibit prestipulated behaviour, such as adultery in monogamous relationships. The difference is, when both partners give consent, the Church does not care, unless it is against the law. [You want an open marriage? Have it. You want multiple wives? Move somewhere bigamy is legal. You wanna tie with knot a two-year old? Germany will turn a blind eye.] In other words, religious institutions are only as powerful as the state allows them to be, with one exception, Sharia. Conversely, the state is only as powerful as the people make it by giving away their power. This includes regimes, in which the State and Church function as one.
Honesty aside, relationships are not what they used to be. After the millennium, a study revealed we no longer have life-long partners, we have different partners for different stages of our lives. In total, 3-5 was said to be the new average number of long-term partners, but it can vary. A smaller percentage settled for 5-9. Ten years later, this has changed. The innate narcissism of the younger generations, myself included, is sadly doomed to shorten the average duration of relationships even further. Millennials are accustomed to certain level of comfort, technology and attention that cannot be maintained. Our expectations cannot conform to real life, unless reality cuts them to size. For what it is worth, most of us imagine relationships to be something they are not. Once we have fallen out of love, but remain committed to the relationship, many ask themselves “Is this it?” Women, who planned their wedding since they could walk, romanticised their ‘perfect day’ to such a degree that reality can never measure up. Their perception of marriage is a Disney fairytale that has a 1 in 2 billion chance of coming true. On average, our dreams do not come true, when they involve a rich, tall, good-looking and kind husband, a castle or other material goods that the universe could not care less about. Unless we devote our life to worthwhile dreams that do not just benefit us [for instance, love, truth, justice etc.] our efforts can never yield anything truly transformative.
Although love is not synonymous with marriage, that which it represents is the most important aspect of self-realisation through Union with another. In Hinduism, it is a very special form of bhakti-yoga…and as the term suggests [Bhakti: Devotion, Yoga: Union in Sanskrit]. We should all be so lucky as to practice such devotion in our marriage on a daily basis and have such devotion returned to us. Through its methods, the growing-used to each other becomes synonymous with discovering each other anew each day. Osho added a great many tantric techniques to spice things up. These suggest self-realisation can be attained as a couple, which leads us to the very purpose of marriage:
At first, marriage may seem to be just another economical arrangement far away from the spontaneity, intensity and beauty of love. When treated as such, marriage is degrading to both the woman and the man. It forces us to give without end, but reciprocates little. However, when it appears as though we need marriage to meet our basic requirements, we may feel as if our life depends on marriage. Imagine to be in a state of such deprivation, low self-esteem or uselessness as an individual or society that relationships use their inherent value and thereby their function. They are not a failure, since no matter how independent we become, we cannot survive alone…But, our approach to them has. It is very much the same with marriage. To solve the problem of high divorce rates, we must initially tackle our deeper relationships problems. To do so, we must start with ourselves. We cannot attain any level of lasting happiness, as long as it is based on external factors, such as economic stability, youthful appearance and so on. In other words, the problem is us. We are the reason our relationships do not last [romantic or otherwise]. It is our overwhelming desires to be exact. Although men and women are no longer inferior to one another, both are never satisfied. Equality is not enough for many. In truth, they seek superiority, dressed up as equality. If they only knew the game was rigged from the start…If they only knew slavish acquiescence goes both ways…
On a personal note, some say that marriage is an archaic institution incompatible with idealistic notions of freedom, but I humbly disagree. Women may seem sentimental when holding onto the idea of life-long companionship, true equality or unconditional love. Still, I ask you, what is life without them? If those ideals are impossible or improbable, then our inherent interconnectedness has no meaning. Our survival has no meaning. To believe there can be no such thing is self-destructive. Yet, to disregard the programming that our children are exposed to would be criminal. For decades, girls have been prepared for ceremonial rituals that basically mutilate their genital. Around the world, they are lied to when they are told the ceremony is conducted on the day when they will officially become a woman. Like the lamb led to slaughter, they are psyched in preparation for the event and screaming in pain once they realise what is happening to them. Unlike circumcision, this is not done for some religious reason, it is done to please future husbands. Afterward, no woman can be the same or look at a man the same way. Once the surface wound has healed, they are in physical and mental distress for years. Yet, they are often sold, married, raped and impregnated before they could even begin the healing progress. My point is the average man would be as abhorred as the average woman if they came into direct contact with these ongoing problems in our society. He or she may not seem to blame, but we all are. Our inactivity condemns other to dire suffering. The average man or women would never forget what they witnessed, but would do nothing to prevent further bloodshed. It would be no more than a frightening anecdote to scare their children into being more cautious. That is how far the practical nature of our society has come. Our comforts mean more to us than the quality of life of another soul, and to make matters worse, we feel so guilty over the fact that we would open our countries to billions. Where insanity is concerned, I thought I had seen or heard it all, then that happened. The worst thing is, it continues…We are returning to a time, when it was unsafe for women to walk the streets alone. Feminists readily dismiss the issue, even while their own are murder in cold blood. While German politicians are losing their daughters through targeted attacks with sexual overtones, their allegiance remains with highest bidder.
In any case, the psychological predilection to physically, emotionally or sexually mistreat another living being is a personal one. No matter how much we may wish to program it into someone, we cannot. It either comes naturally to them or it does not. Now, there is a large difference between inflicting injury and receiving ‘the goods’. Men can quite easily be led to believe ´that is how it is meant to be’ for whatever reason. From foot-binding to FGM, tradition takes over. After these painful acts have been performed for too long, it becomes habit to condition future offsprings to marry women that conform to these ‘oddities’. When two cultures meet so rapidly in such a large quantity as they have the last few years, this non-conformity can readily lead to violent aggression. Beneath their obvious religious motivations is something much more perilous: Desire. Although they seem to be more openly afflicted, we are far more vulnerable than we think. Political representatives [i.e: the state] as well as the Church approve of mass migration not because their heart fried out at the sight of misery. In order to exist, they must maintain a level of control over the people, men as well as women, and sometimes that means culling the herd for profit. Their desire for money, status or survival outweighed the ideals they represent. As stated previously, desire is not love. It is transitory, whereas love is constant. It never wavers. Desire has neither the capacity to protect us nor the nature to bestow peace, while love is its own protection ever at peace.
As to the protection of the woman, coming events will reminds us of the true value behind relationships, communities and marriage. Not that they really protect them, but they have the potential to and, on occasion, they actually have. At their core lies a great acknowledgement of our interconnectedness…a deep love of multiversal being…In recognition of that, we are closer to God, Shiva, the Great Spirit, but mainly each other, in absence of the Church and the State. By default, we would also be more protected.
Relationships are changing at the face of mass migration, as is marriage. We may think the institution of marriage is a debasement of love, but we have to remember how marriage was institutionalised. Its institution was the preemptive solution to an actual problem. Tribes controlled inbreeding through their elders knowing who they were intimate with. This knowledge could only be passed down from generation to generation because the tribe was of a smaller size. In medieval England and Europe, Christianity needed to maintain hold of larger population in its empire and at the same time limit inbreeding amongst their followers. Now, whereas Christianity [as an institution] has displayed paedophilic tendencies, whereas Islam has become well-known for its ‘incestuous’ tendencies in academic journals. As stated in a previous post, when Lawrence of Arabia interfered with the Middle East, they reverted back to the verse of the sword. In other words, the wartime protocols for their state and mosque. At times, when there is a shortage of unrelated women, which happens approx. every 1000 years in the Middle East, the bloodline line could be ‘preserved’ through inbreeding. In any case, it is not an advisable practice as it can do irreversible chromosomal damage. This is why certain disabled children only legally class as human but not medically. They do not have as many chromosomes, but this is not a popular fact in genetics circles as it opens the door to euthanasia for those suffering extensively from the damage [unable to speak, use the bathroom or live by themselves] in order to save them from a tormented existence. This leads us to a darker aspect of marriage. Segregated communities in England [Pakistani and other] are knowingly arranging marriages designed to produce disabled children in order to receive higher welfare payments from the state. Sadly, this old war tactic has taken a much more damaging turn. What was once a medically inadvisable emergency solution has become a means to con a perceived enemy. The high number birth defects weighs on the healthcare system, thus also interfering with their health. As immigration increases, these birth defects will become more frequent. However, the occurrence of kidnappings and forced marriages should also be very alarming. The ability to kidnap and restrain for long period of times implies there is a level of privacy. These communities are often on Royal Mail and police black-lists [i.e. one may need more than a riot squad], so it would not be far fetched to conclude that the increase in missing persons is directly related to the increase in kidnappings and forced marriages following rape. These areas are rarely frequented by the authorities. More importantly, few speak English. Even if they did, those that may talk are too afraid.
The institution of marriage has always served as a means to control men and women through religion, but we could grind Christianity and State down to a level of morality, in which it can permissibly become non-existent through its own doing, whereas Sharia is another matter entirely. Sharia embodies the State and the Church, yielding the authority of both. While it was permitted in Britain around the 1900’s for husbands to strike their wives with a stick no more than inches in diameter, this law was in conflict with women’s rights shortly after and was never really practiced. Apart from this one law, physical violence against women was never permitted by law in the UK as well as Europe. To this day, Sharia has no limit on the violence committed against women. It is a perversion of the faith, as it fails those it has sworn to protect under a religious oath. These shortcomings are the reason why the Church and the State remain separate. Each time, they merged, it ended through a violent revolution carried out by the people. Catholic men may have been made mistakes, but violence against women was never a wide-spread cultural penchant of the regions. Again, this is generally for self-serving reasons. Industrialising peadophilia behind closed doors is one thing, industrialising it en mass is quite another. It restricts their victim pool, reduces its overall quality and in less than one generation produces pre-damaged stock that might not be to their liking.
As Sharia attempts to influence the age of consent and very interpretation of the term, we must remember how far we have come. Sharia is not a sustainable system in its current form. If it does not adapt, it will self-destruct and inflict immense damage on its surroundings. Throughout the crusades, our female casualties were kept at a minimum since the penalty was a variety of torturous executions. As that is not the case this time, the casualties will continue to mount without adequate jail sentences…and even if there were, prisons are some of the most fortified structures in Britain, they are ideal ground for an offensive takeover of the surrounding area.
The reluctance of the Catholic Church to involve itself in a conflict against Sharia, as it threatens their existence, will undoubtedly lead to violent takeovers in areas near No-Go zones. In any scenario, the people will be disinclined to turn to the Church or the State for assistance. Marriage is hard when times are good, but marriage during war is naturally harder. PTSD has severe symptoms [such as nightmares, violent outbursts, aggressive behaviour etc.] The divorce rate is typically higher during large wars, mainly because couples do not have the time to build a solid foundation for their relationship as well as due to the effect of combat at a young age. Conversely, within an actual war-zone, residents need to be intelligent about building and maintaining relationships at a time of high casualty rates. One could meet someone at dawn, only to mourn them at noon. The emotional repercussions this has on children is rather profound. An entire generation of British children born in anticipation of a Cold War are evidence of that. To elaborate, as soon as children were old enough to understand in the early 80’s, it was explained to them what happens when the siren goes off. They were calmly told, the sirens were a part of a three minute warning system, which would alert them of a nuclear attack on the country. The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy parodied ‘putting a bag over the head’ as a reference to this time. Most think it is bad joke of what not to do when the bombs are about to fall. To others, it is the equivalent of sticking ones head into the sand, but there is actually some truth to it. The British could not help their people at the time, except to alert them of an impending attack. In fact, there would be nothing anybody could do in those three minutes, no matter where the attack occurs. As I stated in the addendum to my doctoral dissertation, three minutes to prepare for death is a luxury. Even when death is expected, three minutes of conscious awareness to mentally prepare for dying is rare in cases of sudden death. Now, British troops had assisted in the cleanup of a nuclear strike in Asia, and their men returned deeply traumatised by the experience. Most had recurrent nightmares, involving the contorted faces of the dead. In case of attack, this can be very demoralising and affect the outcome of battle, as a retaliatory response. Long story short, residents were told to put a bag over their heads, so when their bodies are recovered, the distorted faces will not be too traumatic for those remaining, whose duty it was to bury the dead. The gap generation, which grew up in this time, were taught in schools that were fortified bombshelters. In Thanet, civil servants operated from council buildings that were prototypes for bunkers built to withstand a direct missile strike. For about five years, an entire generation lived under constant ‘fear’ of a Cold War. Once the tension cooled and the sirens were removed, the gap generation had turned out to be the largest generation of British born citizens in constant conflict with the its middle classes. Statistically, the effect of growing up during such times fosters a more anarchistic and/or detached mindset with the innate need to question authority, which often makes them very unlucky in love. Those qualities are not necessarily endearing to men or women, who do not share the same mindset, especially when prospective partners also are not of the same political persuasion…
The Trump & Brexit Effect
Our political ideologies are a direct reflection of our core values, and thereby our personal priorities. When we do not share the same core values as our partner, then our differences can lead to more arguments as a result. Although our core values must only be similar for two people to be more compatible with one another, even those minor differences can lead to conflict. There is nothing wrong with ‘loving’ someone but being unable to share our life with them due to fundamental differences in the way we see the world. But, there is also nothing wrong with trying our hardest to reconcile those differences in order to find a lasting peace in the relationship. We must only realise that sometimes we give up too soon and other times we try too hard when we know it will never work.
Trump, Brexit the EU may trigger arguments, but they simply point to a much deeper crack in the foundation of the relationship. We are all afraid of something, may it be the abolishment of women’s rights or the return of black slavery. Our core values [incl. what we consequently prioritise when making important life-choices] are designed to protect us and others from that fear becoming a reality. Usually our partners would soothe our worries, but what when our fears hinge on some nightmare of theirs? Some associate Brexit or Trump with the implosion of society, while their partner views it as an important step toward a brighter future. Since it is assumed that only one can be right with their thinking, an argument ensues that lasts to the bitter end of the relationship.
Conflict is an occasional part of relationships at every point in history, knowing why we fight is more revealing than how the fight came about. The topics rarely change [finances, chores, personal interests, ideologies or quirks], but how we resolve them has come a long way. We no longer have to view marriage as an inevitable downward spiral in the form of a lifelong commitment without escape. We can choose our partners freely as long as we protect our democratic freedom to do so. We can overcome our political differences when we realise we share the same core values underneath all the posturing, blaming, misconception and concern about the future. Each couple is unique, therefore each couple has to find their own way of resolving its problems with or without pre-existing methods.
That notwithstanding, major socio-political change has a way of getting us to prioritise in a manner we are not usually accustomed to. When we lose someone due to Brexit or Trump, whose contributions are invaluable, it is a tragic loss to the nation that should not be undermined. However, it pales in comparison to the death toll caused by mass migration. Love can overcome all obstacles, even death. Democracies cannot. As much as we may care about our ability to think, speak and move freely, there will always be those ready to debate what basic human rights includes or excludes. In the event of war, these reoccurring debates are typically suspended [while countless lose their lives] and continues after the violence has ceased. We may disagree with our friends, relatives or spouses, but we still love them. For the most part, we go to those we have known the longest or care for the most [i.e. child, partner, parent, sibling, childhood friend etc.] in the event of trouble. Others are not so lucky. Our democratic lifestyle has allowed us to receive education, choose our partners at a later age of our own volition and live freely by making predetermined choices. Regardless of how sensitive or radical our partner may be, we should be grateful that we met them. In Jungian terms, when two extremes meet, they may seek balance in order to attain a state of wholeness. Although we may not like to admit it, we can learn much from each other. Remainers could reflect on how their migration strategy has certain massive flaws in order to improve on it, for example, by rebuilding the Middle East instead of homing almost its entire population. Meanwhile, Brexiteers may wish to ponder how to revitalise the industry, avert crop failures by arson as well as extreme weather, combat No-Go Zones, FGM or child marriages. The main objective is for couples to realise that relationships end as a result of all these perceived problems in society, yet we do nothing to solve them. Essentially, when it comes to politics, we break up over opinions rather than actions. If we voted for Brexit, we would most likely still vote to leave. If we voted for Trump, we are still likely to support him. A vote just surveys how many people feel the same for the government to act accordingly. Voting generally does not change how we feel, but it can affect how others think of us. If we think of Trump as this misogynistic tyrant that grabs a feel with his morning coffee, eats babies for lunch and hosts orgies for the underaged at night, then of course, who would not be distressed? If we think of Trump as the return of American industry, less immigration, regular employment and higher wages, then who would not support him? In any eventuality, nobody is as bad or as good as we think. Trump is simply a man with the potential to implement positive or negative change, just like Brexit is just an event with the very same potential. The rest remains to be seen.
Our ideologies reflect a few from a larger number of core values, ranging from autonomy to wealth. In-between we will have demands such as honesty, dependability, commitment and self-respect. Although there are too many to list them, our core values are what should be expected from any sentient being with manners and common sense. These can come into conflict with each other just as much as failing to uphold them can be the root of our relationship problems. Though it is possible to embody every possible core value simultaneously, it is beyond madness to maintain permanently. To be a fair and decent person, who makes an honest living can be enough, but it does not have to be…
Our relationships are a doorway to something greater. Dare I say, our interconnectedness is the most important lesson that life may teach us. Only when we approach each other as equals and without judgement may we understand what love truly is. Relationships can wither or fade, but our inherent unity remains. It transcends common experience, even the realm of the desire, it is the epitome of peace. For us [as people], this notion of peace is very difficult to understand, let alone live up to. To live in peace without understanding the meaning of the word is impossible. I am not referring to the definition of the term, but the mental state. Why is it so difficult for us to be calm, peaceful and desireless? We make no effort to be any other way. We are been lulled into complacency by the belief that evolution happens naturally, when consciousness development requires rigorous effort for decent results. We must look beyond right or wrong and attempt to see things from a wider perspective, not merely our own and ask ourselves “What is the root of all conflict?”.
In sum, the root of conflict is time. For this, we must know time is the manner in which our consciousness perceives our relative existence, as a sequence of moments. It does not yet realise its source. Time, as a byproduct of consciousness, is primarily psychological. Time is a movement [a rotation of planets] and as such does not truly exist. From prior to the Big Bang to the lateral end of time, the total sum of energy in the multiverse never changes. Energy is not destroyed, just transformed, therefore whatever we believe our problems are…they are infetixmal on the grand scale of the cosmos. To the point, we are one. In that oneness, time is an illusion…and if psychological time does not exist, then there is no conflict. There is no `me’, no `I’, which is the origin of conflict. However, life is never so simple…
The modern relationship has evolved, or so we think, but we have not grown closer to each other, we are simply more dependent on feedback. In truth, we seek a higher level of verification, personal approval and social satisfaction. We may only be a text away from each other, yet the homeless have mobile phones without money for food or anyone to call. We wish to think that we care so deeply about our own, but actions speak louder than words. Our care for each other is often selective, if not driven by the goal to appear unprejudiced. We may have become more accessible, but we have grown further apart. We are often too busy with our own lives to truly connect with our families or the community. As the quality of our relationships degrade, we are unable to resolve problems that are larger than one or two people. Our dream of an improved world might never come to be, because we did not try. It is never too late to call an old mate, rekindle a neglected relationship or engage with the community. After all, we all have until the entropic collapse of the universe to truly connect with each other. But, that does not mean we should wait, letting worthwhile opportunities just pass us by. Every moment matters and we should make good use of it…
The debasement of relationships is merely an intended byproduct of engineering human consciousness out of a myriad of others. As with all others, their success depends ignorance. Such methods can only be successful when the individual does not know themselves as well as their opponents do, in turn, making them that much easier to manipulate, defeat or crush. Although we may not like to admit it, but we need each other to secure our continued existence and to realise the purpose of life in the multiverse. Our relationships are key to understanding a higher union than blood-ties, camaraderie or marriage. A union, which cannot be certified, sanctioned or audited, but remains the overshadowing reason for our pragmatic reluctance. In the eyes of the politically correct beholder, selfless love is impractical, unfeasible and often close to the nonsensical. We are lulled into a state of such intense chronic dissatisfaction that we cannot allow ourselves to grasp the very meaning behind the concept. As a majority, we would rather support the latest, popular fad instead of resolving politically disenfranchised problems that have been ongoing for over a decade. In other words, our affections are selective, which its unconditional counterpart is not. Love does not play favourites. It has no interest in personal gain. It does not value one life over another, nor does it overdramatise certain problems just to distract from others. It has no ulterior motives, as it only exists in the absence of judgement. It, therefore, is not an act of persuasion, but a state of being, in which we treat everyone equally, not identically. It has no need for constructive criticism, when compassion will do. It does not shift blame, knowing responsibility is mutual. Its powerful effects cannot be described through any language, nor can they be empirically quantified. We do not know why we feel the way that we do. Often when our affection is reciprocated, we do not care to…Once again, by being selective, we are depriving ourselves something very precious. That which overcomes all obstacles. Love.
On the other hand, love is just a byproduct of the foundation for relationships as a whole. Love is not the result of our proximity or biological relation to one another, but our interconnectedness. In conditional form, love serves the purpose of prolonging or improving our current state. It becomes an early casualty in a violent struggle between the ego and the collective unconscious. Conversely, in its natural [unconditional] state, it brings us closer to realising the inherent unity that exists between all things in the cosmos. Love, therefore, is not a choice, concept or ideology. It cannot be debased, only our expression of it can. Just as we cannot be separated from each other in consciousness, the perceived distance between us is merely a temporary setback. Our differences are illusory in nature and eventually we will realise that love is devoid of the conditional qualities that we associate with it…
QuantumMediocrity 