The Joys of Common Sense

Preface

 

As much as you get upset about another day passing, nothing will change. As frustrated as you are about your mood, the slow flow of thoughts and obscure reasons by which the universe is governed, nothing will change; precisely as King Solomon had predicted. It would be remarkable if it were possible to experience some long forgotten era, its nuances, it’s graces. To experience not simply flat images like we see in movies, but actually the real world with all three of its dimensions, allowing one to sense the sounds, smells, and volume of the time. Which time? Any time, it doesn’t matter. How colorful were the clothes in medieval ages? It is so difficult to imagine the normal ordinary sky with the normal ordinary clouds slowly passing above medieval castles, filled with sounds of long forgotten words. Somewhere in the fields, the fight is at its climax, the blood is red, the swords are sharp, the death is real…the problems of medieval Europe are still contemporary politics and don’t yet belong to history. Everything is serious and scary; the reality is unrelenting and painful. Somewhere in the depths of the forest, lovers are embracing each other and their feelings are the same as in our modern times, times that didn’t lose their romance, despite the calamities of the electronic era. Imagination is an excellent hideout for poets, philosophers, and the insane.

 It is great to sink into the times of Socrates and listen to the melody of the ancient Greek language that sounds so oriental to our ears, even though it has become an ancestor to most of our modern words. Look at the broad forehead of Plato, which gave him his name. Do you realize that all of these once existed? It moved, lived, breathed, spoke, and was an integral part of routine reality, probably very boring, even though filled with the colors of existence, it does not exist anymore. Neither exists, the blackness of night above Athens, even though the stars over my backyard are still in almost the same positions as they were 2000 years ago, and the Milky Way is just the same as it was above the ancient columns and roofs that had been just built and freshly painted.

 

 

 When you look at the sky it is all the same as it was in the Middle Ages, ancient Greece, and even as it was above some lost civilization that we haven’t yet uncovered. Even still, imagination can help us revive the smell of their wine, the taste of their bread, and the strength of their bulls.

 One day, our reality will turn into the same pale dance of someone else’s imagination, our history and importance relegated to their interests. Sometimes I feel that I breathe the air of these forgotten times, read their thoughts, emotions and dreams as if they were my own. I feel like I am part of all these vanished eras, and the future has yet to unfold.

 

 

Forgiveness as a freedom of choice

 

Whether we want it or not, our life is filled with both obvious and hidden conflict that are usually caused by clashes of the real interests and imaginary reasons. Life itself starts with conflict, the first cry of the baby, his face showing a grimace of suffering, and protest against the force that pushes him out, this is a good illustration of this first conflict of our lives. We spend all stages of our lives, our youth, adult years, and even our senior years in conflict[i]. Our struggles are eternal and remain our closest companion throughout our existence, thus, any mature individual is an experienced fighter, while his main opponents are his co-workers, and the ones he loves most.

The cycle of struggle includes a constant exchange of numerous punches, until destiny separates the opponents, until they find new opponents to fight with. Sometimes people succeed in destroying each other in a more efficient manner, for example, they kill each other, but here, we will not address such cases. The matter of our concern is an endless sequence of minor conflicts that constitute our entire life.

 People fight not only with other people, but also with inanimate objects, for example, when we get hit by a chair or a table, we react very similar to the way we would react to a person in that situation; we curse, threaten, or sometimes even try to hit it back. In more advanced stages of our obsession, we even talk to inanimate objects, beg them, and sometimes threaten them, most of the time this happens when we communicate with our computers. For instance, it is not uncommon to hear, “Come on! Don’t do that to me!” – We often address our computers this way when they freeze.

When I got angry at my computer, I even went so far as to spit at the monitor, that’s why I always keep a box of Kleenex at my desk. Sometimes we argue with our computers, and most of the time they win. They win because they don’t have any emotions, and being emotional doesn’t help when you are trying to win an argument, but being passionate usually helps, because passion is not just an empty emotion, passion is the pure energy of our soul.

Most of the time we have conflicts with animate objects like pets, or even mosquitoes. Mosquitoes are the only species that we kill on a daily basis, of course we eat meat; beef and chicken, which is a result of the daily killings, although we are not involved in the butchering process ourselves. In the case of mosquitoes, we are the active killers; because that is the way we defend ourselves that usually justifies any killing.

Look at the kinds of conflicts we have with god, destiny, fate, or whatever we call our own superior force that governs our lives.

We fight the laws of nature, we especially hate gravity, when things fall on the floor, we usually say “damn gravity!” and this is no joke. By saying this we are opposing the basic force in the universe, without which, practically nothing can exist. We fight gravity by saying, “why can’t we fly like birds?” and we actually are taking it over, by flying in our dreams, and with the advent of flight, we are conquering the laws of physics to achieve those dreams.

 

 

 

 

We fight the temperature. We are a moderate species so we do not enjoy the extremes of either temperature range. Most of all we hate and fight death, the fact that we are all inevitably going to die drives us crazy. In the lengthy, boring process of evolution, from the simple one cell organisms to our development, well developed multi cell organisms, with obvious esthetic and spiritual needs, nature has taught us by imprinting in our long term memory and subconscious, that death is a major failure of our life and it should be constantly avoided and prevented at all costs.

The process of fighting consumes a lot of our energy that we lose in a series of offences and defenses, aggressions and withdrawals, the “slings and arrows” of outrageous fortune as William Shakespeare has conveniently elucidated for us. This fight was vital in the early stages of evolution as human beings, because refusal to fight signifies unavoidable death, but in a modern society, refusal to fight sometimes, not necessarily constitutes a death threat. Luckily, western culture doesn’t kill losers, which is a good thing, because some so-called “losers” that refuse to fight for the imaginary values of the modern society, like career, wealth, and power, have an opportunity to use their energy for peaceful observation of our world, our universe, and our place therein. These “losers” are called philosophers. I don’t mean the guys that fight their way through academic institutions to get high degrees in philosophy, I’m speaking of the simple people that have chosen this lifestyle of deep thoughts and observations, as a way of spending their eternity.

That is the true freedom of choice: refuse to take part in most of the conflicts and just forgive the offender, whoever, or whatever it is; a table that you get hit by, your neighbor that has stolen something from you, or your friend that has betrayed you for the 1000th time. Forgiveness of the enemy is the best way to save your energy for a better cause. Fighting and hatred that are always involved in any struggle are very destructive for both parties involved. They hurt both our spirit and mind, they distract from really worthy issues that should be explored and given thought to. Moreover, a life full of conflicts could be considered irrational, because in the modern world, you cannot really prevail by destroying your opponent, you cannot kill your neighbor without suffering severe consequences, nor can you kill your friend that probably deserves it, for betraying you time and time again. Therefore, no matter how hard you fight, you will always feel dissatisfaction with the results, even in the case of ultimate victory, because modern society doesn’t allow the conflicts to continue to their natural point of resolution, which in nature often constitutes the killing or destruction of the enemy. In today’s world, there is no way to destroy an enemy without destroying yourself. The death I speak is not holistically physical, but more of a spiritual and moral corruption that necessitates our demise.

In order to execute our true freedom of choice, we must consider forgiveness of our enemies and opponents, because the one who forgives always has the choice of whether or not to forgive, and the forgiven, who always fights, is just an object of aggressive tendencies and therefore enjoys less freedom of choice, because they always revert to the baser instincts of conflict. For as Lao Tzu says, “there is no greater misfortune that underestimating your enemy. Underestimating your enemy means thinking that he is evil. Thus you destroy your three treasures and become an enemy yourself. When two great forces oppose each other, the victory will go to the one who knows how to yield.” In contemplation and introspection we allow ourselves to embrace freedom of choice because we no longer become locked into a cycle of hatred and destruction. Through these philosophical enlightenments we pursue the most reasonable and morally suitable courses of action, which is something we should all seek to employ.

 

 

 

Freedom From Fear vs.

Fear of Freedom

 

Do I feel free? I don’t think so. Freedom is not just a potential opportunity to do the things that one openly chooses to do, because most human actions are predicated on the primal instinct such as fear. Moreover, most of the things that one makes others do is done out of fear. Of course, they include not only fear, but also love, and other passions, though fear stands out as the most distinguished component in the motivation for one’s actions. I can justify this by simply analyzing the fact that fear is the major factor that survives through generations as a result of natural selection throughout the entire biological evolution. Organisms that experience more fear and more aware of their surroundings, expressing due diligence and caution in their actions and responses thereby avoiding more life threatening dangers. In their aversion they are sustaining their bloodline, or rather their genetic contributions to future generations and ultimately increase their Darwinian Fitness (pass their genes to the next generation). We can assume that our ability to experience fear is a result of lengthy evolution. In the book of Christophe Lambert, “La société de la peur” (The society of fear) the author argues that the modern society is based on fear. It could be the fear of financial losses, unemployment, inability to support one’s family, but also it includes the fear of solitude, fear of growing old, fear of sickness, and of course, fear of death. Christophe Lambert makes a strong statement that the modern society provokes most of the fears by imposing its competitive values and intense pace of life. One of the major concerns is Television. The author calls it “le ‘nouvel’ opium du peuple” (the new opium for people) once it started as a very positive feature in the early 50’s that extended the horizons and the abilities of common people to acquire knowledge about other nations, and world events, but with time, it has become so manipulative that it is difficult for the viewer to distinguish between the truth and drama. Christophe Lambert mentions that the society of the beginning of the 21st century still remembers the consequences of the attempts to fulfill utopist ideals of questionable minds of the 20th century; Nietzsche, Marx, and Freud. Nietzsche continued to deepen concerns with the existence of god, and therefore, finished the work of the philosophers of the era of enlightenment and the philosophers of the French revolution. This started a deep crack in the once solid belief in the Almighty, by stating that “god is dead.” He also created an idea of the “super-human” that provided a firm base for Nazi attempts to improve the human race. Karl Marx created an utopist economic theory by criticizing the old brand capitalism of the 19th century by making the false predictions about the future development of class struggle which ultimately laid a basis for numerous communist states. These almost became a cause for a global nuclear war and a complete extinction of the human species. Sigmund Freud was probably the most innocent by declaring that his theory of sub-consciousness, and arguing that most of people’s motivation is based on aggression and libido, which laid the groundwork for a series of sexual revolutions which occurred in the 20s, 50s, 70s, and 80s of the 21st century. Most likely, Freud didn’t do much damage on a global scale and was also quite successful in developing methods of psychoanalytical theories. We cannot ignore that his input had a certain influence on the rate of divorce, and jeopardizing the institution of the family by diminishing the value of people’s relationships, bringing them down to the “libido-aggression” level.

 Christophe Lambert brings up the statistics of divorce rates in France that have grown 400% in the last 40 years, according to other statistics, 1 in every 3 marriages in the united states ends in divorce. Solitude, absence of family support, confusing religious beliefs, indefinite sexual relationships, and frustrating and scary media, is a full portrait of our fears in a nutshell.

 How is it possible to obtain freedom from fear? The only way that I see is to combat the factors that create this fear, the factors that we have analyzed above. In order to combat solitude we must learn to build our relationships on a mutual basis, and not to expect more than the other party can give, even though Christophe Lambert says in his book that he believes that the internet is separating people rather than connecting them, because it eliminates personal contact. We cannot agree with this statement because the modern Internet allows video conversations and very intensive socialization, even with the most distant parts of the world. So I would argue that we should praise the Internet as a great medium for building great relationships and making new friends because avenues now exist to meet professional colleagues and start relationships with total strangers which would not otherwise be possible. We also must admit that the Internet is a safe way to do this as far as it is not possible to cause any harm in a physical way through the virtual means of communication.

We cannot diminish the importance of the basic needs of each and every individual in some sort of system of belief that may or may not be based on conventional religions, sects, or societies. It doesn’t matter whether the individual chooses to be a believer or an atheist, it is very important that an individual will build a system of beliefs that he will feel comfortable with, and then stay consistent with.

Christophe Lambert mentions that the main occupation of the modern society is consumption. “Sex idols” have become a commodity not unlike oil, wheat, and sugar, as much as it is true that excessive consumption of sugar is not good for one’s health, and may even cause diabetes, excessive consumption of “sex idols” can is not good for your soul, family, and will eventually leave you in a state of isolation and solitude. Famous French actor, Alain Delon, that ruled women’s hearts all over the world for almost half a century, now spends his days completely alone in a pleasant company of his three dogs and one cat, as French magazine, “Paris Match,” promptly reports to its readers. When he was asked in the same interview why he is not happy and why he is alone, he answered, “I wasn’t programmed for happiness, I was programmed for success.” Those two things don’t always come hand in hand. Therefore, the world starts to turn its eyes from the wild promiscuity of the 70s and 80s to old-fashioned family values that we may chose to adopt in order to obtain a freedom from fear of solitude and isolation.

It is important to act towards restoration of old-fashioned family values that have been destroyed in the wake of the industrialization and post industrialization. Emancipation which granted equal rights to both genders also has a dark side which deprived women of their privileges of a weaker gender status that many women would love to restore. Society fails to provide basic childcare, and educational services on the level that could be ensured by active parental involvement that is not possible in the era of total emancipation. There is a need to build strong family relationships using compromises and expression, sincere interest in the problems and beliefs of your loved ones. This can provide us with a slight hope to not find ourselves in old age, suffering from solitude, and isolation.

I believe that by limiting exposure to the media may substantially reduce the level of fear and anxiety. We don’t realize how strong we are influenced by the images we see on T.V. Once, one young woman that resides in a tiny French village had been interviewed by TF1, and she reported that she experiences a lot of fear, when she was asked why she feels this fear, she answered “ Avec tout ce que l’on voit à la télé on a des raisons d’avoir peur” (With all this that one can watch on T.V., one would have reasons to have fear) If T.V. is managing the lives of modest inhabitants in distant villages, what can we expect from the people that live in the frenzy of modern cities?

 

 

 Protecting ourselves from excessive exposure to the media might reduce our tendency to sink into consumerism and therefore, will protect us from an obsession of consumption as the main focus of our lives. In abandoning consumerism as a lifestyle, we can surprisingly realize how few things a person needs in order to support their existence. When we manage to achieve a freedom from fear, we will need to find a way to overcome our fear of freedom, because there is nothing to fear but fear itself. The only question that remains is, are we ready to face the possibilities of a free existence?

 

 

 

 

 

A Human Nature or

Just The Chemistry of Our Brains ?

 

 Since the dawn of time, philosophers and ordinary people were speculating on human nature. Every following generation can approach these issues with a new system of argumentation, because each new generation brings us new ideas and speculation to allow a more thorough understanding of our laws, their morality and their implications in society. For example, a well-known quotation by John Stuart Mill reads, “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied, better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied, and if the fool and pig are of different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides.”

 We can continue the long list of dilemmas, “like its better to be honest and hungry rather than dishonest and full,” or “it is better to be a poor decent person rather than a rich crook.” But the problem is that it is obviously better to be a satisfied philosopher that can enjoy both sides of this life, and it is better to be honest and full, rich and decent. It might be misleading that the categories mentioned above are self-exclusive.

 Even though we understand the point that John Stuart Mill was trying to make, that it is preferable to live a highly spiritual and intellectual life even though it may result in some discomfort or dissatisfaction, this belief is not necessarily an absolute certainty. Ethical truism and spiritual acceptance does not always mean discomfort and hardship. These virtues, along with being their own reward bear the fruit of not only ethical pleasures but financial ones as well.

 This is a very old, deceiving practice to argue that with great knowledge “[comes] great grief.” With all due respect to King Solomon who said this phrase in Hebrew, “yeda rav – tcar rav” – which exactly means “great knowledge – great grief” is a little bit out dated.

 In our days, we know that our mood and the feeling of satisfaction is ultimately regulated by the chemistry of our brains. Most of the philosophers and great thinkers of the past experienced a lot of stress, concerning their discoveries and thoughts that cause them to enter severe depressions. Fools and pigs obviously didn’t experience such pressures and therefore looked to be happier and more satisfied.

 We cannot agree that the nature of the knowledge itself bears on its shoulders some ancient curse of unhappiness and dissatisfaction. Modern methods of treatment of depressions show that the knowledge itself is not the cause of the depression, the cause of the depression is the stress that appears as a result of intensive thinking and attempts of analyzing complicated concepts. With proper pharmaceutical correction, these undesirable effects could be eliminated allowing the pleasure of that knowledge to be even more intense and gratifying than simple earthly pleasures. Furthermore, the satisfaction that philosophy can give to human beings results in a more profound happiness than anything that ignorance or an illusory happiness could bear as the result of a “piggish and foolish” existence.

 Let’s examine the human nature in respect to the concepts discussed above. Everything that we can observe, realize and sense is as subjective as the definitions of good and evil. These definitions are the only fact that could be established regarding these two terms with a sufficient degree of certainty that they have an opposite meaning. Usually we can analyze good and evil in pairs, when we deal with two sides while the same action is conceived as good for one side while it is bad for the other. It is seldom that there is only one side that perceives a certain action or event as good while there is no other side that would perceive the same action as bad. When one side is benefiting from some action or event it is usually done by damaging, destructing or causing any other sort of negative effect on the other side. We cannot establish a universal definition of good and bad, but in the first lines of this work we are trying at least to determine something certain in regards of this matter. We have to make a very important remark at the beginning that usually, discussions like this one, may have disturbing consequences, because jumping to the conclusion that there is no good without evil in certain circumstances may justify evil actions by arguing that there is no action that could be done without causing some direct or collateral damage to a certain party. In order to prevent making such a conclusion we need to determine what sort of objects that qualify to be considerate in an ethical aspect of the terms good and evil. For example: we cannot argue that enjoying the sunshine should be perceived as an evil action towards the sun because the sun is losing energy that is used by us and therefore approaches the end of its existence in the universe. This example demonstrates that we cannot operate with the terms good and evil when we deal with inanimate objects, which is true unless the consequences of these actions could affect other living objects. For example, our impact on the global climate could not be perceived as evil towards the planet or its atmosphere because both are inanimate objects, but it could result in negative effects on other living objects that could become the victims of such impact. So, we have to state that the definition of good and evil has a meaning only in respect to actions or events that have direct or indirect effects on living objects. Therefore, we have divided the nature in two unequal parts, one includes the whole universe of inanimate objects and the second includes the tiny portion of objects that we know as “living.”

 It is also obvious that among living objects we can distinguish between good and evil only on the certain level of evolutionary development of certain species. We cannot claim that washing our hands with soap, which is good for us, causing devastating effects to the microbes that grow on our skin as an act of evil towards the microbes. Therefore, we come to the conclusion that our understanding of the terms good and evil are applicable only to a tiny fraction of living objects that usually belong to our species, or are very similar to ours. To illustrate our statement we can say that it is obviously bad to kill a cat, but there is nothing evil in killing the microbes or some parasites. Of course, only if this doesn’t cause any undesirable effects on other living species that can feed on or benefit from the existence of the “bad” species. Then we move to an even more obscure area when we deal with good and evil in human society. Immanuel Kant was talking about the moral law inside of him, which was fascinating him as much as the starry sky above him, but the moral law of Kant wouldn’t be considered as immoral by some aboriginal tribes in south American jungles. There is no such thing as a standard moral law that could be accepted by all humans. It is very difficult to give a definition of the moral law that lays in the foundation of human nature. It is as hard as giving any definition while we can get the objections, according to the Socratic method, that will always find something that is not included in the definition and therefore will jeopardize our ability to define good and evil. We also cannot employ the approach of Augustine of Hippo that answered the question “what is time?” “If no one asks me, I know; but if any person requires me to tell him I cannot.” These two approaches cannot help us to identify what is good and what is evil in human nature. Why is it so important for us to distinguish between good and evil? Of course sometimes we accept that there exists gray areas in our moral understandings between the absolutes of black and white morality, whereby we accept the eventuality that sometimes good actions or intentions will have evil or malicious results, and that evil actions can possess elements of goodness in them. Nevertheless, most of the time we will try to determine the certain events or actions as an absolute, either good or evil. Is this approach specific only to humans? We cannot say that, because in the animal kingdom we can find the same systems of judgment. As an example, imagine yourself fishing, when you put your bait into the water, you may see many tiny fish that hesitate whether or not to bite. You can see a real hesitation, like you would see in some scientist solving a dual problem. How is it possible that in this tiny cold brain, we can find the same judgment system trying to distinguish between whether or not the bait is food, which is good, or a life threatening danger, which is evil. This means that the moral law of Immanuel Kant has its counterpart on the early stages of the biological evolution and ability to distinguish between good and evil is supported by positive natural selection, because the fish that is not able to make this judgment will inevitably die or be killed without any chance for reproducing.

Of course, it is more complicated when it comes to the human moral standard, but the difference is not as big as one would think. For example, self sacrifice and altruism which are considered some of the most extreme acts attributed to human nature is quite well known and documented in the animal kingdom. We don’t find many animals that are ready to die for certain ideas like some brave scientists that ended up burned at the stake for their beliefs, but we still find a lot of examples when the animals sacrifice their own lives in order to promote their offspring, or even for the sake of promoting their species’ survival. We would argue that self sacrifice in the animal kingdom is governed by instincts and would be more common than in a human society where individuals are reluctant to endanger their lives for a multitude of reasons.

Do good and evil exist from the point of view of nature? Are those categories included in the structure of the universe? Is the supernova explosion an act of good, or an act of evil? It is neutral, and could be valued in moral terms only through realization of the consequences by human minds.

Do good and evil exist from the point of view of god? No matter what definition of god we would choose we always define god as some sort of thermometer of good and evil, with the tools of punishment and reward. Can heaven exist without god? Can god exist without heaven? Can satan exist without hell? Can hell exist without satan? In this simplified picture of the universe which we have inherited from our ancestors, these categories cannot exist independently, even atheists just narrowed these categories but still operate with the same terms of good and evil, punishment and reward. The problem is that evil empires are considered evil only by their enemies, but they are considered as the proper state by their governors and often by most of their people. Just as history is written by the conquerors for only in the eyes of their nations that fell under their power are they evil, but history remembers them as the greatest societies that ever existed.

We would like to emphasize that our attempt to define human nature by investigating the categories of good and evil don’t have any purpose to justify evil acts on the grounds that if evil cannot be well defined so the evil actions could be more acceptable. Our intention is to argue that neither “good” or “evil” can be used as universal absolutes, rather, they should always be used in respect to the individual or society that these categories are being evaluated by.

 

 

 

 

 

Let us discuss how we understand our inner reflection of “sin.” There are two kinds of regret that we can experience towards our own wrong doing, the first one is real regret, when the same circumstances repeat, the individual will never do the same thing even if nobody is looking and there is no threat of punishment or penalization. Another sort of regret is not a real one, it is caused by the realization of the wrong doings in terms of punishment and this sort of regret could not be considered as a true expression of the personal moral beliefs. This includes not only fear of punishment that might come from the society that Sigmund Freud categorized as a super-ego but it also includes the fear of punishment beyond the material life, like the fear of god’s wrath, even though in most cases it is considered as honest regret, it is not. It is not correct to argue that the moral law mentioned by Immanuel Kant as something fundamental for human nature, at least it cannot be considered as fundamental and constant as the stars above.

 The moral laws inside of us are flexible. Lack of food can easily justify stealing, danger can justify aggression against a source of danger, even homicide. There is no mature or immature moral law, it just constantly changes with the evolving needs of our body and character. It is also influenced by external pressures. Humans possess a weak memory or capacity to recall past situations because their memory is not based on the imaging of the scenery as a whole like on video-cassette, but it is based on a multi-dimensional imprint of the event in a human’s brain that could be retrieved by employing different associations. Thus the same events could be analyzed and perceived differently, at a later time, by the same individual in a much different manner. Absence of stable memory and firm systems of recognition and realization allow us to change our moral beliefs in a very efficient way, allowing us adjust in a fluid manner to the internal and external pressures that we face. So how can we call moral law “a law” if it is changed as frequently as we need to change it? Most of the time we don’t realize that the change has been made, and we feel quite consistent with our status of our personal morals and beliefs.

Now let us discuss the question, “How God might judge our sins?” Is there any moral law so fundamental that it could be attributed to the Almighty? We may argue that by giving us free will, god let us undertake the privilege of judgment of our own deeds and thus if we consider our own deeds as “good” ones, independently how they are perceived by conventional moral standards, we are not the sinners in the eyes of god, and only if we judge ourselves, god confirms our punitive ruling against ourselves by destining us to an eternity in hell.

This is a very malicious statement, such statements allow the situation when a blood thirsty murderer that doesn’t regret his deeds the means to still end up in heaven because he is consistent with himself, while a good person for some reason regrets some of his innocent deeds will end up in hell. This is not a very probable system to follow. Then we have abandoned a simple system of punishment and reward, simply because the truth is much more complicated.

Christian morals is the most developed system of morals that human kind could ever achieve, because it includes the list of recommendations that if all living people would follow them, our world could become heaven on earth. Theoretically, Christian morals, should work this way, but they never do. The problem is that we should not encourage people to obtain a fundamental unchanging moral law, as evidence of a morally mature individual. We have to encourage a constant search and constant check of current internal moral values that actually can yield a better human being, rather than the person with seemingly inflexible moral beliefs. We can improve human nature by encouraging this constant search, because awareness of the fact that there is no such thing as constant fundamental moral law inside of us leaves us responsible to make the right decisions every single day, to check our morals every single hour, and try to follow them, every minute of our lives.

 

 

 

 

 



 

 

 Reflection and

Realization, the Progression of Our Evolution


 


The universe does not carry out the rigid boundaries between the living and inanimate matter. We can trace the fate of each atom composing us from the moment of its creation to the nuclei of stars, as a result of the evolution of the universe through the gradual accumulation of even heavier, and consequently, more complex elements that occurs through the formation of more complex conglomerations of matter with their own unique properties, which do not exist in isolation from one another but exist through their union. In essence, the motion of this evolution is driven by the complication of the systems and organizations of matter that we have been able to study. If we were compared to other remnants of our galaxy such as stars or planets we lead to the realization that we are both diminutive and insignificant in the grand scheme of the universe. It’s similar, if one would compare a wood stove and computer microcircuit. The divergence in the utilization of energy resources and needs only stands to emphasize the fact that the complexity of the system is the unquestionable standard of evolutionary hierarchy. Life, as we know it, found unique means against the inevitable entropy of the system (dispersion of energy in the space). The living forms of matter do not resist entropy. They are the open systems, which is an important concept of their organization. They consist of the component elements, which can be constantly substituted. Nevertheless, our understanding of our universe has been a gradual progression that is inevitably linked to our evolution.

 

As we know it humans have been able to understand the evolutionary process in three distinct phases. Firstly, there is simply matter, which is the non-living physical object of the universe consisting of all the same atoms such as the stars and galaxies that we observe around us. The living systems comprise this second stage of evolution because they represent an open system that is constantly engaging the environment and the physical laws of our world. Simply stated, all objects or living entities accept and receive energy in this system. This distinguishes itself from inanimate matter because there is no collaboration or interaction with the environment it resides in. As such an open system is not bound by the limitations of a physical presence because the concept of an open system is an idea which does not rely on matter. Therefore, in our understanding it would be possible to recreate an animal that exists on our planet somewhere else in the galaxy because the animal is comprised of the same atoms as that environment and will embrace the reciprocal flow of energy through constant interaction. This is different from the first stage of evolution because to recreate an inanimate object in another area of the galaxy it would have to be physically moved to that location because it exists as a closed system, dependent on physical matter.

 

The third stage of evolution occupies a more theoretical plane of thought. Human existence allows for the contemplation and realization of ideas and concepts. However, it is our intelligence that allows us to understand that ideas existed long before our capacity to acknowledge and realize their existence. As such, ideas are independent from physical matter and exist merely as a concept in our minds, just like love. Love is a sincere interest in any object or phenomenon. It also constitutes a reflection of an object or phenomenon. It is possible to define love as the acknowledgement of the highest value of the reflected object, realization of its uniqueness. Simple reflection is known in the inanimate nature. However, it cannot be said that the smoothness of the surface of a lake, which reflects the light of a star, loves this light or falls in love with this star. Possibly, this is suitable for poetry, but not for the object of our consideration. Thus, love is inherently bound by the process of realization. Realization is a complex series of events whereby the absorption of the object or phenomenon breaks through the unconscious by the act of meditation and introspection. The concept of love does not necessarily imply certain tangible contact with any given object. As such, it would follow that the object does not even need to exist in the physical sense for love is not bound by the concepts of physical matter. It’s sufficient as only a means, recollection, presentiment or simply an idea. Love that one can experience with respect to the objects in daily life is only a partial designation of the phenomena that we are capable of bestowing the concept of love. Love is a unique designation that we as humans can bestow onto ideas because we reflect the universe through realization and love. This ability elevates our uniqueness within our universe because we are the only known living beings capable of performing these tasks. For only through reflection are we able to realize their existence and is why humans have reached the pinnacle of our evolutionary ideals. The human race has the capacity to manipulate and transfer these ideas and images, but not in the fashion of a living system because an idea does not rely on its environment or the physical limitations it imposes.

 

Evolution as we understand it is the progress towards the development of more complex and elaborate systems that can be understood through reflection but is not limited to human progression. Just as we occupy the pinnacle of species evolution, we are by nature inclined to create the evolution of our own systems. Therefore, the fourth stage of evolution is the closed or virtual system. The virtual system can be understood as artificial intelligence or a world that is not bound by our evolutionary limitations. Nevertheless, the virtual world can be based on our physical laws and principles. Thus, the virtual system has the capacity to be exchangeable with any other form of matter if it embraces those principles. An example would be the act of closing a computer file. As it closes it seems to obey the laws of gravity and falls down, in this instance we can see humans imposing our own limitations on a system that does not need to consider such laws. Furthermore, we need to address the fact that virtual reality encompasses a larger scope than previously understood. For as humans progress, so to does the scope and complexity of the virtual world we create. After creating man, the universe like all things it spawns, evolved and is only now begin conceived. Human creations such as computers represent another form of the organization of the material in our universe. Like all things, both living and lifeless, they consist of atoms and molecules which were formed from the creation of the universe itself. These creations begin to form the new universe that we understand, in which the basis of material and energy are symbols like that of the binary code that we ourselves create. This newly developed universe is not subordinated to our laws of physics, thermodynamics or even logic. In it, there are no problems or limitations to the rate and flow of time. As in the case of virtual reality in which we are capable of molding and creating any world we desire. Although the realities we create may resemble our own its existence is merely a byproduct of our own evolution, our need for computers. Generally to me is not intelligible to utilize the term "another universe". If we by the word "universe" designate that all existing objects exist in one universe but cannot in another, then this definition can easily be postponed by those who embrace ideals of divinity because how is one universe more morally suited than any other.

 

Since, as a matter of definition, the universe embodies all things, because it is not confined to any boundaries that we can imagine. Stemming from this it is prudent to acknowledge that belief systems that are grounded in religion and god necessitate that all things, including the universe itself is a part of god because god embodies all things hence nothing is beyond gods’ scope. If god embodies everything, then there cannot be parts of the universe that exceed gods reach, even our imaginations. From combining these two concepts, both god and the universe, we can say that the evolution of their understanding and intelligence has led to the appearance of a new form of existence. An existence that is independent from them, material and space, and since this contradicts our previously established definitions, one should say that as soon as this understanding of a new creation occurs, it immediately becomes a part of the universe and was ultimately derived from god. Furthermore, our definition of the universe represents an absolute ideal. Namely, that everything that can and can not exist, everything that does and does not exist, and everything that has existed, does exist and will exist is inherently apart of the universe.



Now let us study the concept known as "evolution," and how other ideals and theories impact our understanding of its place in the universe. Is it possible to conceive evolution separately from the concept of time? It goes without saying, that for a human these concepts cannot exist in isolation but are inherently linked since the dawn of creation. Let us accept time as a special case of our perception or, if you want, a special case of existence that does not seem to possess any substance but inevitably unfolds before our eyes. How can we determine time with respect to our determination of universe or even god for that matter? How do we perceive time with respect to our concepts of past, present and future? Everything that exists, that being powerful enough to exist in harmony with the forces of the universe and those that do not yet possess the ability to withstand them are affected by these ideas. Although it can be argued that those which do not possess the power to exist are apart of the past; and quite possibly will inhabit the future as time unfolds. Thus, within the framework of the definition of the universe and god, the concept of evolution driven by the endless passage of time in a direction that we cannot ourselves control. Since we can only think about the categories of matter that are accessible to us it is possible to dare to state that the universe evolves before our eyes. Yet, what direction does our evolution take in the first place? This for us is a prospect that we must now examine. We concluded that, in the first place, that evolution as it pertains to the universe does exist but how does our understanding of time influence our understanding of that evolution?

 

 

 

 

Achieving peace of mind

 

When I read classic literature, it always calms me down. This is especially true when I read the diaries of famous writers of the 19th century. It seems like you have conversed with an intelligent person, when he didn’t have the need to make himself look that way, or better than he really is. This reading is very comforting to me, because the pace of life in the 19th century was much slower than today’s. The interests and passions were less competitive and the flow of time allowed for individuals to expand their thoughts into questions, a practice we seldom have time for anymore. These old diaries are taking me far away from the reality of everyday life and the only thing that I regret is that you cannot find new works by novelists such as Swift, Defoe, and Dickens, or new poetry from such poets as Byron.

 I like this sort of detailed work, and you would probably be surprised as to the content of the books I pursue, because I tend to read completely useless books on topics such as agricultural reports of ancient Rome, written by contemporary writers of that time.

 Reading for me is not just acquiring information, this is first of all a thought provoking action which helps the flow of my own thoughts, and directs them to unique and different directions, allowing my mind to figure out better ways of perceiving my surroundings, and the world in which I live.

 Reading for me is a routine action, and routine actions are very common in nature. Most of the processes in nature begin with elemental, progressive steps, building towards a desired end. Unfortunately, I suffer from the necessity to be engaged in any routine action, all but reading.

 We can achieve only the illusion of peace of mind. This illusion is somehow connected to places, times, people, and images. Alas, if you look at the details you see that situations that you perceive as safe and comfortable, in reality were not that safe. This is true, not only regarding personal experiences, but when you observe the biographies of successful writers, philosophers, and scientists. The impression of their success deteriorates with the progression of reading, you may find many disturbing details in their biographies that could have easily jeopardized their success and forfeited their claim to the pages of history.

 There are many examples of images that are imprinted in our minds as ultimate success stories, that in detailed investigation of such accounts, you see that this is only another illusion that is offered to us by the media, books, and movies. In many times we do the opposite, by making negative conclusions about some events that actually are not as bad or at least don’t have any serious effect on ourselves or our lives. For example, we tend to over-estimate the danger of getting killed in terrorist attacks or becoming a victim of airplane crashes when in fact, we have a much greater chance of dying behind the wheel of a car. Lucius Annaeus Seneca[1] gave all of us very valuable advice when he said that we shouldn’t worry about troubles in the future because they will most likely never happen, and if they do happen, then we will worry about them then. But if we worry about future troubles now, and they never happen, we just poisoned our lives and lose all hope for happiness.

 The state of peace of mind, the stable feeling of happiness, and self-enjoyment are all not based on the facts of your life. It is more important which system of beliefs that you have in place to cope with different situations. The only way to achieve a stable state of happiness, and peace of mind, is to learn more about yourself to find the true source of your unhappiness. Only through introspection can we purge the negative images that currently occupy our thoughts.

 Seneca can be a good guide for such self learning. His letters to Lucilus include volumes of practical advice which still holds true today, even though some of them have been long forgotten. In modern Western culture, we perceive action as a better choice than absence of action, though in many cases, absence of action allows one to find more successful ways of balancing one’s state of mind.

 Avoiding actions, is perceived in puritanical cultures as the sin of laziness, and it seems that it is better to do whatever you have to do, without a lot of thinking of the reasons, or the results rather than the state of inactivity. “No strain, no gain” is a main slogan that can illustrate the modern approach, this creates a lot of stress and exhaustion, making people engage in the frenzy of the modern lifestyle. “Do first, think later, Or even better, don’t think at all.”

 If you were to ask the majority of people walking down the street what they are doing, most will struggle with this question, and then tell you where they were going, then if you were to ask why they were doing what they said they were doing, most would struggle once more, but would be unable to give you an answer, because they in fact do not know why they do what they are doing. For example, ask a high school student on his way to school, “Where are you going?” They will answer “to school,” “but why are you going there?” The answer will most likely be “because that’s what I’ve got to do.” You won’t find a very deep explanation of people’s actions in more mature individuals as well. Thinking is very rare and a highly prized commodity in today’s society. “Thought is a strenuous art – few practice it, and then only at rare times” as the first Prime Minister of Isreal, David Ben-Gurion, once mentioned, and this is very true. We don’t teach our children to think, we teach them to act, no matter how illogical it may seem.

 The inability of people’s ability to analyze their motives and actions is creating a lot of stress, and causing frustration. Thinking is not that difficult, if you are used to exercising it, it is just about the lifestyle. People don’t like to think, not because thinking requires more energy (probably it does), but as a result of the erroneous assumption that thinking is an illegitimate way to spend their precious time, and therefore, is not supported by the majority of the members of today’s society.

 We have certain units of time, everyday they are allocated for certain purposes, we can spend about 10 minutes showering, 30 minutes or more eating, 2-3 hours watching TV, but we seem to neglect allocating time for simple contemplation. There is no such thing as a special time for thinking, you are supposed to do it if you really need to, while you’re in the shower, or eating, or watching TV, which is not very comfortable because sinking into a deep thought in the shower makes you forget whether you have already washed your hair, and therefore you have to do it again, which considerably increases the amount of water and shampoo you use. Thinking during meals increases the probability of choking, and therefore dying prematurely, and thinking while watching TV is almost completely impossible because very many TV producers’ specific intent is to distract our thoughts from our lives, to something else that has nothing to do with our daily reality.

 Absence of thinking-time in our culture is a bad thing. In order to stay self consistent, humans need some time to review their actions and to adjust their thoughts and beliefs accordingly. The modern world doesn’t quite support us, or allow us to adjust accordingly because are culture perpetuates the problem. When you have allocated some time for thought, sometimes you can sum up with very surprising conclusions that most of the actions you have been undertaking in the past were actually not leading you to any particular aim.

 Western culture is idolizing perfectionism. This imposes a lifestyle on most people that expects them to be perfect in their personal life, career, and any endeavor they undertake. The individual evaluates all aspects of his life in terms of success or failure. We can see this approach even in psychological terminology when modern psychology needs to describe the crisis in relationships between members of a family, it sums up that crisis as a “dysfunctional family,” which as a matter of fact, demonstrates the core values as it is presented by modern psychology; the family is supposed to function like a machine, or a computer system. Therefore, the psychology of the society doesn’t allow any room for failure, subsequently, increasing the pressure on any particular individual. We are living in an era of perfectionism. You don’t meet many successful individuals that value the calmness of quiet thoughts while observing the sunset, or individuals that find real pleasure in non-material values. I am a perfectionist myself, I suffer from the most frustrating form of perfectionism when it is complicated with not-withstanding any routine work. I get easily excited with new ideas but, I find a lot of difficulty in conducting repetitive actions that usually are necessary to succeed in any endeavor. Perfectionism is causing a lot of suffering because there is no place for happiness in such an approach, you cannot be happy until you get your work done, but neither can you be happy when you get the results because the perfectionist is never satisfied with any results, the modern culture is a huge factory that manufactures unhappy souls. I am trying to put an end to this by training myself to not be as perfectionist as I used to be, but even in this simple action, I am trying to be perfect and therefore, my effort doesn’t defeat the purpose. I always despised non-perfectionists, that I call in my personal vocabulary an “episodist,” by episodist I mean a person who is not result oriented, but process oriented, I always thought that these kind of people were either stupid, or just some kind of hippy, but now I realize that I was probably wrong. Look at nature. We don’t have much evidence that time itself is real, and not just an illusion of our minds. So without time, there is no meaning of any result. Without time, the only meaning is to put effort into the process itself. Lets look at nature again, what is the ultimate result of a nice meal? Obviously, it is the energy that we get out of food, but energy is not a very material thing, the material result of the nice meal, is nothing more than the products of our digestive system, which could be considered neither aesthetically pleasing, or a desirable outcome.

 The ultimate result of any blossom is rotting. The ultimate result of any life is death. That is why paying too much attention to results is not very desirable, without anticipation of results you don’t have anxiety of failure. Nature is taking care of our ultimate results because we are left in charge of only the process, not the results.

 How does one learn how to stop looking at results? How to value the simple episodes of life? Take for example, me sitting in this room writing this work. Rather than focusing my attention on the publishing, or the final product of my efforts, I focus only on the fact that I am enjoying writing, and sharing my thoughts. It is a pleasant atmosphere, and I am in good company of the sleeping cat, the lazy dog, and the pleasant chimes of the clock. I am not anxious, or nervous about how I sound, or any deadline that I must meet. Does this make me a bad person trying to enjoy my life independently of the results? I don’t think so.

 But still, in the back of my mind I am anxious as to how the book is going to turn out. I can’t wait for the time when I submit this to the editor. I can’t wait until I get the first copy, and see the cover. I am not happy that I cannot see all of this right now, right here. Here is a good illustration of my dilemma, whether to abandon the ultimate preoccupation with the results and start to enjoy each and every moment of my existence, or to be like everybody else, a crazy perfectionist, that cannot think of anything but successful results.

 Natural selection has made us strive for perfection, how ever unnatural it may sound. Even now we need to eat someone’s flesh in order to survive and episodists are not very good hunters. If love is an ultimate aim of the development of the universe, why shouldn’t I make an effort to escape my anxieties, even for a moment, and devote it to pure reflection of the outside world, my inner soul?

 The way to achieve piece of mind is to come to the realization that we need to understand ourselves, our primal responses. To get acquainted with our standard reactions, someway we often overestimate or underestimate ourselves, applying our possible behavior to different situations, and eventually this adds up and makes us much more anxious about the days yet to come. Our fear of the future is not only based on the fear of unfortunate events, but also the fear of our inability to provide the proper reaction.

 Our previous experience usually provides us with sufficient information about our ability to cope with different stressful events in our lives, but for some reason, this doesn’t provide us with enough confidence to be able to cope with future events with the same or even a higher degree of success, because of a wider experience that we acquired in the past. Analysis of our previous performance allows us to achieve a peace of mind about future challenges. One of the problems in estimating our own abilities is the obstacle that comes from public opinion that our own evaluation is subjective and therefore cannot be right. Thus, we have a deep need for approval of a third party that will provide us with a second opinion about our abilities and ourselves. The most amazing thing is that sometimes the source of this opinion could be the person that we don’t perceive as a reliable source of opinions on many other issues. This is a paraphrase of Arthur Schopenhauer that persuades the reader to not care much about others opinions. He was curious as to how many people in our lives do we actually value and respect their opinions. Very often the answer would be zero, so why should we worry about someone else’s opinion of our account? Being objective about ourselves is not important only in order to not overestimate our abilities, but also in order to not underestimate them.

 We need to learn to build our self-confidence not based on the frequently heard phrases like “I hate doing this,” “I never knew how to do this,” “I will never get over this,” Or any other sort of discouraging and counterproductive statements. We would rather have to make the conclusions about our abilities, to adjust to new situations, being flexible and creative, and therefore, provide ourselves with self-confidence that will be able to perform in the future, at least in the same way.

 Inflexibility is the main cause of failure and therefore anxiety, depression, and absence of peace of mind. Nature is supporting us to be as flexible as possible because “adjustment” in wildlife is synonymous with “survival.” If you can adjust to a harsh winter, you will survive. If not, then you die, pretty straightforward, isn’t it? Flexibility in human society is a valuable commodity. I had to adjust during my life, to at least 5 different language environments, and even though I have never perfected them, I was pretty successful in all of them. You don’t need to be perfect in order to

survive. Moreover, trying to be perfect may exhaust your energy resources, and eventually lead to your downfall.

 Common sense is another clue for reaching a state of peace. But in my vocabulary, common sense is not an opinion of the majority; rather, it is a sober insight into the problem which is free of pre-judgments and the misleading conclusions of others. I have learned to question anything I see and I am not new to this approach. I completely agree with Rene Descartes in his work “Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason, and Seeking Truth in the Sciences” in chapter two, when he stated: “…but as for the opinions which up to that time I had embraced, I thought that I could not do better than resolve at once to sweep them wholly away, that I might afterwards be in a position to admit either others more correct, or even perhaps the same when they had undergone the scrutiny of reason. I firmly believed that in this way I should much better succeed in the conduct of my life, than if I built only upon old foundations, and leaned upon principles which, in my youth, I had taken upon trust.”

 Following the advice of Descartes, I re-examine any concept or belief that I once took for granted comparing it to my current experience and the modern world that’s significantly different from the one that I could experience as a child or as an adolescent. I must admit that this old approach benefits me in many ways, because regretfully, it is still very rare and therefore it gives me an advantage over others that don’t employ this simple approach.

 We can frequently hear an opinion that most of the things in life depend on chance and opportunity. Many people argue that if or when the opportunity will come, they will not miss it. But the truth is that such people are not quite sure of what they are saying, as a result of decades of waiting for the right opportunity to present itself. They usually lose their hope, and just repeat comforting words and phrases in the “maybe someday…” style. How can one be sure that you won’t miss the right opportunity when you don’t have the experience to not miss the opportunity simply because you’ve never had one like it before? How can you train yourself to catch the opportunity when it comes along if the opportunity is such a rare commodity? As a matter of fact, such people lose the opportunities because they failed to recognize them when they presented themselves. I found the way to train myself to seize these opportunities when they arose. This is by taking the initiative of creating my own opportunities. That is why I know I will not miss one when it arises, because usually they come at the right time and the right place, as everything which is carefully planned in advance does.

 I always consider myself as an ultimate source of opportunities. This can be a substantial component to my peace of mind, because if you don’t wait for the opportunity to come, you shouldn’t be anxious, you will just know that when you need it, you will find a way to create it. Of course, it costs a lot of money, but opportunities have a very special nature; to bring even more money than it cost to create them, so usually I end up with something at the end of the day that I can spend on the next opportunities that I create, and of course on creation, friendly environment to myself with the sleeping cat, the lazy dog, and the chiming clock.

 Marco Polo went all the way to the Far East trying to mix the different pages of history, because medieval Europe doesn’t go well with medieval China as they were greatly separated. As I learned … they weren’t only separated by distance, they were separated in people’s minds at that time. Europeans, and their superior spiritual leader, the Roman Pope, made numerous attempts to create relationships with Tatar-Mongols. All of these proposals of co-operation in the Crusades were met with resistance. It was like different civilizations were unwilling to relinquish their isolation and culture. Tatar-Mongols would be reluctant in the same way to co-operate with aliens, once these green men would have the audacity to ask for their assistance.

 

 

 This is not that the individual people were not co-operative the entire civilization was inflexible as well. How would the world look like in our days if the Tatar-Mongols would have interfered in the Crusades? Here we come to the question of the risk of accepting or declining a certain opportunity, this makes the moments of our lives unequal, because some crossroads are more important than just routine days where nothing eventful occurs. Thoughts like “What if…” are adding a lot of anxiety and distortion of our peace of mind. “What if I went to law school?” “What if I…” creating opportunities for yourself precludes ourselves from entertaining such possibilities.

 

As a matter of fact, I don’t believe in opportunities. Most of the time when I create opportunities for others I can divert them for a limited time. Sometimes it is only days, sometimes it takes years, but sooner or later they come back to their original state and move on with their path like there was no opportunity in the first place. Probably, I can create an opportunity that will divert someone from his chosen path for a period of time which coincidentally is longer than his life-span. This won’t mean that this individual wouldn’t have an internal need to come back to his natural state of mind.

 Now I have to make a confession; I am exactly the same type of individual. I always follow my own path. If troubles or opportunities divert me from this path, this doesn’t mean that I cease to have an internal sub-conscious impulse to come back and go on with this path. A very important thing in changing our paths is to analyze what is in fact our chosen destiny, because most of the people aren’t quite aware of its direction and true nature.

 The last thing that I would mention that is important for maintaining one’s peace of mind is the management of multiple images of the same things that we usually have in our memories and imagination. For example, I have three images of Paris in my head, the first is the one that I had before I visited the city, the second is the actual memory of the city itself, the third is the image that I am constantly recreating from French periodicals, new novels, and listening to French news. These are three absolutely different cities. Realization of the multi-imaging nature of our consciousness is a very important step towards establishing a well balanced mental state. Admitting existence of this multiple impressions allows me to avoid their inner conflicts, and helps me function in a more stress-free environment.

 Paris to me as a young man had a magical aura about it, whenever I was in Europe I tried to visit it, because of the marvel and wonder it held in my mind. Although it was so magical in my mind, when I actually visited it, it was not as pleasant, exciting, and not near as magical as I once thought. I have to admit that some details of this visit were magical on a personal level, because when I stood in the square in front of the Notre Dame cathedral, I was thinking about my beloved grandmother that was standing in this very place over half a century ago, and this created a vivid emotional and spiritual effect. Although certain aspects of the visit were very disappointing, it was still very nice to have a refreshing point of view on the city I thought I knew, so in the end it was not disappointing at all. Now that I am a grown man and am immersing myself in French culture, I find myself discovering a whole new Paris through media and people I talk to and hear from. Though I have three very different Ideas of what Paris is to me, these three images build and grow off of each other, and do not conflict with each other in my mind.

I notice the same effect with multiple impressions created in my mind by philosophers, writers, and other great minds. For example, I possess two Lord George Gordon Byrons, the one that whispers in my ears:

 

It is the hour when from the boughs

The nightingale's high note is heard;

It is the hour -- when lover's vows

Seem sweet in every whisper'd word;

And gentle winds and waters near,

Make music to the lonely ear.

 

And another Lord George Gordon Byron, that fights on behalf of Greek rebellions and dying far away from his home. [2] They are two different Byrons for me, and I need someway to settle them in my head. Some objects or events, some people or places may have multiple connotations and we need to learn to deal with this without allowing them to cause internal conflicts and disturbing our peace of mind.

 Peace of mind is the most valuable entity that could be and should be achieved in our earthly lives. I hope that some thoughts mentioned herein, may be of some assistance to you and cathartic to myself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 





[1] Lucius Annaeus Seneca (often known simply as Seneca, or Seneca the Younger) (ca. 4 BC–AD 65) was a Roman philosopher, statesman, dramatist, and in one work, humorist, of the Silver Age of Latin literature.

[2]Being a poet, Byron had come to feel that action was more important than poetry. He boarded a brig, the Hercules, and sailed to Greece to aid the Greeks, who had risen against Ottoman oppression. Byron died far away from his home, in Missolonghi on 19 April 1824.





[i] Berndt Brehmer,1976 Social judgment theory and the analysis of interpersonal conflict