Living in the "real" world......

"Why don't you get a real job!

"Hey, stop dreaming, we live in the real world!"

"What......, you're gonna dance, be real!!"

"Face it, we all have to have real jobs, because we all have real bills to pay."

So, then exactly what is the "real" world one may wonder.

First, let's define "real".

Real= actual, nominal, factual, fixed, permanent,to mention a few.

      (Middle english (as a legal term meaning 'relating to things, especially real property'): from Anglo-Norman French, from late Latin realis, from Latin res 'thing'.)

We use the term in many everyday phrases:

"This is not a game, this is for real."

"Lower the taxes? Get real!"

"This is pittance, what we need is real money"

"You think you know what pain is, try pushing out a human being through your private parts, now that's real pain."

Is being "real" necessarily a more beneficial, useful, or advantageous position?

"Depends, you may say, if you want a roof over your head and food on the table."  Fair enough, those things are important issues, I just wonder if being real has to exclude having dreams, after all isn't it the dreamers that show us the paths to new, real, possibilities?  As children we often want to become Superheroes, Movie stars, Pop stars, Important sports figures, etc. I don't think I have ever heard a child say he/she wants to become an accountant  when he/she grows up. (Not that there is anything wrong with being an accountant...:)  A child who enjoys drawing/painting is generally encouraged whether displaying an obvious talent or not, a child who likes to move/dance to music is encouraged, a child who likes singing is encouraged, a child who likes reading and writing is encouraged, but at a certain age if there are no obvious signs of talent, and sometimes even if there is obvious talent, the child is often discouraged and redirected in his/her interests. In the real world there are more job opportunities for accountants than superheroes, artists, or people good at doing stuff with balls. Although, if one is lucky and talented, an artist or someone good at sports, can earn more money in a week than ten accountants in a month, but is money necessarily the best way to measure success?

Is it not possible to be poor extrinsically and rich intrinsically? Richard Hills writes: "There is no victory in the stuff of life. There is only victory in the love of life, for without the love of life, the stuff of life is not worth fighting for."

If the "real" world is a world in which we do what we have to do, not because we desire to, is the "unreal" world the opposite? In an "unreal" world, do we do what we want/desire to do?

"That's not a possibility in the "real" world............we can't all be "dreamers" someone has to make sure the wheels turn."

This leads me to ponder what a "dreamer" is. Often the term has a negative connotation, it implies being somewhat unrealistic, an idealist, being impractical. On the other hand, a "dreamer" may also be a visionary, a seeker of new possibilities outside and inside the self.

Living in the "real" world does not necessarily mean we can't also be dreamers, dreams as far as I can ascertain do not come in "one-size-fits-all". Neither does the "real" world.

For the wheels to turn we need both "wheel turners" and "dreamers".

“It is interesting that we call something good a “dream,” but being called a “dreamer” is somewhat of a put down" (Vera Nazarian)

"The world needs dreamers and the world needs doers. But above all, the world needs dreamers who do."     ( Sarah Ban Breathnach)

Perhaps we need to question what we mean when we use the term "real" world, because somehow I think a Kalahari bushman will have a very different view, and so will many others in other cultures, and if such is the case, how can it be deemed "real"?

 The "real" world for some of us may include metaphysical phenomena, music not yet composed, images not yet painted, questions not yet asked, inventions not yet invented, languages not yet spoken, cures not yet found, and for others; none of the above.

Not all of us are dreamers, but some of us are,

not all of us are doers, but some of us are,

what if instead of saying: in the real world, we say my world then perhaps

value and respect  

could be extended to dreamers and doers alike. 

What about me!!!?

 

I, me, myself, who is that?

 

When and how do we discover that "I" am separate from "them", and once "I" have found "me", will "I" be a static impression/experience/state or will "I" keep on changing?

This is how Baumeister(Psychology professor at Florida State University) defines the self: "the individuals belief about him/herself, including the person's attributes, and who and what the self is".

Put simply perhaps it can be defined as referring to how we think about or perceive ourselves, our own evaluation of what we call the "me".

A child smiles and someone smiles back, the child cries and things happen,  now the child realises that he/she is separate from others, and all this before the child is six months old. 

Having realised that he/she exists as a separate experiencing being, the child next becomes aware that he/she is also an object in the world; an object, including people, with experiences and different properties. Like: I am a boy/girl, I am three years old.

Moving along..........Carl Rogers, (An  American psychologist and among the founders of the humanistic approach to psychology), believed that there are three aspects to the "self-concept" such as self esteem, self image and the ideal self. Self esteem=the worth you give yourself, self image=how you view yourself, and the ideal self=how you would like/wish yourself to be.

If you asked yourself the question: "Who am I?", what would be your answer?

Many of us would probable begin with a physical description( I am tall, short, brown eyed, etc.), then our social position( I am student/worker/football player etc.)followed by some personal traits(I am hard working, contentious, patient, etc.) and perhaps we may add: I am a human being, a Global citizen, a pacifist, etc.

How we define ourselves has a lot to do with how others react to us, as do how we think we compare to others, how we view our standing/position in the society we live in, and how and to what extent we can identify with others.

In high school there was a "cool-group", a group of people that somehow seemed
"better, cooler" than most, and to be included in that group was something that many of us "less cool" students aspired to. If others admire us, seek our company, listen to what we have to say, in short accept us for who we are, we develop a positive self-image. Consequently, if others avoid us, ignore what we say, belittle our attributes, often we develop a negative self-image.

We compare ourselves with others, and if we come up short, we tend to develop a negative self-image, if we compare ourselves and come out on top, we develop a positive self-image.

Already in primary school we become "actors" with different roles to play, and often we keep playing those roles throughout life.

The "class clown", the "brain", the "fat kid", the "book worm", the "tough kid", the "goody-two-shoes", the "sports fanatic", etc.etc.; the stigma attached to those roles can be hard to shake off.

If we identify with the "roles" we play, it can be difficult to re-invent ourselves and we may find ourselves stuck in a cycle of negative self regard, however, we do possess the facility for change.

A very helpful tool for instigating change can be to avoid the use of absolutes.

"I have always.......xyz" replace the always with often. "Everyone/everybody.......xyz", replace the everyone/everybody with some or many. "I am always.......xyz" replace with "sofar I have.........xyz".

Someone once said: "we are what we think" suggesting that if we change our thinking we can change who we are.

Some things we can't change; where we were born, who gave birth, our height and the fact that we will die one day, the rest pretty much has wriggle room.

Are you the person you want to be?

How do you define yourself?

Is there a mismatch between how you view yourself(self-image) and what you would like to be?

(ideal-self), if so, this will most likely affect your self-esteem(self regard).

If we have high self-steem, then we have a positive regard for ourselves, we have confidence in our abilities, we tend to be optimistic, we don't need others approval(although we may value it), and we have self acceptance.

If we have low self-steem, then we often seek others approval, we lack in self-confidence, we worry about how others will see us, and we tend to have a negative outlook.

Example: If you don't trust yourself, will others? If you don't value yourself, will others?

So how do we improve our self-esteem?

• Talk to yourself like you would to your closest friend.
• Challenge negative "self-talk", i.e; question the validity of the things you say to yourself.
• Try not to engage in the comparison game, do the best you can.
• If someone gives you a compliment, accept it graciously.
• Cut down on worrying as much as you can...
• Let go of the past, life happens now.
• Stand up/stick to your values.

          Find time for enjoyment/relaxation whatever that may be........

 

"Noone can make you feel inferior without your consent". (Eleanor Roosevelt)

"Noone will listen to us until we listen to ourselves". (Marianne Williamson)

“Never be bullied into silence. Never allow yourself to be made a victim. Accept no one's definition of your life, but define yourself.” (Harvey Fierstein)

 

What about me, I, myself?

That's entirely up to you.

 

It's not my fault, don't blame me........

Sometimes out of the blue(or so it seems)disaster befalls us.

Storms, tsunamis, king tides, hurricanes, tornadoes, hail, etc.etc. and although we may have had an inkling of such, i.e. warning signs, somehow in the aftermath..... while estimating the damage...

we often find ourselves looking for someone to blame.

Is holding someone responsible the same as blaming someone?

To "blame" can be viewed as psychologically projecting the other/others to be the originator/originators of the emotions experienced.

I/we are the victim/victims and I/we are powerless.

To be "responsible", may be defined as the state or and fact of accountability; what is my/our part in this, what can I/we do about it? I/we are not powerless.

Example: "Don't blame me, I had a rotten childhood," visa vie

"I had a rotten childhood, therefore I will......."

"What do you expect, I wasn't given all the information," visa vie

"I wasn't given all the information, therefore I will..........."

How we experience something is often about our perspective, although we may not experience it as such, to us it may appear to be the 'truth", and in doing so, it may not occur to us that other perceptions may also be possible.

When we blame someone/something, we render ourselves powerless; we cannot affect the outcomes.

"Hey", you may say, "I was born with a slow metabolism, it's not my fault that I keep putting on weight". "What do you mean", you may say, "I wasn't asked to be born" ..or..."So I drink, what of it, my family have always been heavy drinkers",...or....."I couldn't help it, he/she makes me so angry"....etc. On the other hand, we may choose to view things differently:

"I may hold the gene pool responsible for certain proclivities of mine, including my quick temper and tendency to procrastinate, but I am working on those, because I prefer to not be beholden to such."

We are not given a choice of genes; i.e. we are not responsible for the cards we are given, only how we play them.

Perhaps you were born with a slow metabolism, but what you eat, is your responsibility once you know that your metabolism is slow. Nobody asks to be born, we just are, but now that you are alive, what you will choose to do with the life you are given, that responsibility is yours. People drink for all sorts of reasons, so if you are a heavy drinker, this is your responsibility unless you are held hostage and forced to drink against your will. Our emotional responses are ours, how we respond to confrontation, conflict, uncertainty, fear, provocation, etc.is our responsibility. If we blame someone else for our responses we remove our opportunity for self-empowerment, for gaining insight, and we become victims.

"You are responsible for your life" Dr. Jay wrote in his book titled "And the walls came tumbling down". At first glance one may respond with: "Yeah, so what, I know that", which is how I responded, until late one night in the car on the way home from a gig(I was a professional musician). In the middle of climbing the biggest hill with the engine roaring and the rain whipping the windscreen,

I suddenly got it.

Responsibility does not equal burden. Responsibility equals freedom.

Freedom how? Self-empowerment. I have a say, I can affect the outcomes, I make the choices.

Instead of blaming the genes for not being tall enough for xyz, perhaps you are tall enough for abc?

Instead of blaming your rotten childhood for your lack of motivation, perhaps because of your rotten childhood you can become motivated? Instead of blaming the wife/husband for not understanding you, perhaps you can check to make sure you are understanding her/him?

Instead of blaming someone for not being your friend, you can make sure you are one?

Instead of blaming the government for xyz, you can offer your services for improving xyz?

Acquiring the attitude/stance of responsibility offers us the possibility to affect change, whereas blaming "cements" us in the attitude of victim hood.

The amazing and totally wonderful freedom we have is that we can choose how we perceive things.

To change our perceptions we can perhaps begin with asking questions such as: are there other ways to view this, are there more variables, are there other solutions, can we deal with this differently, in what ways am I responsible for the outcomes, can I make other choices which will give me outcomes I am more content with, etc. etc.

For all the advances our civilisation has made, there are still phenomena and phenomenon that lie outside of the human scope although we are steadily working on transforming the unknown to the known. When a disaster strikes, we seek to blame......., we seem to need to release some of our anger, sadness, frustrations and fears through assigning blame; we want whoever/whatever we consider to be responsible to be held accountable through the dispensing of proportional punishment.

Question is; who or what do we blame or hold responsible for natural disasters, genetic disorders, falling comets, mutated viruses, etc.etc.?

Sitting here, typing this, I can't help but become aware my own insignificance in the sight of universe. Yet, I am still pondering whether the mind is bigger than the sky.

Because, for me,........the mind, ....... is the frontier.

Perceive yourself to be a victim, and you will be, perceive yourself to be empowered and free to make choices, and you will be.

 

“Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.
It is up to you to give [life] a meaning.”

(Jean-Paul Sartre)

“In the long run, we shape our lives, and we shape ourselves. The process never ends until we die. And the choices we make are ultimately our own responsibility.” 
(Eleanor Roosevelt)

(about the image: its a graphite of a duststorm)

 



Worried? Anxious? Me?.......never.....

According to statistics/research on anxiety, we are more anxious now than ever.

What are we anxious about?

A lot it seems.

Is anxiety the same thing as plain ol' worry?

Anxiety is an umbrella term for a number of different disorders that may cause us to experience nervousness, fear, apprehension, feelings of impending disaster, and worrying. These disorders subsequently affect how we feel, think and behave.

Worrying, on the other hand, perhaps may be defined as what we do before it becomes an anxious state.

Example: There are rumours of cut-backs at work. At first you brush it off, but after three people have been "let-go", you start to ponder whether your name is on the list. Five more people are let-go, and you start having sleeping problems. Half of management are let-go, now added to no sleeping, for you there now is no eating.

Worrying, or being anxious, can also have positive aspects; it motivates us to prepare, plan, take precautions, and consider possible outcomes.

Whether we worry or are anxious, such feelings are usually the result of thinking which is future directed. We don't tend to worry about events in the past, we may however worry that something that happened in the past may happen in the future. Dealing with uncertainty we use our imagination and previous experiences to anticipate possible solutions and so increase our sense of certainty, and lessen the barrage of "what if's".

Too much of what if's can become overwhelming and instead of us experiencing an increased sense of certainty we may experience helplessness, over stimulation, incongruity and an even greater sense of unpredictability. Before we know it our imagination can run riot with us and there's no end to the disasters, catastrophes and terrible outcomes we can imagine. Postponing the "what-if's" and concentrating on the "what-is" actual information at hand, serves us far better in dealing with  potential difficulties.

At some point in a humans life, we all worry. How much and what we do with the thoughts and feelings varies. "You worry too much!"......is there a right amount of worrying?

"You shouldn't worry,".....is worrying a moral concept? "Good/moral" people worry less?

"What are you so worried about?".........is it okay to worry about somethings and not other?

"He's a "worrywart",.........is there a "worryrose"?

Perhaps there is no right amount of worrying; i.e. how long is a piece of string? but there seems to be a level of worrying that can become threatening to a persons mental/physical health, and that level is individual. We all have different levels of how much uncertainty we tolerate.

Telling someone in the throws of anxiety to be less anxious is as effective in calming that person as giving a tennis player a racquet with no strings. If we want to help someone or ourselves to feel less anxious, what are some good tools?

(More than one in ten Australians currently live with an anxiety disorder and 28 per cent of people will suffer from an anxiety disorder at some time during their life...for stats relating to your country go to the Bureau of Statistics)

Some tools to overcome anxiety:

* Learn to recognise what triggers your anxiety -  social interaction, talking with unfamiliar people, not having a plan for..xyz, ruminating on the future/past, your body image, etc.etc.

* When you worry, what are some of the thoughts going through your mind?

Do you do fortune telling - something bad is going to happen,

                      mind-reading - he/she/they think that I am..................

catastrophising - all is lost if..................

                                 personalising - he/she is scanning the room because I am......

    * Challenge negative thinking - are there other ways to interpret this situation, what

are the pros and cons, is my information unbiased or biased?

      * Increase your tolerance levels by learning to accept imperfection and uncertainty.

            Not having a perfect map does not have to mean one cannot begin a journey,

 not having sheet music does not have to mean one cannot play music. 

* Visit the areas/issues that you fear by using your mind;

Instead of avoiding those things that you fear/are anxious/worry about, try practising

facing them by using visualisation. The brain does not distinguish between what we

visualise and what we actually experience and this facility can be used to help us

become desensitised and more confident. Before you have to give that speech, imagine

yourself doing it, before boarding the plane, imagine yourself doing it, before asking

him/her out, imagine yourself doing it, and so on.

For many of us relaxation, exercise, and a healthy diet also assists us in overcoming

worry and anxiety. (If we however find that nothing seems to help, then perhaps seeing

a health professional may prove conducive :)

"Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It is already tomorrow in Australia."

(Charles M. Schultz)

"While we are focusing on fear, worry, or hate, it is not possible for us to be experiencing

happiness, enthusiasm or love." (Bo Bennett)

In times when we face a situation/event that we feel we have no control over, "worrying" may feel like we are actually "doing" something and to stop worrying can be experienced as

giving up, giving in, which may present itself as a worse option than being anxious.

Since worrying/anxiety pertains to happenings that belongs in the future and the unknown, no amount of worrying will change anything, however, if we can learn to deal/face our anxiety, we have the chance of a much more enjoyable and fulfilling,... now. 

 

(ps: about the painting.."Run rabbit, run".....a symbolic depiction of the turmoils of worry)

 

Speaking versus texting.........the art of conversation

 

Are we becoming more and more visually dependent to the detriment of the art of conversation?

Are we using our eyes more and more like impersonal lenses; collecting data impervious to context?

Are we becoming a people of parallel monologues rather than dialogue?

Are we becoming a people who prefer to interact with/through a screen rather than face to face with others?

How often do we sit down with friends, family, partner, and just converse?

Perhaps a definition of conversation may be helpful: "Conversation  is a form of interactive, spontaneous communication between two or more people who are following rules of etiquette."

 according to Wikipedia.

Put another way, conversation is an interchange of thoughts, ideas, information, experiences, using the spoken word.

What about chatting through an interface? Is that not also a conversation?

It is an exchange of thoughts, ideas and information, but only through the written word so there are some aspects of conversing missing: body language, intonation, and facial expressions.

Facial expressions are important to the interpretation of words, especially ambiguous ones, hence the use of emoticons.....:)

"You're gonna wear that ?.....lol....  :p  ... :-) ....  :/ etc.

For a person who enjoys using sarcasm, the application of emoticons may be necessary........  ;-)

When we speak/converse face to face, we have the opportunity for a deeper connection with the other by becoming familiar with their face, voice and body language, as they with ours.

Speaking/conversing face to face, necessitates listening.

“The most basic of all human needs is the need to understand and be understood. The best way to understand people is to listen to them.”  (Ralph G. Nichols)

“The art of conversation is the art of hearing as well as of being heard.”

(William Hazlitt)

Way back when,...when we used to sit around the fire and share our adventures, stories, lessons, etc. a bond between the speaker and listener was forged. With gestures, body language, and intonation, reflecting the words spoken, the speaker could make his/her story come alive for the listener, and

a relationship between the storyteller and the listener was established in the sharing of an experience.

With the event of a writing system, stories, information, experiences, etc. could reach a larger audience, but perhaps the relationship between the storyteller and listener changed. The listener became the reader and the storyteller the author. When we speak with others face to face, we may be called storytellers, but when we write or text, we often become authors. Our approach to the written word can be different to how we treat the spoken word.

Example: A witness is called to court to testify. On the stand the witness says: "I heard him say that.........." up pops the defence lawyer: "Move to strike, hearsay". At which the prosecutor retorts: "Your Honour, I have a written statement from the witness" at which the prosecutor is asked to hand over the statement for the judge to read.

Once we see something in print, (on screen) we often attach more importance to the words, than if we heard them spoken.

Example: Your friend calls you and says:
"Man, I saw this strange thing in the sky last night, looked like a UFO, had red flashing lights and hovered. Couldn't have been a plane because it was moving backwards. I have never seen anything like it."

Twilight zone material, you think?

Next morning you read in the paper about a UFO with flashing red lights spotted by a journalist.

Seeing it in print, does it still seem like Twilight zone?

Which brings me to texting, twittering, etc. What we post or text, could it not be likened to the "printed" word? Someone texts to a friend that person x has done y. The language reads like a headline: "X has done Y!" Two hours later 1500 people have received the message yet nobody has contacted X to actually confirm the validity of the statement. Hiding behind anonymity on-line a person can write scathing insults and criticisms, but would he/she do so face to face?

"..... when you are listening to somebody, completely, attentively, then you are listening not only to the words, but also to the feeling of what is being conveyed, to the whole of it, not part of it."

(Jiddu Krishnamurti)
Is it possible to connect as deeply with someone through an interface as it is in person?
I don't know.
Some will say yes, others no.
Whether on screen or in person, we often misunderstand each other it seems. We have different definitions, different interpretations of the meaning/message behind what is written/said. Caps lock is accidentally on and the words become insulting, an emoticon is forgotten to mark that the comment was supposed to be tongue in cheek and the receiver feels miffed, the time-lapse between message and reply interpreted as too long and the sender concludes that the receiver is not properly attentive, a word is misspelt and is interpreted as an affront, and so on.
Person to person conversations also have pitfalls: too loud, too quiet, too fast, too slow, mumbles, strange body language, poor choice of word, speaking on top of the other, and so on.
When we text, we can hide our emotions, which is far more difficult in a face to face conversation.
That is;
We can't hear the other person's anger, distress, sadness, etc. neither can we see it in facial expressions or body language.
Texting perhaps is more task oriented; where? when? who? what? how? than having a chinwag/conversation with someone. Sometimes just being with someone and conversing about in-depth or pressing issues may help us to connect on a deeper level. We can feel a sense of belonging sharing our humanity with someone next to us.
"Everything in writing begins with language. Language begins with listening."

(Jeanette Winterson)
Having someone give us their full attention in a face-to-face conversation, as we give them ours, we create a bond, we tend to each other, and we learn to listen.
But perhaps best of all, is that for face-to-face conversation you don't need an app, nor any kind of i-Thingy, no download gigs, there are no bad reception areas, and here's the cherry on top;....it is absolutely free.

We all have free will,...don't we?

"We all have free will, don't we?"

 

This in my estimation is a very problematic question for many reasons, but lets just concentrate on few perhaps. First: who are we, second: free compared to what? and thirdly: what is will? fourth: who/what gives this right as in "we have"?

So who are "we"? Human beings? Mammals? Citizens of all countries, the global village inhabitants, citizens of a democratic political system, etc.? What if instead of the term we,  "I" is used; "I have free will don't I?"  The "I" usually belongs to some form of group of other "I's", and even on an individual level, one may ask: if my society consists of only one of me, then can the term "free" be applied?

If the "I" simply acts without any kind of constraints, then one may ask: free as compared to what?

Example: An individual may will to fly, however gravity will promptly remind the individual that without some kind of "wings" or some apparatus alleviating the issue of gravity, no matter how strong the desire or will, the constraint of gravity prevents humans from willing to fly unaided.

The Natural World has boundaries/events/laws/constraints, etc. some of which us humans can not disregard no matter how strong the will/ desire may be to do so, so when it comes to certain physical aspects of our existence one may deduct that in those areas; we do not have free will.

If we have free will, is there a "confined/constricted" will? Are instincts the opposite of free will?

Instincts as defined as: "Instinct or innate behaviour is the inherent inclination of a living organism toward a particular complex behaviour, an impulse or powerful motivation from a subconscious source." (Wikipedia)

Ok, so when we use the phrase: "We all have free will" we perhaps mean in certain areas; the areas to do with conscious choice. We do make many choices and according to some stats, in the hundreds every day.

Example: Ask a two-year-old if he wants a red or yellow drink and he will make his choice without having to do a background check or google for an answer; he will know what he wants.

At two, he is exercising his free will to make his choice. Of course his parents may exercise their free will and say:"Not that one, it's bad for you."

"Of course you can choose what you will, as long as it's according to my will"....:)

When we choose something, do we really do so without any influences? If we equate "free" as "without any constraints" is that actually a reality? Do we not all have our own narratives and do they not influence our choices? (for more info on the narratives, check the "Are we our narratives..." post?)

Habits for instance, may they not be viewed perhaps as possible constraints on our ability to use free will when we make choices?

Example: If you always have a shower first thing in the morning, is that by choice or habit? Do you make a new choice every morning to have a shower, or is the decision based on a previously made choice: "I prefer to shower in the morning"? How many of the actions/decisions we make are based on previously made choices?

If we are influenced by our narratives, and the outcomes of our previously made choices, how free is our will?

Free will as a principle, has many implications: legal, religious, ethical and scientific, for posterity perhaps google it?, this post is just "snack-sized"...

Us humans seem to have a strong sense of freedom; freedom to choose what we want, need, and desire, but what about social consequences when we do so?

What if our actions/choices are in conflict with the society which we belong to?

Roy Baumeister: "Human evolution seems to have created a relatively new, more complex form of action control(social constraints) that corresponds to popular notions of free will. It is marked by self-control and rational choice, both of which are highly adaptive, especially for functioning within culture."

The presence versus the absence of freedom of choice/autonomy affects many aspects of our lives.

We tend to prefer freedom, not only because it offers us the securing of tangible rewards, but we seem to do better in most areas of living.

Example: Motivation..."If we meet the deadline, we'll have a company get-together on the house", "Meet the dead-line or you'll be flat-line".

If by having "Free will" we interpret that as "free of the responsibility for our actions", then who will be responsible?

Example: I exercise my free will to: not get up, not work, speak my mind regardless of how that affects others, etc. etc.

On the other hand, I may choose to exercise my free will to "not do to others what I don't want done to me", I may choose to "be the change I want to see in the world", speak kind words to a broken soul, give a hand to the long-suffering, lend an ear to a friend in need, respect others beliefs, be generous, compassionate and honest.

Regardless of what political or economical system we may live in, on an individual level the freedom to choose our attitude to any given circumstance, remains the domain of our "free will".

 

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." (Soren Kierkegaard)

"......free will does not mean one will, but many wills conflicting in one man. Freedom cannot be conceived simply"  (Flannery O'Connor)

"No one else can want for me. No one can substitute his act for mine. It does sometime happen that someone very much wants me to want what he wants. This is the moment when the impassable frontier between him and me, which is drawn by free will, becomes most obvious."

( Pope John Paul II )

(ps: about the painting......with my free will and imagination I can travel anywhere at anytime; the painting depicts the destination on such an occasion)



I think, I feel...... do we confuse the terms at times?

 

Do you have a space where you go to just think? Do you need to be alone to think? Do you need to be in nature, on the beach, in a forest, in the mountains, or in a coffee shop, library etc.?

Perhaps you go to such places to stop thinking?

Do we do enough serious thinking, do we allow for the possibility of new neural pathways to be made by thinking new thoughts?

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them", said Albert Einstein. New ideas require new thoughts, new destinations, new paths, new outcomes, new choices, and to change our old habitual behaviours, we need to find new ways to respond.

This requires thinking, so what is thinking? "Are you serious?" you may ask, "when don't we think?"

Thinking, some suggest is:

"The process of using ones mind to consider or reason about something."

"Mind", "reason" and "something" are quite vague terms and have a lot of wriggle room, but I

think (!) you get the general idea.

What about feelings? What are those?

According to neuro-scientific research, our brain generates emotional reactions which we experience in our bodies as feelings.

We feel touch through sense data, which is very different from when we feel sad, which is an emotional (feeling) response to our thinking. 

Example: You hit yourself on the thumb with the hammer, you experience physical pain, you feel hurt. (Sense data)

Your best friend fail to return your calls, you experience emotional pain, you feel hurt. (An emotional response to your thoughts about it)

You think you have been shortchanged, you worry, you can't sleep; your emotional response may result in a migraine (sense data) and feeling emotionally hurt.

A quick guide to identifying whether we are thinking or feeling when asked a question may be how many words we use. "I'm real mad, I feel very upset, I'm confused", etc. visa vie "I feel they should do more research before they......, I feel nobody really understands the situation, now this is how I see it...."  Although the word "feel" is used, in this case it is more to do with our thinking/believing about the subject, rather than our feelings. The opposite also occurs: "What do you think about these figures?, What are your thoughts on the book/film/art show?etc."

"I'm mad about the figures", I hated the book/film/art show, etc.".

(Some feeling words: understanding, playful, peaceful, confident, lucky, energetic, sad, lonely, down, upset, free, calm, angry,etc.etc) To respond to a question about our feelings on a subject, we need very few words: "I feel........" , but to answer what we think, requires a lot more.

                 “Well, can’t I just say that the ………………is wrong?” Of course, but the person you are speaking with will probably ask you to explain your reasoning. Thinking is the activity of human reason as a process of strengthening the relationship between stimulus and response, a mental process involving transformation of information using logic, imagination and problem-solving.  When we say we feel something, it is a subjective experience, it’s about how an event is perceived and how we view the perceived event, but if we say we think something, then often rules of logic and reason are presumed. No one is likely to tell us we are wrong if we say we feel tired, but if we say we think that global warming is a "tired" subject, we may very well be asked to explain our reasoning for making such a claim.

“Five percent of the people think;

ten percent of the people think they think;
and the other eighty-five percent would rather die than think.”  (Thomas A. Edison)

“The world is a tragedy to those who feel, but a comedy to those who think.”

(Horace Walpole)

“People don’t like to think, if one thinks, one must reach conclusions. Conclusions are not always pleasant.”  (Helen Keller)

“You may believe that you are responsible for what you do, but not for what you think. The truth is that you are responsible for what you think, because it is only at this level that you can exercise choice. What you do comes from what you think. ” (Marianne Williamson)

 

Do we find it easier to own our thoughts than our feelings? Do we find it easier to go with our "gut" feelings rather than unravel our thoughts and perceptions behind those feelings?

Feeling without understanding, or thinking without understanding feelings, neither a good option in my view.

Understanding how we think and feel, perhaps is the optimal destination.

Confused?

 

I think I know how you feel...........

  



Who are my friends?

 

Since I first heard these words, they have haunted me.

Where were her friends? Why did nobody come to say goodbye?

What is a friend?

According to Elbert Hubbard, "A friend is someone who knows all about you and still loves you."

A person whom one knows and with whom one has a bond of mutual affection is another description.

Commonly a friend is someone with whom we have no family relations and with whom we have no sexual involvement, although one may have family members one may call "friends" and someone one may call a "friend with benefits".

For clarity's sake, this post is about friends we have no other attachment to other than a mutual bond.

In 1936, "How to Win Friends and Influence People" written by Dale Carnegie was published and since then it has sold 15 million copies all over the world. This book landed in my hands a few years back and after reading it, my views on what a friend is, changed dramatically.

When we are seeking friendships what are we really wanting? Is it about the other or the self, is it about what we want someone to do for us or what we can do for them? Perhaps its just someone to share stories, hobbies, interests, etc. with?

"Best way to find a friend is to become one" someone smart has said.

Often we have different and specific definitions on what a friend is and how he/she is supposed to behave.

"As my friend, you should know that I would never.........." "As my friend you should know that....insert here what you consider your friend should know......" "As I am your friend I would never...."

"If you are a real friend, you would never........." and many more similar expressions.

Perhaps it may be beneficial to ask ourselves: "What kind of friend am I, do I fulfil the expectations I have of others?"

Since many of us have different definitions of what a friend is, perhaps it may be helpful to have some general pointers when it comes to how to make one...

When you meet someone, ask for, and then remember their name.

Smile, establish eye contact.

Show a genuine interest. ( "scanning" the room/space while conversing is not recommended. :)

Ask questions pertaining to the other persons interests. (avoid interrogation :)

Listen.

Respect the other persons personal space. (If the person you are speaking with keeps moving backwards, or away from you in anyway, perhaps allow for more space between you and the other.)

Now, onwards.

There has been times in my life when I have been quite bewildered by the actions of some of my friends, actions which brought me face to face with the disparity between my friends and my own definitions of "friendship". Is an associate, workmate, team mate, colleague, an acquaintance, the same as a friend?

This it seems, depends on how we define a friend.

Some suggestions: The co-operative and supportive behaviour between two or more people. A friend is someone with whom we have a relationship involving a common bond, mutual esteem, affection, respect and loyalty. Friends share hardships as well as triumphs, sadness's and joys; a friend engages in reciprocating and reflective behaviours.

For some of us, a friend is someone we trust, someone who does not ask us to choose between our principles and our loyalty to the friendship.

Perhaps for some, a friend is all the above.

"Friendship is a single soul dwelling in one body" (Aristotle) 

"A true friend is someone who is there for you when he'd rather be anywhere else"

(Len Wein)

"The only way to have a friend is to be one."

(Ralph Waldo Emerson)

The more I ponder the issue, a thought persists: Is a friend perhaps someone we allow ourselves to "be our true" selves with, warts and all, confident in the thought that regardless of such, (warts) our bond will remain solid?

Eleanor Rigby, picks up the rice in a church where a wedding has been, lives in a dream,

Waits at the window, wearing the face that she keeps in a jar by the door,

Who is it for?

All the lonely people, where do they all come from

All the lonely people,

Where do they all belong?

 

Our world is full of Eleanor Rigby's, but like Anne Frank wrote: "How wonderful it is that no one needs to wait a single moment before starting to improve the world."

The potential for finding a friend is equal to us being one.