major and minor changes in a relationship

major and minor changes in a relationship
I realized that women subconsciously, or maybe even consciously try to change their partners. this is a bold statement and yet I shall show how irrational and irrelevant such behaviour is. Women change their partners and when they accomplish it they are prone to get rid of him because he is not anymore the man they chose. This sound a bit silly, does not it? I think that men should keep their dignity and this womens need to change them easily ignore. a healthy relationship-any relationship should be a dialog. we may discuss things that bother us but we should not change ourselves just because the other wants us to. there are two kinds of changes. one is the real inner change of a character and the other is a minor change in order to make the relationship work better. The problem is that women do not distinguish between these two and here the men should be the leading characters. a man should keep its dignity and also the dignity of a woman and yet ignore these her ventures to change him. right the opposite-if the men does not let himself be inflluenced by her, then the woman shall respect and love him much more. this is a bit ironic but it is in my experience the truth. now the minor changes. here the man should be opened to what a woman says and be ready to change oneself. for example if a man leaves a dirty clothes somewhere and the woman asks him not to do it , then if he keeps his ego dignity and ignores her, then this will have the opposite effect. she will not love him more as with major changes, but will begin to despise him because he is controlled by his ego in this minor changes, his minor ego rules which is pitiful.


Používam Rychlý zápisník

Standard

the difference between avoiding evil and doing good

the difference between avoiding evil and doing good
In this entry I would like to philosophize a bit about the nature of good and evil and what is better-whether to avoid evil or do good. One may intentionally do good or evil, there is no other dichotomy. Naturally, most situations are controversial and we need to make a certain compromise, nevertheless any compromise may be done with an intention to gain for ego, or gain for the mutual good. the problem comes when I feel that there is no mutual good and that the other party wants only to gain and make no compromise, then I feel defensive and does not want to let the other party win because I feel that it would not be beneficial for anyone. in such a situation one should be prone to discuss ones aims and also the aims of the other party. this is basically trying to do good. the other ways is to avoid evil and do everything else. the problem with this is that avoiding evil is basically doing good but not intentional. If I avoid doing something that I know is evil, then I may or may not do a good thing. doing good is what matters. just evading the evil deeds is not enough. the paradigm when I think about evil and trying to avoid it is treacherous. I still live in the pattern of thought that tells me what is evil but I also need to see the perspective of both-good and evil. When I focus on evil, then I may not see what is good, but when I focus on what is good, then I must know what is its opposite, what is evil. from this I deduct that doing good is our predestination and by doing good we naturally avoid evil because we recognize it only by the way, not as the main aim of our actions. it comes as secondary because primarily we should focus on what is good and not what is evil.


Používam Rychlý zápisník

Standard

Good for good´s sake.

Good for good´s sake.
A friend of mine asked me if I could glue her her earring. I had nothing against and as I had a glue I complied. Later, due to the fact that the glue was sealed before and I had to open it, the glue went out in my bag and glued some things I had there. Once I opened the bag I was very angry and thought back to the fact that I helped my friend and yet it was not a girl I was striving for, meaning that I did not want to court her or had any relationship, only friendship. Once I realized this pattern of thinking I told to myself that this is the beginning of sin. If I think only about what I get for what I do, then I am doomed in a way. If the girl was attractive and or if I would want to pursue a relationship, then I would not be so angry because the incident with the glue was worth it-i might have gotten nearer to her. now, when I did not want to be with her, then such an incident made me angry. I subconsciously arrived at such a pattern of thinking and yet I had a choice to either follow it or break it. this is the first step to (not) doing sin. our body has its own will, what it was made for, what it was tought, what it is used to do unconsciously, and yet we ultimately arrive at the opportunity to either do good or evil. Once I subconsciously got angry and thought to myself that the good deed was not worth the glued things, I realized that if I follow this pattern I shall inevitably sin. I told to myself that as long as I help without getting anything in return, then I can be sure that I do a good thing. It should not matter whether the people I help have anything to return. Good deeds always return in ways that one cannot expect-and yet, we should not do good things with the thought in mind that God shall repay us, we should do good just because it is good to do good, for good´s sake.


Používam Rychlý zápisník

Standard

wait or hurry?

wait or hurry?
I sometimes ask myself whether it is better in an intimate relationship learn to know each other as fast as possible in as most as possible situations or whether it is better to first get to used to know each other in situations we are both comfortable with and after that venture to more dangerous areas. on one hand, there is no time to lose, on the other, there is not a reason to hurry. first point of view is to not lose time and do everything from the beginning in order to get to learn the other part in the situations that might be critical for future mutual understanding and being. this approach usually adapt the thirty plus who usually have gone through some relationships already and know what is important for them on the partner they have and want to know as soon as possible whether the important features of ones character are in the other part or not. This is understandable, on the other hand, one then stays in learnt ways of courting and may not see other characteristics the other has. maybe even more important than those that were once preferred. the other approach is usually with those who are young and infatuated and do not think so much about the future. this approach is typical for those who are easily influenced and formed. until one is thirty, I do not want to generalize, this is my experience, then one is to be formed much easier than after thirty, or after some relationships. this approach is treacherous in the way that one does not seek to see what one really wants in the other part but rather accepts the other the way he or she is. this is arguably good but to pursue a real functioning relationship we need to reach a synthesis of both. on one hand, one should know what one wants from the other but should not dwell on everything, because there is nothing like a perfect person for anyone. on the other, one should not alleviate ones needs for the other person too much. If one knows that one likes travelling a lot and the other hates it, or that one want to pursue a carreer and the other have children as soon as possible, then it may be very difficult to fulfill a mutual happiness in such a relationship. maybe then it is time to overcome the former infatuation and logically decide that it is not possible for them to be together, because the infatuation is only a beginning, or an end, not the future. the future is as I so often say the choice. Marriage is not natural for us as human beings, it is not natural for us from the atavistic perspective and yet we may be happy in it but only as long as we overcome our bodily functions of chemistry of infatuation and focus on the aspect that distinguishes us from animals, on the aspect of choice where the possibility for happiness or unhappiness dwells.


Používam Rychlý zápisník

Standard

menagerie of normality

menagerie of normality
I came across a condom automat at a public toilet. I thought to myself that the young people who see this probably think that it is natural to buy one just in case an opportunity may show up to have a casual sex with someone. this is not only the case with sexuality but also food for example. the milk farms want us to think that milk is healthy although there are many surveys that say that milk in fact does not help us to have stronger bones, just the opposite, milk works as a degenerator of bones. although it contains calcium, it also contains phospor that inhibits and basically stops the absorption of calcium and does the opposite-takes even the calcium from the bones. Same with wheat. The genetically modified wheath contains many times more doses of gluten than as we were used to eat for centuries. our predecessors used to eat bread as well, people usually tell me. that is correct, but the bread they ate contained a minimal dose of gluten and much fibre, that is the reason why it was beneficial for them but not for us. these notions must be of course taken sceptically. My intention is to make us think about what we hear and see and not accept everything as a complete and absolute truth.


Používam Rychlý zápisník

Standard

Constructive anger

Constructive anger
If I hide my negative feelings then I am not honest with the people around me and I also cannot let go of the anger in me. I think that it is better to let the anger go in a constructive way, such that does not hurt, rather than bear grudge against my brothers and sisters and playcate them and oneself. If someone makes me angry and I let the emotions and anger in an emphatic, authentic and not evil egoistic way, then I am authentic, honest and good towards them, basically if I hide my feelings then I lie to the people who are around me and who made me angry and I should not be surprised when they do it again because they cannot know that they did something evil. we should accept that it is natural to be angry and not to hide it as we are tought by the society today. everyone must look pleasant and nice towards the other, pretention is the word of todays society. as long as we live in this menagerie of ˋnice behaviourˋ which is basically a lie, then we are unable to build relationships worthy of our dignity. dignity for ourselves and for others because by pretending we lie to others and to ourselves as well.


Používam Rychlý zápisník

Standard

Everything may help

i was at a mass with a friend of mine and my grandmother that is very active, active in bothering way. I knew that my friend does not sing, she did not take the prayer book with songs either and yet my grandmother was active of course and offered my friend to sing together. I felt like embarassed by the behaviour of my grandmother and wanted to tell her to not bother my friend and i began to feel a bit angry because I am less and less tolerant to this kind of unwanted activity towards others. nevertheless, my friend to my astonishment began to sing and after a few minutes even took her own prayer book. i was thinking about this situation. someone thinks that a certan kind of behaviour, eg singing in this case is uncomfortable for one and thus does not do it. I do accept it but some people, as for example my grandmother does not. I do not like this approach and yet it worked. it might have brought my friend nearer to God than some other more benevolent approach. I also like to talk about faith but in the end I would not bother anyone with singing once I know the one does not sing. My grandmother acted a way I dislike but nevertheless it might have helped someone. This helped me to understand that my point of view may not always be the best and that I should never judge people because although they do things I may not like the things they do may help others altough I might not believe so.

Standard