infatuation is very near to the centre of emotions where also spite is. which means that when we are blindly infatuated, in case the object of our infatuation does not follow the conduct what we would like, then we are very near to feel spite against the person. it is like showing that although one wants to be with the other, boy with a girl, then although feeling happy in her companion, he is very near to show her a semblance of ignorance or spite when she does not act the way he would like her to act. this also naturally works vica versa but I think that for us men it is much more difficult to accept that our ego must bend from time to time and let others follow their intentions instead of we ours. love on the other hand usually stems from infatuation but is of a different, more mature kind. if the girl the boy is in love with does not do what he wants her to do, then he feels like when the toys are taken from him. it is not a mutual respect but a kind of objectification of the girl. true love respect the other person and does not want her to do what I want but understands what she does and when one does not understand, then it is necessary to talk about it in order to understand it, or at least( and which is more important) to respect it, if I am not able to understand it. one is not able to understand everything via words, some things require experience which is not transmittable. the acceptance that I shall not understand everything is very vital in relationships. i think that for men it is so much important because we have the need to see causality, cause and consequence of our behaviour and once something occurs out of ordinary, we feel unsafe. nevertheless, the world is not a place that is absolutely predictable and thus we should learn to accept it as much as we can
I would like to focus on the discrepancy between one expectations and reality. it happens very often, maybe most of the time that reality is different from what we had thought it might have been. natural reaction to these events is usually anger, sometimes depression. let’s look at anger more closely. if you take the stages of Kubler-Ross that describe reaction on the knowledge of having an illness (anger ,denial, depression, bargaining,acceptance) we see that anger in the first place is very common. i do not think that it is necessary to trying to avoid wrath or even aggression as something that should be avoided, tabooed or refrained from experiencing. i think that when we try to ignore that natural nature of anger, then we are prone to experience it in form of aggression because if ignored it comes to us like a boomerang. i think we need to do both-accept anger but does not let it grow into destructive behaviour. the first stage is acceptance-this has a therapeutic effect. we accept the person with all its plus and contras. with ones bright and dark sides. it is same like with children. they need to know that they can show all their emotions, that they are understood and in a safe surrounding but also they need to know the limits-that it cannot grow the anger into damaging things or hurting people around. the parents are often despondent that their children is aggressive, but it only needs to know that it can show its anger and then paradoxically, it usually stops doing it-the knowledge that something is accepted in case of occurrence is usually enough and the occurrence itself does not and should not occur. in all relationships, we should not seek the partner (child, husband-wife, friend) as someone who is either good or bad, who has merits and demerits and once one or the other category prevails we either are in contact with the one or not. this counting in a relationships is detrimental and such vision of relationships is a mere illusion. one should not be blind if the partner abuses the one, but if we like the partner only when we see advantages in the relationships, then we shall never fulfill the true nature of dedication and love- be it any relationship. take it vice versa- once i become sick or need help, the partner would see me as a burden, not support and would leave me- if the couple or pair would follow such hedonistic attitude. i think that in intimate relationships the similarity of opinions, job or hobbies is not as important as mutual understanding and the conviction to stay true to the partner whatever comes and difficulties notwithstanding. the problem emerges when one from the couple wants to give the true love but the other wants to only take what the relationships offers, not give from oneself. then again we need to fight our preconceived notions about relationships but should also be ready to go into confrontation. truth is a difficult thing and any relationships is worth living only through suffering and overcoming obstacles. i do not think that all relationships must be painful, nevertheless, I think that without pain there can be no gain. it also must be said, that once I get angry with anyone, it is vital and essential to talk about it with the person, I remember my mom being angry with me when I was a child and after what she got calmer, I was still said and afraid of coming to her although she was already reconciled with me and my worries were unnecessary. being angry is not a bad thing. pursuing angriness and wallowing in it is detrimental. self reflexion about why I got angry and the capability to say sorry and make an atonement with other and most important with oneself is the most vital thing
I have been wondering lately about all the body of bureaucracy that we have in this state of Czech Republic. i think that it is not only the case of Czech Republic. I reckon that the more bureaucracy the state has, the more elements that disrupt the state, the threats for its existence it must have. paradoxically, bureaucracy makes space for the elements. unfortunately, we have all the mechanism of check and balances that grows more and more complex just because of the few people that shall always try to disrupt the well being of others. the bright side is that their wrong doing is soon discovered, the dark side that most of the people in the society who want to play by the rules must dedicate a lot of time and effort to work and life in the bureaucracy and understand. even if there was just one person that would make us of the imperfect system of non-bureaucratic society, the society would collapse. that is the reason why we have it and why it gets more and more sophisticated because the few cases of evil people are also more and more sophisticated. the key is not in reacting the way of control, because this can and must be done again and again in more and more complex and sophisticated solutions to overcome the cheaters. repression , it is known, does not bring as good results as prevention. education in morality as opposed to just healing the results and fighting against the consequences of evil behaviour. the paradigm of consumerism and cunningness can be overcome. i know this sounds very utopistic, but it is really necessary to start with individual mind and ethics of not seeing oneself as the most important in the world. naturally, blood is not water, we all seek well being for our closest, family, children, community, that is natural. nevertheless, i also believe that we may , at least hypothetically, try to seek some kind of bonum commune-good for everyone, at least in the level of laws that we should not try to go through and find mistakes in them in order to enrich oneself as for example our prime minister who gave his firm to his children in order to gain funding from EU . the sadder this case is that this man is a billionaire and we see that the more avarice one has in oneself, the more sophisticate the system against such people will have to be because this person became the most important person in our state-prime minister. unless we start thinking differently lest we do not fall into doom, we are condemned to elaborating more and more differen obstacles to overcome by the cheaters
I wonder why people have radio on during activities they do. I myself have usually a documentary radio on when I am at home and do activities like tidying up or cooking, things that do not require much thinking which is freed for knowledge at that time. i think that it is a great source of information and I have a great feeling when I can combine radio and work. on the other hand, when I am at work, I try to focus on what I do instead of listening to radio at the same time. i think that it is virtually impossible to work with and for clients and at the same time have the radio on. i understand though that for example drivers or civil servants use radio because their work is monotonous. nevertheless, i cannot imagine a doctor or some skilled professional to have it on. here we see that the more demanding the occupation is, the less space there is for listening to radio or other elements of distraction. the less demanding the job is, we have space for other, for example intellectual activities like following documentary series. we might say that when the brain has capacities for inflow of information, it asks for it. however people very often listen to music radios instead of news radios. i do not criticise it because maybe the job is so demanding that people need some kind of relaxation in order to cope with the demands. nevertheless, i think it terribly important to distinguish between the real need to gather info and just wasting time listening to senseless popular radios. after all, not even this can be criticized because who can judge what is really empty information and what not. i want to remark that even brain needs some time off. in this case it is much better to relax absolutely without any sound than litening to radio just to make sue one does at least something, so that one can alibistically say that one makes something, one works. brain needs at least two hours a day excluding sleep to do just nothing. by doing nothing i think doing the basic meditation of doing nothing, thinking about nothing. here we see that listening to stupid radio stations is unfortunately doing nothing but not making space for the brain to relax and recover-this is what we should avoid.
I accidentaly went to a hockey match and was shocked how come that people are capable of such madness just in order for some kind of their team to win, because their team is nothing their but some totally other entity. these hockey players seemed to me as as some new age gladiators. people themselves are too lazy to do something that they could be proud of and rather displacey their pleasure for the pleasure of someone they identify with. i think that this displacement is something very much topical today. we seek pleasure in external things like likes on the social media or the above mentioned victory of someone else. i think that even this kind of hereditary pride on the past of a nation is of the same rank. how can i be proud about something that happend in the past and about which i had no influence about? i think that this feeling of superiorty of a nation leads to the discrepancies and wars consequently. on the other hand, when the crowd has its bread and it circuses it is satisfied. i think that today we have quite cheap the basic food we need and alcohol as well. i think that such decisions, as to lower the prize of beer to that of non-alcoholic beverages is a kind of populist gesture. once people have enough to satisfy their needs on the pyramid of needs (see Abraham Maslow), they do not rebel against the rule. we need to satisfy 5 forms of needs( biological-sleep, food), safety, relationships, esteem and self realisation. once people are satisfied with the most basic needs to replace the higher ones(esteem and realisaiton) they do not need much more than the bread and circuses theory. fortunately , we are not animals and are capable of fufiling the higher need even though the ones under(which should probably be more important and demanding and life threatening) are not fulfilled. thus we can see that self realisation may come even when one does not have satisfied all other needs but is in a way mentally in peace with such a fact. i think that the most important thing is to see some kind of sense in all one does, even in suffering because then we are capable of moving higher and skipping the needs below.