Do we subconsciously choose reality?

How do we give up on something just like that? One imperfection ends the story, rinses the dreams of ever being together through doubts.

Am I that fickle? But do I want to be easy and land with anyone?
What is it that do I want? Fulfil a fantasy? Haven’t we all learnt by now that dreams are too abstract for reality? Perhaps denial weights out reality. In the end, our happiness comes from what we perceive. If the denial of an ill preceived world leads one to happiness, why not jump at it? Do we know in the back of our minds somewhere that we can’t live in anywhere outside reality? Why is the perception of reality so important to us? Or can we not live in denial due the risk of reality showing up again?

Are these questions alone more important than answer? Is process more important than conclusion? I guess these questions are more or less statement. I guess in life process last longer than conclusion. But is it right to choose quantity over combination?

It is not that I no longer love him; it is just that I no longer value what I once treasured.

Maintain our existence

Really? Is love really all that emotion orientated as we thought? Do we have no control at all what so ever?

During my year 12 exam the question has never really occurred to me directly, or should I say personally, intimately. But as time goes by, it seems that maybe there is some form of control, rationally absurd sort of control. The essay question was on ‘Nineteen eighty-four,’ about the love which was demonstrated. Did it suddenly occur to me, or was that the most convenient answer at the time, that the so called love between Winston and Julia was completely a choice of will. They were able to love and hate which ever is needed the most in the circumstance of the time. Coming to think about it again, have they been that dehumanised?
Is dehumanisation possible? Taking the life out of a person by building up on the ideas of oppression and suppression, can we squeeze the human-ness out of a person? What is human-ness? What makes a person a person? What set him apart from a living corpse or machine? Could it be his commitment to life? His will to act? His sense control has over how the world sees him? Now, is it a bit conceited to state it down like this? Would it be this sense of dignity that holds strength within him? Do some human make better human than others? Is morality part of human responsibility, or is that merely social perception to how we should be? [My friend, let me ask you how human are you?]

In seeking that special someone, we create boundaries for ourselves, and we always choose within our boundaries. We only ever take what is within these borderlines into consideration. With each failure we meet, every time we feel a lack of choice that we have been bounded too tight, we open up our selection by just a little more. [Is this cause and effect?] Baby, there always is a choice. Can I handle this; is he too good for me; are we too different? We choose to let go, we choose to hold on. We choose by asking: are they good for us? [That is human-ness (in accordance to morality). The human-ness mentioned above is in accordance with life/ death/ soul.]

Charles Darwin makes the point that life strives for existence. He implies that we all want to live. Sure we all agree to some extend, but for some of us we are here because we are already here. [In philosophy an argument is valid when it is logical, when all premises lead to the conclusion. When an argument is sound it means it is logical and premises are true, unquestionable.] It was also claimed that individual survival is advantaged by the survival of a group of the same or similar species as it gives an individual more access over other forms of life. If life strives for survival, is it valid to say people strive for a partner of strength (human-ness)? I might not agree with the premise, but I certainly do agree with the argument. When we think about it, don’t we choose the ones who are full of will, committed to life, and unafraid to consequent the actions of others? Maybe to maintain existence is born into each one of us. Maybe that is what life is.

Trusting the unknown

To love, to fall… to believe on behalf of someone else, to resemble by assuming they feel the same way. Certain aspects arouse the belief system so much that it emerges into reality. Can it be true?

What is it like to be in love? The answer varies from one context to another. Once upon a time, love was simply to confront. We are all able to love, just flick the switch on, black is black and white is white. When that paradigm collapsed, love was the ultimate psychological torture. Love was pain, full stop. Or so it seemed. Nothing comes for free, nothing is fated to be. Love is a commitment. We sign up to it. We sign out of it. While we are at it, we treat the person right.

Do the majority want to fall in love? Or do the majority want to be in love? Confide in it, secured in it, lost in it. Be defined in it.

Lost in it, lost in it… trust in it. Can we forgive the world for the past heartaches and move on? Or are we much better off living in denial of the past? Blindly trust with again-found youth. Turn off the guards, let ignorance bliss.

But isn’t that all we ever do in life – trust the unknown? Isn’t it the only way to live, the only way to get by – to trust in time, maintain hope?