Trust the Universe

Does it not always seem like the Universe has our back? All the travails in life one goes through coincidentally seem to have a safety net and things resolve, despite how lacklustre or bleak they appear at the time. It is curious, this phenomenon, almost as though the course of what we refer to as ‘life’ is premeditated somehow, to the ultimate degree. It is like there is a propelling force, an onward motion that unravels a complex pattern that is already predetermined, so when it is unwound, it does so beautifully: serendipity.

When I reflect on this further I realise that whilst the outcome may not have ingratiated myself in the immediate term, I appreciate that somehow the Universe was simply trying to protect me at the time from a potential danger I did not foresee: it realised I was not ready. Sometimes the outcome is then postponed to the right time, and arguably, it bears even more fruit at this time…. it blossoms when it is supposed to.

Some people may refer to this sequence of unexplainable, but inevitable events as destiny. Yet how can an outcome simply occur without any action? Perhaps then, there is a necessity to our struggle to achieve the outcome. The consequence simply must be achieved by that individual to sew the fabric of life, so therefore that individual’s subconscious simply must keep niggling at their ego to think, to ponder, to act and not rest until they are at peace. This, I suppose, sheds light on the human intuition, a gut-wrenching anxiety that pushes us to act, yet another intangible inexplicable concept: a thing that evidence-based science cannot quantify, nor qualify.

Interestingly enough, what is it or who is it that decides the outcome? Some people ascribe this to a higher power they refer to as ‘God’, and thus we enter the metaphysical dimension of spirituality. It is an alternative reality that our five senses cannot perceive, and hence we rely on the sixth sense that in itself is even more subjective, more murky and certainly less equivocal and unidirectional than our sight, smell, hearing, touch and taste for which there already exists a level of inter-person discrepancy. I suppose what I dislike about this supposed ‘sixth sense’ then is its uncertainty, for it can bend and twist either way so that we may ‘feel’ it is guiding us to something meaningful; but it does not always! Sometimes we hit a barrier, then in which case incessant believers may argue it was not our beloved sixth sense that initiated such an outcome. If the result were desirable, however, then indeed it was our sixth sense. So either way, the notion of the sixth sense is protected, but our identity, being and soul is ever at stake… how ludicrous, is it not, that we become the scapegoats of an arbitrary construct of our own making?

In our struggle to grapple with life, to get a foothold to make sense of our all-consuming reality, we need to give way to the Universe. Its omnipresent force will overpower us anyway, so we need to sway with its push-pull dynamics. We need to learn when to let go.

What is hard work?

My brother occasionally remarks how hard he works. I am impassioned whenever I hear him mention the words ‘hard’ and ‘work’ coupled together. They lose their myriad individual meanings when they are used subsequent to each other. Used one after the other, their meaning becomes reduced to one finite distinct, indisputable and identifying character trait; one that makes my ears perk, my insides hum, my muscles melt. I feel like I’m on fire, not an altogether unpleasant one, slowly burning from the ferocity of my emotions: some borne of self-pity and compassion, others of uncertainty, insecurity and regret.

Dreams, their meaning

‘A heart without dreams is like a bird without feathers’ – Suzy Kassem. 

‘Dreams’ in the sense that Kassem outlines is euphemistic, it corroborates the good and invalidates the evil. There is an implication that the dream itself is for the greater good, and is essentially an imprint of our values, perceptions and interpretations that are communicated in an intangible sense. Perhaps the ‘dream’ is, then, highly personal, a reminder of the idiosyncratic nature of our personalities: a testament to our unique traits. It underscores the subliminal in a manner that is not always clear, such that our questioning of its meaning unravels further mysteries associated with our emotional and cognitive states. Asleep or awake, dreams manifest as an irrepressible desire that trumps rationality, even reality, emphasising the potency, however dormant, it has to direct our behaviour. Like the heart that is elemental in human emotion, the dream becomes necessary for human functioning.

Let’s broaden our horizons

Principles don’t work. Categorisation doesn’t work. Laws are too restrictive.

The notion of the Absolute, of boundaries and their consequences, has clearly been established. There are pages upon pages of literacy, articles in reputed journals, commandeering claims in columns of the Culture section of newspapers, several non-fiction letters aiming to quizzically open the insular-minded eye to the restrictions imposed by maxims and rules. Yet, despite how life-changing this proposition may be, we are hesitant to do anything about it. Another example of how we, as a society, theoretically identify the Elephant in the room, but are unable to quash it. It’s just not pragmatic. Change is just not pragmatic. Practical though? Yes. We are able to foresee, visualise and conceive the implications of doing things differently, or ‘taking the path less travelled by’ per the poet Robert Frost, but to put it into practice takes more than just a theoretical spinning of the wheels in our brain; we need to oil the cogs themselves that have rusted, corroded and become squeaky over time. Like a fat pig ensconced in an armchair.

Should we conform?

We are half ruined by conformity, but we should be wholly ruined without it. ~ Charles Dudley Warner.

John Stuart Mill, the libertarian, would insist that social conformity is the root of all evil. He suggests that society should not inflict its collective will upon an individual, otherwise, freedom of speech and uniqueness is restricted. This does mean, indeed, that progression of society is inhibited and the mind of the majority becomes parochial in scope. Such an idea is attributable to the ‘half-ruination’ that Warner speaks of. Nevertheless, the question as to the extent of the boundaries imposed by society does arise. How can we define these limits; moreover, are they relative or absolute? If radicalization and uninhibited expression of the self were as utopian of a notion as it appeared, then why would society consciously regulate itself? Self-preservation has been the key ideal according the Darwin’s ‘survival of the fittest’ theory, in which case, there is a suggestion that natural selection affords societal mandates and discrimination of appropriate behaviour. Without some degree of social conformity, therefore, society would see itself at a loss: there would be a loss of meaning, purpose and order. Protection against social uniformity, therefore, should continue to be contested, argued and challenged such that its limits can be redefined with the passing of time into an increasingly secular society.

Science is important to define the restrictions of technological advances

Only science can hope to keep technology in some sort of moral order ~ E.Z. Friedenberg

The nature of science is as liberal as it is restrictive. Whilst it encourages experimentation and impartial observation, it also imposes limits on the extent of exploration. The restrictive tenet to science is underscored by its value for objectivity and fact; that is, rational and logical abstraction bars the extent of technological endeavor. In an increasingly secular society, scientific rigour is reaching new heights to outsource the competition and publish the most well-documented research. Research in the scientific field strives for the invention of new technologies that fulfill need. The rigorous nature of science, thus, ensures technological application is based on need instead of ‘want’. Friedenberg suggests that corruption ensues when ambition, greed and desire permeate need to the extent where technology becomes a dangerous weapon. It should be noted, however, that it is the very logical abstraction of science itself that is its weakness, where principles of the scientific method can be generalized such that they condone breach of moral order. When the capacity for abstract through is balanced and ethics are acknowledged, then science may keep technology in moral order.

With age, the degree of challenge is proportional to the satisfaction experienced

“Youth’s a stuff that will not endure” said the English poet Shakespeare. Rightly so. As mortal beings, it is inconceivable to be young forever; that is, unless an elixir for life is invented by budding alchemists. Becoming older, thus, is common, inevitable and expected. Similarly, the symptoms that accompany age should also not be called into question because they are part and parcel of it, and yet, they are still pondered. Why is it that we develop wrinkles as we age, why is it that our health deteriorates as we get older, why is it that our life follows a parabolic trajectory where the most successful and virile years are in our mid 20s and early 30s before we plummet downwards thereafter? The trajectory of age, consequently, is paradoxical in a sense. We become as dependent as newborns as we move into our 70s. Our deteriorating physical wellbeing is a plausible explanation for the challenges that accompany old age. Overcoming the increasing obstacles of old age, accordingly, would reap rewards more pleasurable and satisfying than the challenges faced when young. Nevertheless, there is no objectivity with which to measure the degree of ‘challenge’, and as a result, the hurdles faced by children are tantamount to their level of experience and are incomparable with the hurdles encountered by an older individual. In spite of this, the increasing number and demand of the responsibilities encountered by older people is sufficient to argue for the greater satisfaction they accrue.

People who feel are better off.

Feeling too much is a hell of a lot better than feeling nothing – Nora Roberts.

Roberts’ implication of “feeling” may be interpreted literally or figuratively. Philosophers in support of Nigel Warburton would acclaim that feeling is a matter of sensation influenced by our sensory perceptions of the external world. Nevertheless, feeling may also be intangible; that is, it exists only in our minds. Either way, Roberts suggests that overwhelming oneself with emotion can be counterproductive. Perhaps then, the extent of welcomed emotion becomes a matter of circumstance, dependent on a variety of factors such as mood and temperament. Our intrinsic and extrinsic factors then sum to determine how we will respond to varying degrees of feeling. Given that our feelings will incite responses, lack of emotion warrants that effort is not necessitated to respond. This act of self-preservation, however, denies humans of their basic and intrinsic urge to feel. An unnatural act suggests that it is impractical, and thus, the individual who is invigorated with emotions views the world through a more holistic lens.

We live by our means

We live, not as we wish to, but as we can ~ Menander.

If we live according to our wishes, it essentially means that our happiness and inner satisfaction is a product of whether we have gained what was desired. There is a sense of absolutism in this dichotomy between ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, between ‘is’ and ‘is not’ alluded to by Menander. The sceptic would suggest there is no gradation in the extent of happiness derived from achieving these wishes, and instead, happiness becomes simplistic, devoid of the uncertainty that typically accompanies human emotion. Specifically, this means we are either happy or we are not. If we were to live by our wishes then, our life would be momentary since it is unlikely that a divine entity would grant our desires every minute. This way of life is impractical; rather, it makes more sense to live by the resources and assets we own, as opposed to being stimulated by what we want to own. Even so, thoughts on future prospects, dreams and opportunities may indeed be enough to feed the starving man who is unhappy in his current reality; that is, the potency of the imagination should not be underestimated. As Schopenhauer purports, ‘life without meaning is empty existence,’ and perhaps, it is these wishes in the forms of daydreams that facilitate productivity by terminating boredom. Nevertheless, the imagination is in the realm of the metaphysics which is an intangible abstract phenomenon on the outskirts of our reality, and consequently, the way to live is by our means.

 

A successful marriage is a cyclical process

A successful marriage is an edifice that must be rebuilt everyday ~ Andre Maurois.

An implication in Maurois’ argument is that a functional marriage is one that should be constantly knocked down and then rebuilt on a daily basis. This means that the ‘edifice’ that forms a metaphor for marriage is actually never finished. Instead, it is visualised as the exhausting process of continually stacking bricks on top of each other in the anticipation of life-long commitment. Arguably then, the toll in marriage is conceivable and its success is often deceiving, because it never comes to fruition. The philosopher Schopenhauer purports that ‘life without meaning is empty existence.’ It then follows that we should attempt to derive and contemplate the elements of marriage success. These factors, namely compromise and cooperation, should be exercised to their fullest until one person in the relationship cannot commit to upholding these values any longer, and the cycle starts again. Embarking on a successful marriage, however, does not necessitate that it must be consciously rebuilt on a regular basis. In fact, some couples may find that the relationship erodes once in a while, but it never fully disintegrates. This is because love remains the highest ideal and governing factor in their relationship. The temperaments and expectations of individuals in the 21st century, conversely, make it much more likely to propose that love is secondary to the independence, selfishness and competitive nature of the ‘i’ generation.