Does the Good Side Always Win?

Does the Good Side Always Win?

If you went to a church school as I did, then you will have been brought up with the notion that ‘good will always overcome evil’ and to most that will mean the goodies will always win over the baddies. Perhaps it was a way to encourage children to be good, but I’m sure there are many passages in the Bible that send the same message, however it depends on what you deem the ‘good side’ is.

I want to believe good will always win, and deep down I do, but actual experience tells me that it doesn’t. Not here on the physical realm anyhow. You are then left wondering what’s the point in doing the right thing if the bad side wins? It’s not much consolation being told that in the Spiritual Realm it counts and you will reap rewards at some point when you are suffering and perhaps even made to look a fool for having faith (for some it means being financially ruined, or a loss of reputation). I can now see why it can deter people from choosing to be good and to do the right thing when they see others being rewarded who clearly aren’t on the good side. I also can see why people are atheists or deem religions with skepticism.

Perhaps it’s a test to see who succumbs to temptation or the easy way? Even if it is,there is only so much a Soul can endure before their faith and belief in the good can waver. The good side doesn’t always win here on the physical realm, but on the Spiritual Realm it always wins, but can you trust in something that isn’t tangible? This is why an incarnation can seem like an endurance test; to see how many times we do give in, or turn a blind eye. Life is like a game at times and you must hold fast for you don’t know when the game will end or what the prize will be. However, don’t get too disappointed if you end up on the losing side here on the physical plane, and don’t let it stop you from being ‘good’ and choosing the right thing to do. That’s the problem with humanity now, people are easily slipping in their morals and so the ‘good side’ doesn’t always win because they justify their gray borderline acts.

The phrase ought to be ‘Good should always overcome the bad, but it doesn’t always win’ because it’s more realistic. I find that indoctrinating people from a young age in believing that good will always win is counter productive, and can lead to disappointment and a loss of faith, for the good doesn’t always win depending on whose eyes you are looking through. We know this because bad people do get away with crime, liars and frauds get away with their schemes, so good doesn’t always win on the physical realm. It’s a huge misconception, and although I can see the logic, logic and human morality don’t go hand in hand.

 

Then we must ask what is winning? Is it the side that most people believe or agree with, but does it matter what the masses think for they could be wrong too? Is it important to win, and how did the desire to win come about? The greatest lessons are learned not with the outcome but with the journey to get there. I get slightly deflated when I see people basking in adulation and glory when someone better should have won. Winning doesn’t always matter for it’s about who  performed well at the given time and is transient. Too much emphasis is given to winning and losing, and let’s face it, no one wants to lose, but people expect the winners to be the best and to be good. However, they aren’t always especially if we look at politics (such as the recent USA and Philippines elections), and winners of awards aren’t always good or nice people either. We expect them to be, but the reality is that a winner doesn’t define goodness.

Everyone has the choice to be good or bad, and even if the good doesn’t always win, we should strive to be good and not let the need to win compromise our morals or choices. It’s not always easy, but it’s possible!

Save

Advertisements

The Pitfalls Of Taking Responsibility

The Pitfalls Of Taking Responsibility

As the first born, I was responsible from an early age for my sibling and he needed it. The amount of times I have pulled him back from running into a road, helped break a fall from a swing, or held his hand while he balanced on a wall, and those were just things when we were toddlers. In society today, taking responsibility and take credit for an achievement are two different parallels. People don’t mind being responsible (and getting credited) for positive things, such as being part of a team for winning an award, but when they are associated with scandals such as the Harvey Weinstein cases, no one wishes to accept or take responsibility. It can naturally damage reputations, but denying something that you knew, well is that honest just because you don’t want others to judge you poorly? Is it to save yourself and claim ignorance when really you didn’t want to get involved, turned a blind eye, or convinced yourself it was none of your business?

Not everyone can be a leader, and even people in positions of power can handle responsibility poorly, or pass the buck whenever they can. People care about an unblemished reputation, but with responsibility comes the pros and cons and that means shouldering the blame when things go wrong under your watch. Take for instance, parents are responsible for their children, yet we know many do neglect them, so while they have that duty of care, many don’t know how to use it or actually want it either. Where a company or political party fails, then the leader resigns (because they failed those under them) usually before they get pushed. Some try to cling to power, and use excuses (British Airways Chairman Cruz comes to mind when a computer glitch due to cheaper outsourcing led to delays and cancellations of flights) to account for what transpired. Accepting responsibility and then resolving and dealing with the issue is what a good leader does, rather than make excuses.

There is also a moral responsibility to others, and the question is where do you draw the line? In what circumstances can you say it’s none of your business and not have an uneasy conscience? I battle this out with my friends often, because as humans we do have a moral responsibility to others, but it also bound by an unspoken law of privacy. When is it right to intervene or say something when you suspect something is wrong, or are you interfering? Do you sit idly by and chant, “It’s not my business,” and hope there is no fall out?

Currently I am living this dilemma is several situations. I have a neighbor with multiple sclerosis, and that means her brain cells are dying at a much faster rate and thus she doesn’t have full capacity. She can’t remember names, or some days whether she has eaten. I help as a neighbor, but where do I draw the line as she’s not my responsibility, yet I know if don’t check on her she may not have eaten all day or forgotten to take her medication?

A while back I hadn’t been to see her for a few days and all she had eaten were cereal bars, because she forgot to eat. She only has cousins but they aren’t as close as they used to be, and as she is old, most of her friends have passed away. I know I’m not responsible for her, but I do feel a moral responsibility to make sure she has eaten each day, because I’m sitting a few doors away and a small act can make a difference. On the other hand her friends feel I am interfering, especially when I tell her it’s not wise to go out in the dark in winter for no reason other than it gets her out of the house when she’s had several falls in the house. That’s just common sense, which sadly she no longer is capable of all of the time. Her friends do have a responsibility to ensure she is safe, yet the few she has don’t exercise it and it leads to her getting ill.

We all have some kind of responsibility whether we like it or not. Many shun the thought of it, because it means you must be accountable, and while I’m not fond of hierarchies, the fact is they are necessary to help balance and keep order. I was recently attacked as being arrogant and for acting out of place by someone because I took responsibility and acted. Some may ask why I acted, and there is always a reason but do I need justification to act when a position of authority is being abused? I naturally expected some criticism, but actually it only came from one person who voiced their opinion (no one agreed with them), while there may be others who thought the same but opted to remain silent.

Often in life we hope someone else will take responsibility, or that whatever needs resolving will naturally occur. Unfortunately that isn’t always the case and when you are in a position of responsibility you must make choices and take actions that you know others won’t necessarily like or understand, and that will lead to criticisms and bitter hatred. I have fired staff before, but only after they are given a chance to redeem themselves. Bosses in stores that struggle to make profits have to cut staff numbers and close stores; it’s never popular but these are the decisions those in responsibility must make to ensure a company survives. Politicians have to balance making decisions for the good of the people, while also doing what is best for the country. These don’t always go hand in hand, if you take Brexit in the UK as an example. The choices the government makes are on behalf of the people, and some may not be so popular for sectors of society whom will be affected, but regardless these decisions must be made, and the country (like a company) comes before the people.

Leaders or those in charge will always face popularity issues; if they do and say things the masses like all is good, however, once the don’t, that tide will change. Even though I don’t need to justify my actions, I feel the need to explain myself nonetheless for those with little understanding of the spiritual world. We all have Guides whether we know it or not in life, and while some acknowledge them others don’t have a clue. There are Guides in training, and who are mentored by more experienced Guides. Therefore if a Guide is abusing their powers and harming others in favor of their charge, then those mentoring the Guide should intervene. So what happens if that doesn’t work? Then the Elders will take charge and intervene, and only do so when there is no other option. That is their role to allow Guides to learn and be mentored, but when harms become consistent and are deliberate then Elders have the power and the right to use whatever means to prevent harms. This is what occurred, and it’s as simple as that; I was protecting and defending the innocent from being harmed from an abuse of power.

To try and put it in physical realm terms consider the scenario; a manager is caught fiddling his expenses and is found out, and because of it his whole team suffers and doesn’t get a bonus that month. He is reprimanded by his director not to do this again, however, when the director is on vacation he continues to fiddle his expenses and HR then get involved and give him a written warning and suspends his ability to have an expense account. This doesn’t deter him and is found to have submitted fake receipts, so the chairman of the company takes action and demotes him as neither the director or HR (in the hierarchy chain) have been effective, and not only did his team suffer as a consequence of his actions, the company had lost money through fraudulent expense claims.

Responsibility is never easy, and isn’t something everyone wants. Those in power or a position of power must accept that they won’t always be friends with everyone under their charge, and that they must make unpopular decisions for the greater good. Just because someone challenges or criticizes their actions doesn’t mean they were wrong, but that many people don’t fully understand when someone has to take responsibility and act it is for a reason that may not be obvious, nor is it their business to question why an action was taken if it doesn’t personally affect them.

We all have a moral responsibility to help others in need and that will never change, because saying in hindsight, “I wished I had done something,” is too late. Finding that perfect balance to do the right thing, and not to cross the line of interfering or invading privacy is a constant lesson that will never end, or knowing when things have gone too far and action is necessary.

Save

If You Have Nothing Nice To Say, Say Nothing At All ~ Right or Wrong?

Many of us have grown up with the above saying, “If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all,” but is this applicable all of the time? One doesn’t wish to be a hypocrite, but when there is silence when a question is asked, then that silence speaks louder than words.

We all come across occasions when we have said the wrong thing, have over stepped the mark, offended without intent, or were unaware of the circumstances when saying something, but that is human. Some may judge you as tactless or consider it bad manners, which is why silence or knowing when to be silent can either be considered safe or perhaps others mistake is as quiet enabling.

Should we be afraid to ask questions if they are reasonable and why are we afraid of the truth and honesty? If so, then where is the art of real conversation going? Then we may ask, what is considered reasonable? Recently, a friend said someone called Anna was staying on their sofa. A reasonable question is to ask who that is, isn’t it? I was met with silence as eventually it was revealed she is a grandchild that was being fostered, and whom my friend didn’t want to discuss. They felt embarrassed because they were afraid I would judge them and I felt bad because I wondered if I had over stepped the boundaries. We did however clear the air, because they knew I didn’t know who Anna was, and I replied I could just pretend I knew or that I didn’t want to know. Which option is better, and what is the point of it?

I had another incident where I was visiting a friend, and her partner invited his best friend and wife along. A reasonable question to ask if how did the couple meet—it’s simple harmless conversation after all. My friend then reprimanded me and said it was wrong of me to ask because they were having marriage difficulties. To be honest, I don’t think I was in the wrong; if one is at a dinner party and is introduced as a couple it’s a very normal safe question to ask. If they were having marriage problems, they should be alone sorting them out and not expecting others in public to tip toe around their issues.

In other cases, should you remain quiet when things are facts? Facts cannot be disputed and are not opinion based, and the truth is some facts aren’t very nice. Should you remain quiet and only discuss nice and good facts, and ignore the bad ones or pretend they don’t exist? When someone asks you what you think about someone, should you lie, or remain quiet if you don’t like them? By remaining quiet or giving a neutral answer such as, “They seem okay,” you are being polite, but not truthful and people know. By sparing their feelings, you are also losing a bit of integrity and step closer to that of being a hypocrite, afraid of the truth.

The current generation doesn’t appear to adhere to this rule of remaining quiet, and often express their views without any regard for the consequences as they feel they have a right to speak their minds. We do theoretically, but should also consider whether it’s an opinion or fact. Opinions and perceptions will always change and vary according to the person, but facts will remain the same, and you can try and distort them, but essentially all you are doing is denying a truth that you prefer not to know.

A good person shouldn’t intentionally say things to harm another, but if telling the truth (no matter how nasty) could help, surely that is better than remaining quiet? An example is if you know someone is being unfaithful, should you say something when asked or not? The problem I see in society today is that people fear the truth and would rather not know things. However, there are tactless people who say things that can offend and harm others and because no one has told them this, they continue. That’s why sometimes it’s good to tell someone so they know what the boundaries are.

I do try to always find something nice or neutral to say, but I’m from the School of Honesty is the Best Policy. It’s a case of how it’s delivered rather than the content though, so I don’t offend most of the time when I tell the truth. The fact is that we can’t always be nice, but should strive to be and because so many people do try and stay silent or give non-answers when they don’t wish to offend, it already tells the other party that they wanted to say something that wasn’t so nice. Therefore, do we humans play a game of pretending and choosing what sounds better versus the truth?

The truth is that honesty isn’t always pleasant, but is that better than a half-baked fib so as not to upset someone? The answer in polite society is to opt for the safe half-baked lie. However, an underlying consequence is that people are then deluded and continue with behaviors that could be questionable. The question is, is that right, to enable these behaviors? While I always advocate honesty wherever possible, it’s only pertinent when that person can accept it or is willing to.

When it comes to discussing those in the public eye, we can ascertain from the facts (from their past behaviors and choices) what we choose to perceive. The fact is they have chosen to be in the public eye through being a celebrity or a politician and therefore should expect to be scrutinized, and accept that not all things said about them will be nice. That doesn’t mean they should be targeted, but if someone is part of a cult and they publicly say and do things that offend others, then people have a right to say what they think about them. Another example is when people are called gold diggers, and their history shows a pattern alluding to that, perhaps they are, but there is no law against it. Certain things can’t be proven, but can be deduced easily, so should people remain silent in this case too? People can state probable and likely facts, even if they aren’t so nice if they have an element of truth.

Basically, if you choose to say nothing at all to avoid hurting someone’s feelings, just because you haven’t said what you think doesn’t alter the fact that you had a negative thought. They probably know it, and if they persist and ask if you are being honest, then what do you do? The dilemma is then to lie to pacify, and so silence isn’t always the easy option if you don’t deliver it convincingly. That’s why I advocate tactful honesty based on facts, and in the worse case, to offer no opinion through ignorance. Realistically, people must learn from hearing a few dark truths, because the world and humanity aren’t perfect, but we should find a balance between honesty and avoiding hurting others feelings whenever possible, but not to tip toe around the truth all of the time.

The Flawed State Of Democracy

I watch the world, as each day there are more protests, yet many of these are peaceful with rational and logical requests. If democracy truly existed, then surely there would be no need for protests because the will of the masses will have been heard? Power and control rule humanity, so what part does democracy play? What is democracy these days, and is a republic truly representative as how it was intended back in ancient times? Blood has been spilled and countless lives have been sacrificed in the name of democracy, so why is it so important and has society become complacent in accepting limited democracy, or are others expecting more than they should? The will of the people may seem right, but do the masses know what is right, can they be trusted, and what if they aren’t and the minority are right? Look at the Salem Witch Trials; a classic case of where the minority were right and governance failed the minority.

First of all what is defined by democracy or a republic? A republic is where people are represented via elected representatives, who in turn nominate a President to oversee the republic. This is a type of indirect democracy called a representative democracy, but how many of them are drowning in red tape, bribery, corruption, and rules that favor the government in the name of the people? States can refer to themselves as a democratic republic but are they truly democratic, or is that what they wish others to believe? The idea is that citizens govern for the collective public good, but there will always be a minority and majority of what is considered good.

Democracy is much harder to define, but one assumes democracy as a right to freedom of speech, such civil and human rights these days. They confer power through people power—numbers to urge governments for reforms. In short they have the right to have a voice. In ancient times where direct democracy took place (Athens) citizens had the opportunity to raise concerns, but to be recognized as a citizen was similar to the terms that voters had to fulfill early on in the western voting process. Not everyone had a say or was entitled to vote. As time has progressed, more people are able to vote compared to the excluded, which included women, foreigners, non-landowners, slaves, and those who had not reached the age of majority. It does appear the current generation takes the right to vote for granted, or that equal rights or citizenship is natural. Of course they should be, but history tells us that these freedoms are a result of centuries of campaigning by those who were denied such rights. This is why history is important so that people realize that the rights they have are a result of sacrifices and bloodshed.

A republic usually has a charter or constitution, which theoretically protects the people from a possible corrupt government, whereas an absolute democracy would allow a majority to vote against a minority. Here, the will of the people would be carried with no legal framework. Both types are susceptible to manipulation, but more so the latter which is why a direct democracy wouldn’t work in many of societies today, perhaps only small groups where the outcome can be decided by the majority. Theoretically a republic protects the minority and limits the powers of the majority.

In France the Fifth Republic governs with a Parliament, but also has a President elected as a head of state, who then appoints a Prime Minister who oversees Parliament. During the recent French elections it is poignant to note not who won, but the balance of the blank votes and abstentions. It is a message that the people do not feel the democratic process is working, and by casting a white/blank vote as 4 million people did, they were actually voting to express how undemocratic the system was. The electorate had a poor choice of candidates, and many chose not to vote or to make a protest vote. The safe choice was an idealist candidate (Macron) from the previous government who was inexperienced, or the far right candidate (Le Pen) that had been associated with racism, but who vowed to look after the interests of the people.

From the 42 million votes let’s see how democratic the result was, and was it the will of the people according to the INSEE and Ministry of France? A third (34.87) of the voting electorate  did not like either candidate, and did not feel that either candidate represented their interests. Roughly 20.75 million voted for Macron, 10.64 million for Le Pen, and 12 million abstained. It is worthy to note from that 12 million, 4 million made the effort to get up and go to a polling station to cast a blank vote in protest. That does mean than more than half the electorate did not vote for Macron or want him as their head of state. Therefore, it is not the majority of the citizens, but the majority of those who made valid votes that matter. Sadly blank votes don’t get counted, but are recorded to increase the turn out percentages.

In the recent US elections it was similar where 231,556,622 people were eligible to vote, but 92,671,979 (40 percent) didn’t. Only 138,884,643 (60 percent) voted and one can consider those who voted for a third party or a non-existent candidate were making a protest vote. Clinton got 65,853,516 votes, and Trump 62,984,825. Therefore, due to the mechanics of the Electoral College where some states no longer adhere to the original concept of its inception, a majority vote did not win. You then wonder how democratic is the system, because republican democracy is designed to protect the minority from those who try to manipulate the system. The Electoral College was designed to protect the minority when it was created, yet one wonders how democratic it is today considering the original concept has been altered, and states have different electoral college rules in regards to what are deemed faithless electors. In my opinion, electors should not be bound to vote for any candidate other than the one they feel is in the best interests of the people. That was after all the concept of the Electoral College in a bid to prevent bribery and corruption over votes.

So what does the future hold for democracy? Do the people have a right to decide who should govern and represent them, and how do they ensure there is no corruption? That is why the judicial system must remain impartial to ensure that democracy is balanced between the wishes of the people, and what is legally moral and correct. What happens if there is a corrupt government? There are measures to remove them, but what if they fail? That would mean the end of democracy where the will of the people is halted, silenced, and is controlled. I fear that the judiciary in some countries has lost their way among all the precedents and statutes, and while their job is to interpret and uphold the law, they must also do so by taking into consideration the shift in societal expectations and values.

Democracy isn’t necessarily about the will of the masses, but what a media outlet wishes to promote. Are owners persuaded to promote things to influence the public, who in turn donate vast sums to certain parties in governance? Yes, there are rules about such donations, but there are also loopholes. Some may call them incentives, but others may say it’s legal bribery. This has always existed and probably will continue in some fashion. Those who seek power will find a way, even if the masses oppose. That isn’t actual democracy, but it’s still called that because it is a diluted version of what society accepts, yet the masses feel helpless, and many comment that they don’t vote because it won’t make a difference. It can and does, however, realistically not all of the time. People need to value democracy, and use it because if they stop, then that allows the dictators to take control, and trying to regain a democratic voice again will be hard. It would be a regression of the advances made in society that campaigners and protesters have fought for with their lives.

If the will of the masses is not a democratic majority, then that system needs to be reevaluated. What if the government fails in listening or to represent the people adequately? Well, riots and protests ensue, and that is democracy—when the masses declare that they are not being heard. Is human nature compatible with true democracy? I find it hard to reconcile because there will always be factions, and the masses aren’t always right, nor are governments. So how can a perfect society exist when the very nature of democracy and its perceptions are flawed and idealistic?

Surround yourself with like-minded people…

That’s easier said than done, but how do you define like-minded, and if you are an individual is that even possible? The people we choose to have around us influences us subconsciously whether we like it or not, and on a societal level subliminally tells people about the kind of person you are or your beliefs. It shouldn’t, but people sometimes can’t help but judge on the surface. Why else would your parents forbid you from being friends with those who have been involved in dodgy dealings? It’s because who your friends are, or whom you choose to be in your circle reflects on how you are perceived and judged by society.

Naturally, there are instances where you cannot choose certain bonds, like your peers, family members, work colleagues, or neighbors. Reputations count, and a neighborhood with desirable residents is highly thought of (posh versus the rough council estates), so people do judge you on where you choose to live. The workplace is a little harder, because sometimes you choose a career, but you can’t choose the reputation of the company. People like to name drop where they have worked, because it elevates their status, but does that really matter?

Can you choose honest, kind, generous, and intelligent company all of the time and is it even possible? Does that mean you should abandon friends that have made mistakes, such as a friend who had an affair, or who got fired from a job for stealing. As a friend you choose whether to support them and give them a chance, or to distance yourself. Humans aren’t perfect, and we do all make mistakes, but having the kind of people who are on your wavelength with shared beliefs does make it easier, and can inspire you.

This also applies to online communities as well as real life interactions. I have discovered certain websites or forums have communities that either you feel comfortable with and can join in, or the members are so far removed from your perceptions it’s not worth trying to interact. An example would be a political forum, where the owner and moderators are right wing and biased; they attack any one who doesn’t agree with them and so there is little point being part of that community. Another one I encountered was one on couponing; the community was given the power to remove any deals they didn’t understand, didn’t think was a real deal, or ones that they thought were misleading. Of course these are all subjective, and when I realized that the community was made up of stay at home moms aged 25 with at least three children, the uneducated, or unemployed when a posting was flagged as confusing and difficult to understand. I’m not sure how difficult it is to understand buy two items and get a free gift, but for some that is hard and obviously not the kind of company I need to deal with or interact with.

There was a New Moon recently and I had a dream that referred to the Fibonacci sequence. I wasn’t sure what that message meant and asked a community I do take part in their thoughts. Someone asked if I saw the Fibonacci Arc; unsure of the significance, another member compared it to the beginning of the Yellow Brick Road. Then I recalled this blog I started, that charts my journey on the Yellow Brick Road. I have been stuck on my journey for a while, just as Dorothy fell asleep in the poppy field. Perhaps it’s time to have faith in the Yellow Brick Road again, and the path will clear; maybe I will find some like-minded company to accompany me on my next leg of the journey?

Bad things happen to everyone

I constantly hear the phrase, “Why do bad things happen to good people?” However, how do you define a good person? Many people do delude themselves that someone is good, or choose to overlook any less than favorable traits, often finding an excuse for them. Others consider themselves good, but how do they come to that conclusion? A good person is subjective, in relation to what? How can you measure goodness—in comparison to those around them, or based on what they have done? Does working for a charity automatically make a person good? Not always, because people may have other motives, such as wanting to appear philanthropic, or others may work for a charity because they need a work reference. Are those affiliated with a church or religion deemed good without question? Should they be? A person of the cloth has traditionally symbolized goodness, but in recent years it has been revealed that there has been corruption and less than moral behaviors in a number of religions.

Society has become a minefield of people with high expectations, where tit-for-tat is expected. Whenever a deed is carried out, many subconsciously store it and expect something in return, whether it’s being neighborly, or helping a colleague meet a deadline at work. Do these deeds make you a good person because you choose to help another person? Shouldn’t we all help one another without wanting thanks, a reward, or the favor returned? That’s the sign of a truly good person—one that does things from the heart, and who doesn’t make a tally of the deeds or expects anything in return.

We then move onto what is defined as bad? When things don’t always go according to plan, some people think that something bad has happened to them. It’s subjective as to what one expects, and how one copes. There are people who would say bad things happen because someone deserves it, but do they have a right to judge? A bad thing can be someone being in a tragic accident and losing a limb, or to another a bad thing is having a partner end a relationship. Neither is pleasant, but can one be equal to another?

Humans choose to do bad or good things, and Fate can force the hand of bad situations for a number of reasons—many of which we will never be privy to. It could be repaying Karma, helping another Soul learn a lesson, but we cannot expect good things to happen all of the time. Even those with a gifted life may think they have bad things happen to them, often superficial things, for example, if they can’t find a parking space when they go shopping, or a hotel has doubled booked their reservation. Are those really bad things, or just inconvenient, and thus are labeled bad. In the real world they are not really bad things, but in the mind of those who expect good things to happen all the time, they are.

It’s not a matter of whether a person deserves good things to happen to them, but what a person considers good or bad. In the context of society those boundaries get stretched and what some consider a good act, others would consider normal. For example, helping an old lady with her groceries—it’s a good act, but it’s normal to help the elderly. Has this been elevated to being exceptionally good because people no longer do what is considered normal human nature? Has society become more selfish, and thus the definitions of good and bad are dependent on the culture and generation of the person? Is it bad when a restaurant runs out of the dish you want, or you get stuck in traffic and are late. These are superficial bad things that with patience and understanding can be dealt with. Much of what we perceive as bad or good is in our minds, as we judge from our experiences. Bad things happen to all of us so that we can appreciate the good, and stop considering the superficial things as bad.

Good things happen to bad people, but are they really that bad? When bad things happen to good people, do we assume a person is good, or merely is it what we wish to believe? People expect good things to happen to them if they do good things, but it’s not like a see saw; a good act doesn’t automatically lead to someone receiving good luck. Is good luck, the same as when things work out as planned? Life is not perfect, and as much as one likes to plan things, they can go wrong. When good things happen, we should appreciate them, and when bad things surface, we brace ourselves and ride the storm. At times the storm is long and destructive, but we survive—a little battered and bruised, but with a greater appreciation of when good things do occur.

 

 

Reality versus Perceptions

What is reality and how do our perceptions change? Sometimes it comes with age and experience and other times it’s just plain common sense. Is society so blinkered these days where reality seems so abhorrent and sad that people have to create perceptions to survive?

Who wants reality when they can live in a bubble and pretend that their lives can be like celebrities or reality television stars? Reality shows are staged and scripted by prompts; people don’t really live like that and if it gets boring or people don’t cooperate they ‘leave’ the show.

The problem is the media hypes reality to be something it’s not, and behind closed doors the persona of most people is in fact very normal and boring. Famous models and actresses do walk around without makeup and politicians and actors do take public transport. Reality is not always exciting, but is about survival and being as happy and content as possible. The media tempts and goads us to buy bigger houses, buy expensive clothes, and to eat out at fancy restaurants. If the average person can do, then we all can, can’t we is the message they portray. In society we are perceived as equal, but it’s human nature where you will always find someone who wants to be bigger and better than a sibling, neighbors, or friends. No one will admit it, but it’s true.

Our perceptions change when we yearn for something that we are led to believe we can be or have. We want to believe it’s possible, or some choose to only see what they want to see. Many don’t want to know about the homeless street people (thinking it’s their own fault) or the single parent working two minimum wage jobs, or that the elderly maybe lonely and need help. We are led to believe that these things are taken care of, but in reality they are not. What if it was you?

Reality is seen as depressing and boring, but is honest and is how many people do live or survive in this world. People do struggle to put food on the table and live hand to mouth, racism and sexism still exists despite the laws making it illegal, and people do lie and cheat. Accepting reality and acknowledging it is much better than pretending it doesn’t happen, yet the reality for the minority is that their lives can be out of touch for the masses. Even the celebrity life can be a façade—what is perceived and what is reality are two different things. The sibling of a famous actor told me that they saved their air miles to travel, even though they are a multi-millionaire. I remember well-known comedian traveling on the bus standing next to me, and a model and pop star were told that they had to give up the two tables they were using and to let me have one. That’s reality, what many don’t see.

Society is built up on materialism, and humanity, in helping others and protecting nature comes further down the list. What we perceive makes us happy, but how real is it? Are you brave enough to see reality in humanity for what it really is, or is it easier to create your own perceptions?