When it comes to the question of how you manage a relationship, I am probably not the best guy to ask. The things that I can do involve getting into relationships, and then leave it to girls to end the relationships. Of course, somehow, over the course of all of it, it has been strangely easy for me to be seen as the bad guy. But there are certain things that, however must it might seem I am going against conventional rules, that you might give me good credit for. For one thing, I am still in a good relationship at this point, and it has been successful for almost a year now. Of course, if your goal would be to measure things by how long a couple has been together, you are entering dangerous territory, as I’ve had two other two year relationships that ended in disaster. But looking at it another way, relationships working in a realistic way are probably bound to be somewhat political in their nature.

It is very rare that I will personally enter a relationship that remains optimistic and fundamentally peachy, and when it does happen, it is bound to end shortly after it began with little explanation as to what might have gone wrong. As odd as it sounds, romantic relationships can be compared to science. In modern science, there are a lot of controversial issues going on. Cloning, genetic alteration and so on. We’ll take the issue of stem cell research, or even abortion. While it greatly aids economic stability to control the population, and proceed with abortions, or while it might greatly aid medical research to use stem cells, there are moral problems with the issues. Relationships need to be looked at in a similar way. General human compassion demands that you carry out your relationships either using the compassionate moral model, or the logical scientific model. And also similar to science, human emotion is always, always interfering somewhat, even when you’re trying to follow the fully logical model.

Whatever method of thinking you choose, either one can essentially work, but there are some warnings for both that people need to be aware of. First of all, let me also explain that right now, at this very moment, you are following one of these ways of thinking. Most of the time, people will be following a compassionate-moral model, because societally speaking, and in terms of common cultural tradition, this is often the approach that makes sense. The problem with following a way of thinking that is based mostly off of emotion, of course, lies in the nature of emotions. Emotions can often be unpredictable, or even out of control. You might also say that we follow our emotions in a way that resembles addiction, where we search for emotional experiences that will give us a natural high that is more and more intense than whatever previous experiences we’ve had. So emotions are dangerous.

But the positive end to emotions is that they bring about a huge deal of common ground, or empathy, so that we may perceive our fellow human beings better. The entire equation of Darwin’s natural selection has a distinct problem with it, and that is that while you are killing off weaker traits to make way for stronger ones, you may be killing traits that are more ideal than any others for future conditions, but are simply not useful right now. For example, they currently have a theory that neanderthals were not previous versions of humans, but were simply a different variation of a human species, one that resembles current homosapiens ten times more than chimpanzees. But the neanderthals died out, for some reason, and although it is unexplained, this might present a problem in the evolutionary future. The neanderthals had larger noses, a more protruded brow, and other characteristics that were slightly different from ours. Some believe that while they relied on their bodies, which were fine tuned for cold weather, homo sapiens relied on their minds.

The point being? I think perhaps the entire reason human beings care so much for things that are vulnerable, cute, cuddly, sad, or what have you, is part of an neurological mechanism that has come from evolution that urges us to protect possible traits that might be favorable in future conditions, but may be currently housed in what is considered currently to be the weak.

Do we focus more on logic, or do we focus more on the heart? The answer, in part and only in part, is that you must focus on what feels right most for you. Another major part of it is considering what the best decision is for your well being, and your health. Or maybe the focus should not be so much on whether you’re following logic or raw emotion, but rather simply what is best overall, in both fronts, but mostly, what is simply best for well being, simply what is best for health.

In falling through your own standards, or your own terms in a relationship for another person, you are sacrificing your potential happiness. Change, or at least, drastic change and a massive alteration of some particular characteristic that is central to your own personality should not ever have to be altered, in any way, in order for a relationship to work. In other words, do not compromise, and never give up on your dreams. Pursue your own happiness.

I recently got into a conversation with my grandmother about what determines one’s ability to do any particular activity. To her, the idea that any individual anywhere has the potential to carry out any improvement they wish simply did not fly. And it is no surprise that those in my own family would not hold this same belief – people everywhere are holding themselves to their own self limitations. But perhaps the most disturbing part of it is the tendency you will have to find solutions for a particular problem within your belief system, and will sometimes do whatever possible to hold onto certain beliefs. This is also true, even for the concept of unlimited potential, and unlimited ability – if you truly believe in this concept then you will continue to find solutions and evidence to confirm its truth. A short while ago I was doing research on a particular topic and I noticed that for both that topic, and others I’ve recently had the experience of being involved with, you can find opposing, conflicting views on almost any issue. Yet, not only is there conflicting views, I could even go further to say that you can find views that are contradicting of each other. It is amazing. Facts and figures that directly are at conflict, saying two opposite things, from two opposite sources. Somewhere, somehow, something is always getting skewed.

Or perhaps the very notion of this fact of contradicting views, contradicting evidence, might lead individuals to interpret and create their own reality as they see fit. In general, there is certainly a debate going on over whether or not there is a true objective reality. One thing that is for certain, however, is that our perspective of that reality is entirely subjective. While we are sure that our perspective, perception, and interpretation of our reality around us is subjective, there is still a conclusion trying to be made as to whether or not reality itself is subjective. Or maybe reality is partially subjective, where certain aspects of it can actually be manipulated, while other components of it will always remain constant.

I think the main reason that we all keep coming back to the topic of subjective reality when trying to explain what we’re capable of, is because it truly is so critically important. If subjective reality and its entire existence is true, then that would mean that reality itself or the very definition of “real” that you currently know is immediately put into question. Are people nothing more than mental projections you have manifested for you to see in front of you? Is there any other consciousness but your own? Is the content of your dreams nothing more than an actual alternate reality in which you have removed the need for your usual limitations, restrictions, and usual choices? If a dream character is only a dream character, then you are presented with a huge problem in trying to understand if the people in your waking reality are anything but being only ‘dream characters’ themselves, in a way. Or maybe they’re just “reality characters,” and what is there to stop you from thinking of them as anything but?

The part of us that will stop us from believing this might be certain elements in our lives to be moving seemingly against our will for change. But what we have to remember in thinking about that, is that often these are from things that have already existed, existed in our past, and we have a conscious recall of what those things previously represented. When we think of that, we come to time, and time is presented in this whole equation as subjective too. Our past does not have to exist, yet somehow we often will remember something whether we intend to remember it or not, and therefore, our memory will serve as the basis for what future events will occur. I have seen it proven, and experienced it myself, the fact that radical change is possible to happen overnight, or even in seconds, but the only reason it often doesn’t is the simple point that there is often no motivation, or no reason for change itself to occur. If you have no reason to change, why change? Even asking that question is kind of redundant.

I will use as an example the situation of a girl who wishes that she could win back her ex-boyfriend, or vice versa. The reason that the person cannot be won back easily, or at all, is due to the fact that our past representation of them presents the basis for which all future and present conditions will occur. The very memory of them leaving, even if it was a very pleasant, mutual understanding leaving, can serve as a barrier, and manifestation road block, so to speak, as to why they will not return once again. Of course, under the entire intention-manifestation theory, you should be able to bring that particular person back into your life anyway. The problem with that is, why limit yourself, and why face needless past-based resistance?

And that is often a common problem. In thinking about some situations, the entire solution or next step in a progression forward seems entirely obvious. In other situations, however, we might be focusing on entirely the wrong thing and there is nothing to tell us that the situation is being solved incorrectly, because consciously we have no way of knowing the fact that on a subconscious level we have already created whatever it is we are doing as a ‘fail system,’ where the mere definition of its existence is for it to be destined to fail.

Yet, even at the end of all of this, the question remains, why? The question remains as to why we can consciously direct a manifestation by holding intentions, yet on a subconscious level there is a massive amount created beyond our control for unknown reasons. The question remains as to why our past remains persistent and stubborn to being abolished, or perhaps just why the difficulty remains in rearranging the perceptions of our own past.