Tuesday, February 20, 2007'♥
food for thought.
Is l-o-v-e just a euphemised term, a make-belief, that an individual chooses to believe in to uphold his/her own morality and justify his/her selfishness to feel good emotionally and physiologically?
Does an individual still need l-o-v-e for her sustenance in the long run, if she has the capability to accept and care for herself fully in essence, and embrace her flaws and self esteem and thus make herself happy? ( i.e the wellbeing of her self esteem now is not fully dependant on others acceptance of her and she believes that no one can love her better than herself.)
Can the whole idea of l-o-v-e just be a notion in ideology and poetry to aggrandize our primitive need to procreate and meet our physiological needs.
if the individual has set criterions to be happy ,which are self sustaining in nature and off tangent from the social norms, can she still co exist in a social setting known as community.
why is there a inherent need for someone to care for our wellbeing, when we are capable of it all and thus should take charge for ourselves? are we just a bunch of lazy bums or are we really just a child at heart, who's so accustomed to being cared for ?
will such socio-emotional independance and solitude rid empathy and the ability to care for others?
can i just be the way i am?
can i just need no one at all?
i think i think too much .
oh. today i paid someone 25 to do a tarot reading for me and i watched notes on a scandal with lionel too.
a lot of random thoughts today. hmm.
++++++++++++++++++
Because i think, i seek,Because i seek, i envisage.My dreams that will be of reality.
