Looking for reason and finding it missing.

In a before vs after side by side comparison of present sense you may not think that mutual relevance would be helpful in choosing pretty much anything, least of all happiness.

From a rational perspective being present is paramount to our perception of choices available and deciding what we do with the choices we have are nothing more than well established patterns of behaviour embedded as second nature, mostly during early childhood development, and engrained into our psyche as habits of convention, making the choices we choose as much about our lifetime of experience as what we consider to be in our best interest. From a present sense perspective mutual relevance entrain the flow of cocreative confluence that manifest change regardless what we think, believe, or want and need or expect. From a presence shared intent any choice we choose to share in the flow of creation entangle Nature's shared intent to manifest the present in the interest of mutual relevance.

Whereas the notion of living live well and sharing the present intent may not sound like much from a point of view that believe in suffering the promise of a life hereafter, and lost in the dissonance and angst we vest in heeding the status quo of convention more than enough reason we don't believe in mutual relevance or make our choices based on the fun to be had or the pleasure we share rather than what we expect as reward. Accepting life as mutual pleasure in lieu of a belief that life is a struggle is a tough sell if you have a lifetime of experience that prove the contrary, but you must confess that the idea of living life without want or need, or any care in the world sounds a lot like living in paradise before Adam and Eve reputedly squandered the promise by sharing the forbidden fruit. 

From a conscious aware of exalted nature of sharing the present in the flow of Nature's confluence you'd be a fool to choose anything but, and blind not to see how much more able we become by sharing it intent.

Imagine how much more we'd be capable if we act intent and share the present in sense rather than the fallacy of our staying ahead and keeping abreast of the rest mindset, or abiding in reason that rely on who we believe and what we've been told. If living life well would imply that you forfeit any advantage you may claim as your right or reward, consider the elated relation of mutual relevance we share intent, or believe that there's more to be had than meets the eye you're right, and welcome to join us in a present that celebrates your presence regardless who you are or what you've done. The present is perfect regardless. And since living life well is as shameless and unselfish as any pious servitude and sharing it intent feels better than anything anyone can promise. But for the promise of life after death there's no reason whatsoever for trusting in someone else's promise when the present delivers on all we may want or need you'd be glad you did, and more than welcome when you do. 

Until then Adieu.

A modern day case of mistaken ability

One flu over the Cookoo's nest VIEW SLIDE SHOW DOWNLOAD ALL

Time to link to a more creative social circle?

Common sense dictate that we are defined by our social network, and history bear witness to the fact that genius holds good company. Wiliam Wordsworth's work was sparked by his association with the other romantic poets; the Impressionist painters worked as a group; Pablo Picasso and Georges Braque formed the Cubists; and Charles Darwin hung out with influential geologist Charles Lyell and Charles Babbage, the father of the computer.

Given the obviolus advantage that such selective networks imbue by means of shared trust, mutual respect, positve intention, and common objectives I guess it should come as no surprise that New Scientist refer to them as Genius networks. Considering the basic conditions that typify the social circles in which these artists and scientists moved are readily identifiable, easy to establish through shared inclination, and virtually infallible given the unconditional mutual benefit that imbue such harmonious association, you would expect them to be much more common than my own experience attest at the very least.

Given the distinct possibility that I am living in abject intellectual poverty, I'd still be underwelmed by the lack of evidence that would denote the presence of such mutually beneficial groups, much less any social evidence that any such platforms exist at all. Not the kind that foster genius anyhow.

I suppose it's common sense that par-a-phrase to 'be the change you want', which is exactly why I started the trending subject of "aware". If you like me feel indighted to do more why don't you like us on Facebook, become part of the movement by joining our circle on Google +, or spread What's UP to your loved one's and friends.

Whichever you choose, I know you'll be pleased to share that you are "aware".

Please do.

Reason that pertain to your reality

Identify the shared perspective

It may tickle your fancy that research findings bear witness to the fact that your attitude is still one of the best predictors to having a good time.

Not to mention the fact that good intention is by far the best way to foster positive engagement and honest deed is by any and all means the best expression to entrain the synergy of mutual heed, and synchronicity pertain to be the only consideration to proffer the harmony incumbent to existence. Harmony in turn engender resonance, a quality perceived as inherent to reality, and which evoke the requited principle of serendipitous afford.

From a shared perspective, synchronicity makes perfect sense, harmony a blessed sensibility, and with resonance bespoke as unconditional reward, my only question is why it doesn't seem to find accord.

My guess is lack of information about the reality of change, lack of knowledge about the principles that pertain to harmony, the absence of experience incumbent to resonance, the constant heresy embedded in almost every aspect of our modern day society, and the ever present all-prevailing propaganda for repentance and damnation of the false belief that preach a social "quid pro quo" in stead of the instinctive "hoc in quod", despite the abundant evidence evident.

I'd love to hear your point of view!