A Pinch Of Sucsess

When we believe success is impossible we criticize it. While sometimes we think success it is mystical that we need to find it rather than create it. Sometimes we believe in luck and again success is the need to create it. Again we can think it is productivity and again this is not success. Success is a holistic formula. It is neither opportunity or recognition or connection. Opportunity make us wait rather than create. Recognition thus not necessary make us happy while connection does not necessary mean that we succeed we need to create. Sometimes we think it is an event but what only events do is just change us shift us. Success is a process. A holistic process. Growth yet is focusing on today. Success is building as what you become is what you do today. Each day should be a masterpiece. What you control is today. Future is only determined by today. So be discipline and do great job today with great decisions. First as you make decision (Having right attitude, priorities, family, health, good thinking, keeping commitment, finances, faith and investing in solid relationship, generosity, keep growing and creating values and then come the discipline. Decisions help us to start while discipline help us to continue. Don't regret one day that you did not start. As you need to create as you need to start with yourself as you have something to give before you get. Focus on what you can see and work on while starting early. So the greater the compound is. The attitude is what makes you enjoy what you do. Happiness is not difficult to experience it is you inside you it is Divine. You need to work. The attitude influence our life. Do effect the outcome of what you do. The confident person makes positivity and prosperity. Create positivity thus succeed and thus become a great Leader.

What is the scope of man? In the book, I will publish my philosophy of money and how to easily invest. This is one point. I will tell you how easy success is. It easy to seem boring sometimes. What is an extraordinary life? Everybody lives a normal life. Donald Trump and Warren Buffet both are rich both still work. How to spend time. Work is necessary but surely the important thing is to be happy. Dalai Lama the fourteen believe in laughter. Don’t think a lot perhaps. Who knows?  What is truth? Pieces of the reality of this game. The reality is that I try to see this reality that perhaps is in me who knows. But whether in the few poetry that I wrote in the book with the poetry or prayers of affirmations and contemplation that I wrote everyone is a poet. But... Comical life is comical sometimes. A tragedy who nows? Fulfill your dream don’t fear yet.

Who are we?

To see

Bliss in our eyes that blind us

What is

Who knows

Bliss!

****

Whether we live with the help of God whether we discover God?

Life is a mystery.

In the ordinary perhaps.

Mystery creates myth...

But...

Writing is In the ordinary perhaps.

Mystery creates myth...

But...

****

Writing is there to create this myth to figure this myth such as painting. Artists are all that an artist once said how can people not paint not write... Yet, while I still trying to figure myself out writing poetry, I have published my first book Skizzi Assurd, and am writing to publish my second book.. But this is another story but...

What is life

Why?

And yet

What is life

But Why

Yet?

What is life

Why?

The book is being edited is nearly finished. 2 chapters remaining. Cool and arranging intro and conclusion an then publishing it in USA Amazon. I’m a poet, writer and future salesman hopefully. Sometimes I painter. In the meantime I’m working as a writer hopefully when I get the car I become a sales man. Zig Ziglar inspired me. For what purpose I’m living. Surely now I realise that man exist for work and to find little bliss in spirituality but he can not live in bliss always if he will do nothing. And man the proper man is an artist poet and a shaman. For surely school did not make me so but I hopefully in these steps of living I becoming  so. A sensitive person a more person that realise reality and identify the things that make me alive. Here in this skizziAssurd blog I write what I feel in the now such as my first poem book Aglo Maltese with essays I also love hiking appart that I love nature but by contrast I love the city the city is life in the end.  But from now I go to write another  book I’m inspired by music especially a lot. This writing is absurd, hopefully I hope. In should start training as well. Last year I did 10 k run, I used to run. But know I don’t know. The Absurd took the more. But running is nice. It great work. But I need to write more and more. Life is a game. Surely. I’m also in a community and I’m a Christian. I believe in biblical investment and yet I need to find an idea for a biblical business, I need to pray a lot if it God will it come yet and hopefully I succeed to sell the next book inspire people to be happy. Ultimately I write to find myself, as sub conscious here this blog is a dustbin while I need to find a subject that matter to me whether I create a community a tribe that follows me will see latter I don’t know but.  Or that neutron is the past and everything leads us to the absurd to what we can not understand. We humans and poets. 

On the Idea of Family

Is the family an universal sphere? What is the family. George Peter Murdock in a study made over 250 societies defined the family as a social group characterized by common; residence, economic cooperation, including adults of both sexes to whom approved sexual relationship exist among children or adopted children. But debates emerges among sociologist in this case in regards what is a family. Such as what is religion, what is a and B. Lyotard use the term language game that the definition depend on the game we are playing and again the debate whether according to this language game of family as we perceive it is in Capitalist mode according to Marxism who Marx nevertheless is not necessary false other sociologist criticize the fact that such family is not universal. Due to the fact that they see other models of the Nayar population who according to Kathleen Gough 1956 the Nayar Girls married their husband before puberty in the tali rite and she had only one duty to mourn to his death there were no other obligations. Then when she reached near puberty or after puberty she could be visited by other man warriors that came from war zones and such wariors left there shield out as a sign of conquered territory. A woman could hold 12 man a man a infinite number of woman. The man who came late who saw the garments warrior could sleep in the Veranda. Man had no duty towards the offspring and a relationship could be terminated therefore there was no economic nucleus only thus children were adopted by same man or other man but not necessary by the biological father. Thus it was a matrilineal society helped by  mother a female sisters with no need of men which Germaine Greer a radical feminist that argues that family life oppress woman as they need to be wife and motherhood is the only thing that gives fulfillment perhaps to woman and so women also are seen as daughters and the fact that young woman are called babes and subject to abuse and so she conclude in a matrilocal model of household. She suggest segregation. These can also help old woman alone. Murdock’s definition is either not universal or else such is that the defenition of family like all defenition can be debated. Some argue that this is a fragmentation of the nucleus family. Woman are more free to work, choose to enter in lesbian relationship, marry or cohabitate, live as single mothers or on their own. These are the reality that the fragmented post modernism produced and are producing. Universality is thus only apt to the language game used.

In my opinion it time to believe to start to define the family first and to do this we need to define the family why it exists.

The European World Question



What is the European culture. The Romantic culture or the Mediterranean or the Germanic music. In a globalized Europe who is the European with his philosophy. Is the man of today a global person. Europe one day was defined by the classical period Greek art and Germanic art and the Slavs on the right.

Greek art influenced today Western conception of aesthetics and philosophy. But what is Europe. Which is Europe the music of Wagner or of Iron Maiden. What is the new culture that post modernity created. What did Europe specialize in. Is it becoming Asian with China expanding its financial Imperialism or African Continent.

What is Europe and the European question of what of Europe losing its identity have already started. Europe was never Jewish. Jews knew how to infiltrate in Africa and European and merchant as nomads without a country till the UN gave them a country to rule. We know that Americans are a bunch of different people all with his culture joined by one supposed global culture the globalized villages of McDonald and Pizza Hut. Again in the Arts from European classical art to renascence to Prehistoric temples Europe was a country with its identity before threw artist that inspired themselves from Japanese art and African art the former Van Gogh the latter Picasso.

How again the point is how to define an Identity by its spirituality which has nowadays its variances. And artist as they influence by culture and do it apart of creating portraits to interpret the world around what can they do to be called new artist try to find new medium a new artist mood that affects himself or go to the past or select the culture of what he likes and find an audience in were their are many audiences in post modernism.

Whether science introduce a scientific propaganda advertisements it still can become a religion in a scientific realism rather then Russian realism were in that sense art in itself thus not remain important apart of portrait and psycho-art art used for psychological use and therapy and modern aesthetics.

What about food. American food, African, European and Asian. It remained the most free area while it depends on the taste buds of the individual. And yet knowledge of nutrition give us reasons what to eat and what not is healthy this is the new deal and yet in Europe you find all sorts of imitation whether political or not which exists.

Religion vs Ethics vs Spirituality

Ethics can be either based on rules or principles. In any case ethics are not related to any form of spirituality and meaning. In the sense ethics is either right or wrong. This results whether you follow the rules or not that follow from such principles or rule based approuch. Thus it is not relate to any form of good or bad that it is related to the biological question of “why human exists?” which can be answered in Biological (physical terms), Sociological (social terms), Psycholigical (psychology terms) and Spiritual (religious terms).

All of these can form the basis of an Ethical rule. But now let say for example philosophically speaking we can create a ethical rule that humans are to procreate and continue the human species. Yet from an ethical point of view this is right if followed or wrong if not followed but yet from a biological meaning it is good if followed while bad if not followed.

Yet their are two types of this religion. In my oppinion I see it that meaning is an Integral one as an Integral Humanist. Thus meaning a holistic one and it involves all spheres of human dimension and removing one will make reality an absurd one. These dimensions are Biological (physical terms), Sociological (social), Psycholigical (psychology) and Spiritual (Religious). Yet meaning and ethics influence the laws and politics as well.

Here it is not my role to define a religion and in sociology it is a continuous to be a debate. I think that atheism and secular humanism can be a religion in itself as to the structure and the meaning it potrays excludes spirituality. Spirituallity that its defenition is the human meeting with the tracendental.

The new Atheism and secular humanism revel in the whole idea of living without religion basic their ideas on science. The truth is that the human mind isn't accustomed to removing something without replacing it with something else; hence the recent renewal in militant atheism and secular humanism (the so-called "New Atheists"). These rehashed belief systems contain all the hallmarks of a religion:
- Leaders: Richard Dawkins, the late Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris et al.
- A Creation Story: A dogmatic and unquestioning belief in Darwinian evolution.
- Sacred Texts: The Humanist Manifesto, The God Delusion and many others.
- Organization and Cult: Several associations all over the world.
- Sects: Free Thinkers, Brights, Materialists and many others.
- Rituals: Several atheist conventions are held each year.
- Proselytism: The High Priests of New Atheism are very much eager to convince others of the validity of atheism through countless publications and even an advertising campaign in the heart of London.

Thus as one can realise in this analysis that I do not associate religion to the spiritual. Personly I more associated religion to the fact that religion is ritual interpreted by others to help convey that religious spirituality probably not by the leader or leaders himself such as Jesus Christ in Christianity, Budha in Budhism.

Therefore like a created story presented in a book or books, a narative, a myth that are writen all in sacred text rules are added and so a religion is created to interpret the religion in the time needed.

David Steindl-Rast (born July 12, 1926, Vienna) is a Catholic Benedictine monk, notable for his active participation in interfaith dialogue and his work on the interaction between spirituality and science. During Link TV's Lunch With Bokara 2005 episode The Monk and the Rabbi, he stated:

“The religions start from mysticism. There is no other way to start a religion. But, I compare this to a volcano that gushes forth ...and then ...the magma flows down the sides of the mountain and cools off. And when it reaches the bottom, it's just rocks. You'd never guess that there was fire in it. So after a couple of hundred years, or two thousand years or more, what was once alive is dead rock. Doctrine becomes doctrinaire. Morals become moralistic. Ritual becomes ritualistic. What do we do with it? We have to push through this crust and go to the fire that's within it.”

I believe David Steindl-Rast is refering to such religion that assert their begining to spirituality whether they believe in a God or not. This is because  Buddhism after time they become religion and Christianity as well. Such religions I believe that start from a way of mindful mysticism such as in Buddhism and in Christianity the idea that Jesus is a God and saved all humanity by dieing in the cross and rising alive winning death, the absurd. Again this is the need that Carl Jung a Swiss psychiatrist and psychotherapist whose work has been influential in psychiatry and in the study of religion, philosophy, archeology, anthropology, literature, and related fields saw that the human psyche as "by nature religious". By this I believe in todays format becomes "by nature spiritual " as connected still to the spirit and sometimes you can not distinguish what is religious what is not. By this he meant that as his work on himself and his patients convinced that showed him that in fact life has a spiritual purpose beyond material goals. Our main task, he believed, is to discover and fulfill our deep innate potential. This was based on his study of Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Gnosticism, Taoism, and other traditions. Jung therefore concluded in his journey of transformation this which he called individuation which is at present at the mystical heart of all religions. This is a journey to meet the self and at the same time to meet the Divine. Also Viktor Emil Frankl, M.D., Ph.D. an Austrian neurologist and  psychiatrist as well as a Holocaust survivor founder logotherapy (an existential approach to therapy which is a form of existential analysis) who has written his best-selling book Man's Search for Meaning concluded that the lack of meaning is the paramount existential stress. To him, existential neurosis is synonymous with a crisis of meaninglessness. Frankl validated his hallmark conclusion that even in the most absurd, painful, and dehumanized situation, life has potential meaning and that, therefore, even suffering is meaningful which he came such conclusion after enduring the suffering in these concentration camps. Thus this meaning is derived from spirituality. Such meaning is not found by science but by myth.

Therefore spirituality is not how to act as a human being it is much deeper then that. And spirituality is not a religion neither it can form the religion institution but even secular humanist did this.

Therefore in this essay one can see the difference between ethics, state and religion. Even politics such as Comunism and Nazism were religions with such deffenition. In fact Carl Jung saw the state and referred to the state as a form of slavery and also stressed the importance of individual rights in a person's relation to the state and society as he that the state "swallowed up [people's] religious forces" and therefore that the state had "taken the place of God"—making it comparable to a religion in which "state slavery is a form of worship". Jung also observed that "stage acts of [the] state" are comparable to religious displays: "Brass bands, flags, banners, parades and monster demonstrations are no different in principle from ecclesiastical processions, cannonades and fire to scare off demons"

Now turning to Business ethics (also corporate ethics) is a form of applied ethics or professional ethics such as the code of ethics of AAT. Yet I believe Europe is still influenced by Judeo Christian’s principles till know. Max Weber a German sociologist, economist, and politician  in fact argued in the The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism that capitalism in Northern Europe evolved when the Protestant (particularly Calvinist) ethic influenced large numbers of people to engage in work in the secular world, developing their own enterprises and engaging in trade and the accumulation of wealth for investment. In other words, the Protestant work ethic was an important force behind the unplanned and uncoordinated mass action that influenced the development of capitalism. Technology could have evolved the trasformation of Capitalis yet such ideas of service were influenced by such religion which in that time was the most practised. Such as the Law was influenced by such principle.

Yet this essay is not how an ethics develope. In the study of Meta-ethics which proposes theories such as Emotivism, defended by A.J. Ayer and C.L. Stevenson, holds that ethical sentences serve merely to express emotions. So "Killing is wrong" means something like "Boo on killing!." Therefore to conclude ethics is not to find meaning the biological question why human exist. It is a philosophy and as a philosophy it neither contradicts metaphysics nor create a theological one of its own. Ethics is a separate entity and that is why we talk on whether it is right or wrong and not good or bad. This is because ethics does not hold a biological question, a meaning such as “why human exists?” and so no real answer can be given to the ethics as it existance it is without the biological question of why human should act in such manner. Therefore ethic is just based on a rule such as 1+1 to follow that = 2 and therefore it is not good or bad it is either right or wrong according to the rule or priciple that can be based on emotions, influenced by religion and politics and Law or spirituality.

GOOD OR EVIL

Principles create rules, for example, the principle of objectivity creates the rule to be objective. While a rule-based system is a rule. But how can we say that objectivity is good in principle or as a rule to be moral? Virtue ethics? 

Socrates describes the character of a moral agent as a driving force for ethical behavior and is used to describe the ethics of Socrates (469 BC – 399 BC) was one of the first Greek philosophers that encouraged both scholars and the common citizen to turn their attention from the outside world to the condition of humankind. In this view, knowledge having a bearing on human life was placed highest, all other knowledge being secondary. Self knowledge was considered necessary for success and inherently an essential good. A self-aware person will act completely within his capabilities to his pinnacle, while an ignorant person will flounder and encounter difficulty. To Socrates, a person must become aware of every fact (and its context) relevant to his existence, if he wishes to attain self-knowledge. He posited that people will naturally do what is good if they know what is right. Evil or bad actions are the result of ignorance. If a criminal was truly aware of the intellectual and spiritual consequences of his actions, he would neither commit nor even consider committing those actions. Any person who knows what is truly right will automatically do it, according to Socrates. While he correlated knowledge with virtue, he similarly equated virtue with joy. The truly wise man will know what is right, do what is good, and therefore be happy. Knowledge is divine truth. Thus ethics would be based on knowing the self and the divine that created you in Jungian terms. Thus Socrates was claiming morality. In this sense, Socrates was like the Buddha. Socrates to me was a mystic.

Aristotle (384 BC – 323 BC) was more scientific in his analysis, he posited an ethical system that may be termed "self-realizationism." In Aristotle's view, when a person acts in accordance with his nature and realizes his full potential, he will do good and be content. At birth, a baby is not a person, but a potential person. To become a "real" person, the child's inherent potential must be realized. Unhappiness and frustration are caused by the unrealized potential of a person, leading to failed goals and a poor life. Aristotle said, "Nature does nothing in vain." Therefore, it is imperative for people to act in accordance with their nature and develop their latent talents in order to be content and complete. Happiness was held to be the ultimate goal. All other things, such as civic life or wealth, are merely means to the end. Self-realization, the awareness of one's nature, and the development of one's talents is the surest path to happiness. Here is more about Maslow's idea and how to reach it with rationality.

These are good if obtained in a good manner, happiness is achieved, and more Socrates was talking of a self-transcendence when such importance decreases and forms such a pyramid. Yet again Socrates was talking about self-transcendence, which in the end fulfills virtue ethics. Transpersonal psychology, which is a school of psychology that integrates the spiritual and transcendence, discusses this as it integrates transcendental aspects of the human experience with the framework of modern psychology. It is also possible to define it as a "spiritual psychology". The Transpersonal has been defined as "experiences in which the sense of identity or self extends beyond (trans) the individual or personal to encompass wider aspects of humankind, life, psyche or cosmos"

Stoicism, such as Aristotl,e is more a psychological philosophy The Stoic philosopher  Epicetus posited that the greatest good was contentment and serenity. Peace of mind, or Apatheia, was of the highest value; self-mastery over one's desires and emotions leads to spiritual peace. The "unconquerable will" is central to this philosophy. The individual's will should be independent and inviolate. Allowing a person to disturb the mental equilibrium is in essence offering yourself in slavery. If a person is free to anger you at will, you have no control over your internal world, and therefore no freedom. Freedom from material attachments is also necessary. If a thing breaks, the person should not be upset but realize it was a thing that could break. Similarly, if someone should die, those close to them should hold to their serenity because the loved one was made of flesh and blood destined to death. Stoic philosophy says to accept things that cannot be changed, resigning oneself to existence and enduring rationally. Death is not feared. People do not "lose" their life, but instead "return", for they are returning to God (who initially gave what the person is as a person). Epictetus said difficult problems in life should not be avoided but rather embraced. They are spiritual exercises needed for the health of the spirit, just as physical exercise is required for the health of the body, and it also seems in this sense to be like Buddhism, and is quite a psychological argument again. 

 

The ego is a servant and I am the leader. I am in control of it and it's demanding, it's cravings, it's habits. And I will let it not demand, command, and rule my life. It will be my assistant for my own success

 

Existentially - Pain and fear were to be avoided. Living was essentially good, barring pain and illness.

Death was not to be feared. Fear was considered the source of most unhappiness. Conquering the fear of death would naturally lead to a happier life. Epicurus reasoned if there was an afterlife and immortality, the fear of death was irrational. If there was no life after death, then the person would not be alive to suffer, fear, or worry; he would be non-existent in death. It is irrational to fret over circumstances that do not exist, such as one's state in death in the absence of an afterlife. Which is also from a psychological standpoint. The important point to haven’t lived morally is to be silent and piece with your spirit and thus not suffer pain through such a process of discovering and living the divine, you can win immortality as you live according to the divine inside, as a result,t you have jo,y piece and true LOVE

Deontological ethics or deontology is the normative ethical position that judges the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule or rules. It is sometimes described as "duty" or "obligation" or "rule"-based ethics because rules "bind you to your duty." Immanuel Kant's theory of ethics is considered deontological for several different reasons. First, Kant argues that to act in the morally right way, people must act from duty (deon). Second, Kant argued that it was not the consequences of actions that make them right or wrong but the motives of the person who carries out the action.

Kant's argument that to act in the morally right way one must act purely from duty begins with an argument that the highest good must be both good in itself and good without qualification

Such rules in Utilitarianism, which is a theory in normative ethics holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes utility, usually defined as maximizing happiness and reducing suffering. The two most influential contributors, therefore, in Classic Utilitarianism are Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. John Stuart Mill in his book Utilitarianism, stated, "In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility. To do as one would be done by, and to love one's neighbor as oneself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality." According to Bentham and Mill, utilitarianism is hedonistic only when the result of an action has no decidedly negative impact on others. It is now generally taken to be a form of consequentialism, although Anascombe first introduced that term it was to distinguish between "old-fashioned utilitarianism" and consequentialism. In utilitarianism, the moral worth of an action is determined only by its resulting outcome, although there is debate over how much consideration should be given to actual consequences, foreseen consequences, and intended consequences. In A Fragment on Government, Bentham says, "It is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong

                                                                                                                                

Yet I believe in Christianity, both are achieved as a morality, and if you remain moral. Yet thus, Virtue ethics can tell us what is good or evil as we meet the divine in us and meet all such requisites and principles to create rules from how we will act according to both Deontological and Utilitarianism as we follow such ethics to right or wrong. If everybody was truly Christian, they would truly be happy as he reached the maximum of his beauty. It is the Spirit that divine good our self-knowledge, that the divine put in us. The battle that humans face internally to have peace with themselves in the internal self, letting go to the truth, the good, or choosing evil, the flesh. In Jungian terms, the individual is created to find himself the divine self ultimately, as is destined to have joy and peace in himself, and to emerge such positive qualities to others.

Otherwise, without knowing the self, we are lost, excluding the divine in us makes us act like animals and worse than animals. Science is there to make us virtuous and help us explore the beauty of the divine principles that create such material principles as the Law of Gravity in the end it just can not derive ethics which whether moral or not the same ethics can not be divine as morality can be seen in a divine universal sense such as the Platonic form or choose to be postmodernism rather than attach an Integral philosophy and choose post postmodernism and so rather choose post modernity relativism – ethics due to culture and pragmatic evolution but which there is no biological existence in them no search for meaning thus it is either right or wrong. If we exclude the divine in us, we can say that killing someone is ethical, we start arguing for argument's sake in search of the absurd, and to kill someone or not to kill becomes absurd. Yet again, the law of attraction is the name given to the belief that like attracts like and that by focusing on positive or negative thoughts, one can bring about positive or negative results. Thinking positively even if things come negatively, you will see those things positively and as a definition, what is negative negative thus does not exist such as evilness does not exist as St Agustine says total evilness is self destructive and thus if Satan goes total evil he destroys himself nihilates himself. Thus, if neither Satan is total evil nor human, and it is better to be positive and always become more positive to achieve peace – to achieve evil is something you can not achieve on earth and perhaps only in hell, and yet that is a Lose/Lose paradigm and it is evilness on yourself. While evilness destroys peace and love, whether you believe in Satan as an atheist or as a theist. This fact that man can not reach total evilness leads me to the fact to conclude that man is born to be good - but to be good you need to know the biological question that ethics thus not give it is an internal search and an encounter with the divine that gives it in spirituality as Jung asserted.

Disability Teaching Me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8-Xg8sO5AM

Disability teaches us how to solve problems. That time is precious and we need to love and be compassionate. Disability is seen as good or bad according to whether we can see good even in disability which is a special ability that requires responsibility. This is seen according to whether you can extract love and compassion from your inner self. These people as the Manos Blacas for example - SEEING THREW SOUND as they make us more feel and more human and such as http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36m1o-tM05g who teaches us how we should all perform better to achieve happiness and dream whatever circumstance we are in an example of humanity ability such as also Pastor Nick Vujicic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc4HGQHgeFE.... These People teach us great lessons ultimately if we want to... These stories as a result I conclude that they are inspiring and they in fact give me courage in my life to continue.

Some Questions I asked to a friend 

      1)  What thus your spirituality believe in.

Spirituality is about man making an encounter with the transcendental

         2) What do you say on humanist secular and your spirituality how do you feel?

Humanist secularism is a contradictory because it omits the spiritual aspect of the human person. Integral humanism takes into account not only the intellectual, emotional and physical aspects of the human person but also the spiritual dimension

          3) As spirituality make us more        elevated then animals and not act like them. Do you agree?

Agree, the human person has the capacity for God.

        4) What thus it believes in as to politics?

Politics generally refers  to the running of the secular state together with the different views and perspectives on how this should be carried out. It can also mean the way persons interact and operate within an institution or society.

       5) Changing note do you use a system to write appointments and set up what is and to time Management. Can you explain us ?

     The most important is prioritizing.

AN IDEA TO THE WORLD PEOPLE AND SOCIETY

DECIDE FOR YOURSELF HOW YOU INTERPRET IT IT IS UP TO YOU...

AS A WRITER ARTIST I LEAVE YOU WITH YOUR CREATIVITY WITH YOUR INNER SPIRITUALITY AS A POET IS.

"Work is love made visible. And if you can't work with love but only with distaste, it is better that you should leave your work and sit at the gate of the temple and take alms of the people who work with joy."

Khalil Gibran

"I prefer to be a dreamer among the humblest, with visions to be realized, than lord among those without dreams and desires."--Khalil Gibran

"Faith is an oasis in the heart which will never be reached by the caravan of thinking.--Khalil Gibran

"What is this world that is hastening me toward I know not what, viewing me with contempt?"
--Khalil Gibran