Cogito Ergo Sum

What is so enigmatic about the emotion or thought that constitutes the realms of so called First Love , will be something that will keep every one who's been through that state bothered for as long as they keep breathing . What pesters those who have failed in it, is not the failure if shared, but the rejection because of something they didn’t possess and that’s bound to be natural since they wanted it so bad that they start pondering about the criteria they couldn’t fulfill, norms they couldn’t adhere to, spark they couldn’t provide, feelings they couldn’t ignite, etc, etc, etc…. Is it for real? That’s the first doubt that clouds the mind if one tries to sneak into the problem domain by being a rational animal, and what follows is a long list of questions unanswered, desires unfulfilled and dreams unrealized which linger on even when the person decides to forgo. Let me just ask one question to all of us, is it worth it? I mean, come on, so what o

…. Once the user starts seeing the changes he/she goes through when faced with a situation as a third person, rather then directly jumping into the reaction that comes first to the surface of expression of the consciousness (because of the preconceived / acquired perception(s)), the individual becomes more and more aware of the possible ways that he/she can react, which, coupled with the individuals awareness of the depth of the effect that situation might have in his whole conscience, remember the vertex of the Self Triad, slowly, very slowly, the individual can actually see the outcome(s) (initially it will be very hazy, but the fog of doubt vanishes with practice) which might result because of a specific reaction. In other words, you not only start controlling the situation, but you can (and I am not hyperbolizing ) even envision the outcome of your reaction, i.e. even perceive the reaction(s) of others. if involved, (the only problem comes when even others involved use this techniq

…..... this veil not only obscure the three vertices of the self triad, but also make an individual very reaction centric as for that individual only the outcome is of prime importance, not the means or ways in which it’s reached. The more the person tries to move towards the center of the triad, it’s like a typical process of self awareness, when the clouds of obscurity are obliterated and the individual slowly starts seeing the vertex of perception (remember, situation is always very evident and most of the times obscenely blatant). Once an individual gets the experience of viewing how the reactions are driven by perception(s), there is no turning back (provided the person has enough courage to face the self-analysis by THE self, which can be outrageously true and hence most of the time not pleasant, but remember, in long run you will appreciate its bounteousness) . .................

…. the moment the individual starts listening to this seemingly meandering question (which in so called “ practical” aspects of life might seem like a query which is sort of self destructive, which it actually is , but to a better end) the individual’s individuality, in the initial stage of self realization, seems to be going for a toss and the tussle of the ego makes it appear more worse than it actually is. The person goes through a series of swings of emotional jeopardy, but one needs to have enough faith in oneself, to overcome this passing phase, out of which one will surely come out triumphant; a better person, if I may add. It might seem to the individual that the easiest way out is to give up on the ongoing internal war of the ego ( egos , if I may say so, will get to this detail later on…), in which generally the ego wins, and the individual is veiled from the obvious fact that he/she has actually reacted in the wrong manner. On top of it, if the situation alters according to

.............. As is evident, the point S is the initialization point of the triad. Its obviousness is derived from a atypical life event, where we, "Supposed to be thinking animals", react almost, almost instantaneously to the situation, and hence the starting point of the series of events that follow, along with their specific reactions and the cycle continues.Mind it, i am not trying to say that people actually do not think, they actually do, but as i said, the depth, is generally very low, in fact in most of the case the S,P,R are actually a point. Individual is unable to differentiate what is ruling him/her, and once the situation is altered, the individual is left with a series of lingering questions as to what derives him/her. "Is it the Situation itself?" "Is my perception wrong (when the situation worsens)." or "My perception is right (When the situation is resolved (according to the individual)), this ones a more of a formation of another

The theory starts with the basic idea of changing one's self. The idea is still age old, situations or stimulis are generally unalterable (directly), the only thing that invokes/drives a reaction is the perception one holds, so as to affect or alter the situation in a more favorable manner, one should look deeper into the regime of perceptions one has. Sometimes individual perception, sometimes a closed knit correlation among the seemingly different perceptions are definingly responsible for one's reaction to the situation or stimuli. The best geometric figure to put this theory into a more tangible and lucid presentation, i think, would be a triangle, with the SELF being the nucleus or the core of the figure. The S TIMULI/ S ITUATION, P ERCEPTION, R EACTION (which from now on i will refer to as the respective point of Self Triad i.e Point S, P, R ) would be the three points defining the boundry of the triad of self. The vertexs would define the scope, depth & vision the