The Real Pride of the Nation - the Filipino Within

Think about it...

While it is good for us to take pride in our ancestry and roots, we must
also remember that the achievements of those who have pledged allegiance
to a foreign flag are within the domain and claim of their adopted
country. The achievements performed by Filipinos elsewhere are
achievements that are not necessarily due to the fact that they are of
Filipino descent but that the system in which they now function in
provided them with the means to become the best that they could be.
Their only connection to the country is their ancestral roots--that is all.

Great American discoveries were mostly contributed by American citizens
of foreign ancestry, but their achievements were never once attributed
as a consequence of their ancestral or national roots, or racial
origins, but to the fact of America. Germans, Jews, Irish, Italian,
English, French, African, Middle Eastern, Asian, Pacific Islanders,
Russian, Filipino.

Not once did Einstein reckon his achievements to his German ancestry.
The Manhattan project, for example, that introduced the A-bomb was made
up of scientists from different parts of the world, but the achievement
is American. NASA employs Filipinos in top engineering positions,
Microsoft, Oracle, JPL, the US Military, Hollywood. All of these
institutions have top notch Filipinos, but they will clearly identify
themselves as Americans with Filipino ancestry. That is as far as it
goes. Whatever they accomplish in life will always be American. To
reference their ancestral roots is trivial at best. The fact is, to
even bring up the issue of ancestry or race as a reason for success or
failure is unacceptable and taboo in the American system. This is
considered prejudicial even if it was meant as a complement.

It is good for us to be proud of those of our heritage that have made
significant contributions to society in general, but we need to remember
that most have pledged their allegiances to a foreign country who bears
the right to lay claim on their achievement by default. Achievements
have nothing to do with race or ancestral roots, but has everything to
do with the system that provided them the means to achieve.

I could just imagine a Filipino scientist in the employ of the NSA who
invents a new encryption technology claiming that because he is a
Filipino, the invention must be owned by the Philippines! He would be
carted off to federal prison even before he completes his statement.
The fact is, this scientist would not be allowed, if he holds any secret
credentials, to discuss or disclose any of his inventions as it will
serve a threat to American National Security and goes against the
interests of the American people. He will even be prevented from the
working in the same field should he decide to leave the NSA.

Even among our beloved OFW's who toil without ceasing cannot lay claim
to achievements or innovations they may have had participated in as
Filipinos, but as individuals in the employ of their foreign company.
We can be proud that Filipinos performed great feats, but this does
little to encourage (save the bragging rights) our people who similarly
toil every single day with the meager resources afforded them IN THE
PHILIPPINES.

If we are to truly showcase the Filipino, we need to begin looking
inwards, for within the confines of our Fatherland are men and women who
deserve to be recognized for achievements. Those that make it big
elsewhere are the exceptions that are far removed from the system we are
living in. They operate under a different system. If we are to measure
or establish a point of comparison, then we need to make sure that the
basis of measurement we use is common to the objects or instances being
measured. Besides the ancestral issue, nothing else is common between
Filipinos living in the Philippines and those living abroad.

Trying to show how great Filipinos can be outside of the country, in
fact, adds insult to injury, sends the wrong message about how we value
nationalism and the ideals of patriotism, as well as engenders envy,
haplessness and despair among those who have no means of moving to
another country. It puts material gain and expediency as more valuable
than fundamental values, loyalty, fortitude, and tenacity. It sends the
message that the most important priority of the individual is his or her
family. Bad news. As Filipinos, the most important, the ultimate
priority we must have is God and Country...or have we forgotten? The
better question is, have we ever been taught?

Do we remember the constructs of the Preamble to our Constitution? The
benefit of the family is only implied as a function and fruit of
establishing a government that embodies the ideals, but, is not
explicit. What is explicit is the reference to establishing a humane
society, to promote the common good, etc. Even the reference to
posterity is directed to the Filipino posterity as a people and not the
particular posterity of a single family.

The pride of one's heritage does not necessarily equate to the pride of
a nation. Have we forgotten the result of Ma Roxas' call for Filipino
scientists to repatriate and contribute to the betterment of the the
nation? It is only in these situations when individual Filipinos return
to the Philippines and offer the sweat of their brows that they become
the pride of the nation since the nation directly benefits from
individual (regardless of current national allegiance) action.

Why not search and showcase greatness from within. Doing so will
stimulate belief and confidence among ourselves within our community,
and our country. The masses can really identify with them for they know
these yet to be discovered men, women or children, operate within
circumstances and conditions similar to their own.

Instead of showcasing and belaboring the reality of despair (which
exists and is more pronounced elsewhere, why don't we showcase the
potential for constructive change. It is a shift from the "kaawa-awa"
mentality to the "kaakit-akit"; from the "ala kang magagawa" to the
"mahalaga ang iyong gagawin"; from the "tumigil ka na" to the "huwag
kang titigil"; Instead of commiserating we need to instead cooperate
and collaborate.

We must look inwards if we are to truly find greatness that is
duplicable and contaminating...We must celebrate the Filipinos IN the
Philippines. The achievements and work performed by Filipinos in the
Philippines is unquestionably and undeniably Filipino!

I know that values or loyalty or fortitude does not fill empty bellies,
but, it delights and strengthens the heart of the collective body. What
we need as a people today is not a full belly but a stronger heart.
Stronger hearts results in a healthy body. Bigger bellies result only
in obesity and lethargy. Practically, the only reason why these values
do not result in material gain for those within the Philippines is
because we allow ourselves to continually be subject to deconstructive
behaviors and mindsets.

We have a propensity to always show how good it is outside the
Philippines rather than show what is good and work towards what can be
good in the Philippines. Mindsets, mindsets, and mindsets. Our
hospitality is equivocal; it is only good when offered and extended to
foreigners, but we have work to do when it comes to how we treat our
own. Like chicks in a pen, we peck at our own wounded, at the sight of
first blood. It has been said that we have a short memory, yes, indeed
we do especially when it comes to remembering the evil we showed and the
slanderous remarks we made against our friends or neighbors.

The practice of lauding the accomplishments of those with Filipino
heritage is equivocal and useless to our people. It is only good for
causal discussions--nothing more. We need to laud the achievement of
Filipinos in the Philippines! We need to invest in Filipinos in the
Philippines to give our country a fighting chance to live and not just
to exist.

Material gain must only be the result of our action and not the motive
for action. What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but
losses his soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

If our country cannot secure the unconditional love, commitment,
substance, and life of its citizens, then what good is there to have a
country? Is the Philippines simply a necessary inconvenience?

Think about it...

Mabuhay ang mga Pilipino sa Pilipinas!

--
Dennis Reyes, Ph.D.
dennis@dbreyes.com

"Learners prepare for the world for tomorrow."

Learn More About:

Applied Knowledge Management
[http://appliedkm.blogspot.com]

Supply Chain Management
[http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/supplychain/emerging]

Mental Models and Contemporary Issues
[http://trendsofthought.blogspot.com]

-----------------------------------
IMPORTANT NOTICE
The information contained in this electronic mail is intended for the
use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
information that is privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent
responsible to deliver the message to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and
return the original message to us at the above address via the Postal
Service. Thank you.

From Aqueducts to the International Space Station: Observations From

Why is America and American influence so pervasive? Why is its presence felt all over the world? How do we see our own national interests and destiny as a Filipino people? Is cooperation with America an indispensable ingredient for economic survival? Is there anything morally upright or reprehensible with cooperating with America? How do we arrive at some logical explanation that would provide us an objective perspective as a sovereign nation and a people? What is the right perspective? Is there a right perspective?

If we are to understand America (in our desire to understand what fascinates us about American ideals as a people), we first need to look beyond the veneer of perception and try to piece together an observation (not a conclusion or opinion) based on history.

The Land. Geographically, the continental US has no distinct advantages over other geographies. It has as the same topographical varieties as those seen in different parts of the world.

The People. Based on popular American history, predecessors were Puritan immigrants who fled England, landed on Plymouth Rock, to escape the arm of the Kingdom and its associated duties and taxes. This is popular history. What remains unpopular is the history of the rest of what is now America.

There has been a longstanding debate within historical groups about making the history of native America more prominent. The resistance to make this more prominent is obvious. It creates a viable antithesis that could challenge the value system embedded in the popular history of the American people. For example, little is known about the "death march" President Jackson ordered to relocate native Americans from the East to the West, or the atrocities of early Texas settlers (remember the Alamo?) against Hispanic/Mexican inhabitants of what was then part of Mexico.

Let's keep the discussion around "popular" history to avoid extreme perspectives.

Early continental inhabitants could trace the roots of their value system all the way back to Rome, the seat of modern western civilization. Take note, I am not particular about racial roots for Rome was as racially diverse as most modern countries today. What history implicitly demonstrates is the fact that the value system of a people or nation determines its future.

The most popular ideal system of Rome is the Pax Romana. It offered its citizens and occupied territories with a sense of security, which reinforced the Roman value system. But behind this peace, and beyond its borders or occupied territories, Rome continued to wage war in order to extend its geographical reach. Roman citizens enjoyed luxury and prosperity at the expense of other occupied territories. There was chaos beyond the borders of Rome. The Roman economy was always an economy built on the ashes and chaos of war.

Hitler, for example, went to war in order to extend Germany's borders and territories by forcibly displacing the inhabitants of occupied territories. He initially fixated his attention to what was Czechoslovakia and Poland. In order to benefit directly, Germany had to secure control of the country. Trade was simply not sufficient. In order to build the momentum, he had to fix his attention towards an object of hate. The different reasons we hear about why Hitler murdered all the Jews only clouds the issue. Hitler made the prosperous Jews the object of hate for most Germans who were not faring so well within their own economy. Hitler succeeded. He rallied the support of the German people and began his strategic campaign to expand Germany's territorial borders.

Unlike Asian counterparts such as China and India who invested in explorations for the purpose of expanding friendly trade, Western countries explored for the purpose of forcibly occupying and assimilating sovereign countries. They are like the "Borg" in Gene Rodenberry's Star Trek series--resistance is futile. This is not only true of Rome, but of every predecessor named in the annals of Western History. The exception of course was Japan, who, with its warring culture, was influenced by Europeans. China, closed its doors to the entire world to protect its own interests and limit the influence of western thinking from overpowering its national psyche. Even today, the Chinese seems to opt toward censorship rather then allow Western practices, that have nothing to do with promoting its own from overtaking its own sovereign interests.

Now, let's look and opine on contemporary American history...

The race was on between major world powers during the 1600-1800's. France, Britain, and Germany, heavily invested in explorations bent on colonization (of course, they packaged it as religious). Everyone wanted to stake their claim on the global real estate. Since most European nations (France, Britain, Germany) could not risk occupying neighboring states for fear of mutual destruction, the fixated their attention to the world not yet know to them.

The end of this Age of Discovery and colonization (early 1900's) came naturally as colonizers had to focus on restoring losses from their ventures. They had to focus on rebuilding economies. During this period, America was not yet a global super power. Sure, it had won its independence from the British, it had won against Saavedra, it had displaced native settlers, but America had no experience engaging in the most profitable venture of all--global war.

The US economy during the early 1900's was a failing one. Their markets were largely limited to agricultural products since their manufacturing capabilities could not compete against far advanced European counterparts. With WWI raging in Europe, America did not have the means to sustain itself internally. Then in 1929, the first real signs of trouble arose with the crash of the market ushering the period of the Great Depression. They had to find a way to get out of this mess quickly.

An opportunity presented itself in the middle of WW II. That opportunity was the Lusitania. This was a private cruise liner that was supposed to be free from hostile attacks from either side. The problem was in that fateful voyage, somehow the Lusitania carried a shipment of armaments from America to England. Interesting enough, the Germans found out about the cargo and consequently sank the cruise liner. From this point onwards, America was now engaged in an all out war on the European theatre to "protect the interest of US security" (Why the heck would you in good conscience load a cruise liner with military cargo when everyone new that this would certainly be construed as a violation of existing treaties? I don't know.).

From this point, the manufacturing industry in the US began to pickup. The US began supplying the European front with men and munitions from bullets, ships, armored vehicles, guns, gears. You name it, the US produced and shipped it. But there were simply too many hands involved in the European front, too many to share the spoils with. Of course, America had to find a way to engage the Asian front where the Japanese was gaining a stronger foothold controlling most of Asia.

America, Britain, France had virtually abandoned most of their colonies in Asia, and focused their resources on winning the European front since this was much more closer to home. England, for example, used more resources from India to resist Japanese occupations in Asia. America pulled completely out of Asia (hence, the McArthur drama in Philippine History) since they had no official quarrel with Japan.

Interesting enough, America had to find a way to make their stake in Asia now that most of the Western powers had pulled away and left everything to the hands of the Japanese. Here comes Pearl Harbor (the day of infamy). Somehow, zeros managed to penetrate the defenses of the Pacific fleet. You have to remember that America was in a state of war with Europe so it would naturally be expected for its security levels to be close to the highest. How did the zeros penetrate. America had to find a way to join the Asian theatre of war. Pearl Harbor did it.

By this time, America had managed to smuggle the brightest scientists from Europe and around the world into the American fold. Their guns were getting better, the technology of war was becoming more sophisticated. The War department had Carte Blanche spending authority.

America not only benefited during the war, but more so during post-war activities. By the way, those that lost, were financially bound to repay the victors the money spent on every bullet fired, and had first dibs on commanding the post war economic build-up. This means a captured market for US made products and services. The America of the 1950's was very different from the America of the 1920's. Due to the profits of the war effort, a majority of Americans could now afford to have at least one car and fried chicken on the table any time they wanted.

As the American economy started to dip, America had to find another way to sell munitions and men. Roughly 10 years after the close of WW II, America got involved in Korea, ushering the Cold War. Fear of communism as a threat to democracy became the battle cry that was communicated to every American. Of course, the real threat was not on the ideal of democracy, but on the economic interests of the US should communism take hold of their post-war occupied territories. They certainly had to protect their interests.

Then a decade later, America participates in Cambodia and then Vietnam. Since America had to retreat from Vietnam without officially winning while suffering heavy losses, they had to find a means to recover these losses. 10 years later, Afghanistan. Then, 10 years later, Kuwait. 10 years later, Iraq. Perhaps 10 years from now, it would be some other nation. Of course, these are only major instances known to the public. But the extent by which America has infiltrated every single nation in the world as a result of the efforts during the Cold War is now being mobilized, it seems, to protect the interests of American national security and democracy. Beneath this "freedom" and support for democracy is really the motive of protecting American economic interests.

Why is there such a bullish outlook for the American economy, simply because the war efforts has allowed it to capture and command markets for at least 50 years from the cessation of hostilities. This means American manufacturers will always have a destination and market for their products. This is also why America has resisted open market efforts sponsored by the UN. All the UN can do is make noise. American economic interests revolves around the destination of American products, but it will not open its market to foreign products and companies that are not at least partially American owned.

There seems to be a vivid parallel with the way America conducts itself today and the way Rome once conducted itself. And if history is any indication, it may suffer the same fate. Of course, the Roman empire ultimately collapsed from within. Given the internal, albeit largely unknown fact, America is going through an internal crisis behind this facade built around "spins" and "non-answers" and the high talk of freedom and democracy. Obviously, those that subscribe to its moral position will naturally gravitate to support American interests and value system.

The strength of the American value system is a benefit/consequence of the spoils of war. The Pax Americana (American ideals of democracy) was built on the foundation of war, and was funded by the spoils of war. What we are now seeing, despite all the sophisticated and "moral" reasons given for it, is just history repeating itself. While Americans enjoy a relative level of security, that security is built at the cost of hundreds of thousands of non-American lives and at the cost of the freedom and sovereignty of other non-American nations. The rationale, like the driving force behind Pax Romana, is protecting the interest of US national security. America is now suffering the consequences of her past actions. Again, a repeat of history. The relationship between war and a progressive economy from a Western context is tightly coupled and intertwined. This is Malthus and Machiavellian constructs at work wrapped in a neat package of the moral high ground.

There is a new war raging--the battle for the minds of people. This is more powerful than any implement of war. The difficult part is for countries and peoples to determine which mindset ultimately benefits their own interests. We live in a world that naturally polarizes in extremes, and those that remain in the middle get shot by both sides even from within.

Much like what the Oracle, in the Matrix Revolutions film had to say, "everything that has a beginning, will have an end" But interesting enough, the events following this prophecy, is a state of peace between the humans and the machines won by destroying the virus that seeks to destroy them by getting the machines and humans to destroy each other. By destroying the virus, Neo (French for new) sealed a state of peace, but not before giving his own life completely to gain this peace. The sacrifice he gave was not contending with a superpower (the machines), but by dealing with the aberration which was the virus. And since he was the only character with requisite variety (able to exist in both digital and physical form), the only way he could continue to sustain this peace is by becoming an integral part of both worlds. Neo became the embodiment of synthesis.

We need to find this synthesis. We need to define an alternative and the means to sustain that alternative. What that is, I do not yet know. But I am seeking. But my ignorance does not in any way negate the importance of an alternative.

Those that want to attain immediate progress (or at least the perception of progress) are those willing to compromise and accede to the powers that be. Those that refuse and stand their ground are considered radicals. Those that are willing to put teeth to their views are considered terrorists. And deep within each of us, we know that things must change. We must evolve. From Feudalism to Democracy. What is that next stage in our national evolution? What is that "synthesis"? We also know that an integration between Feudalism and Democracy is dangerous. Just look at the Philippines today.

The reason why Bin La Din and Hezbollah are considered terrorists is that they oppose American ideals and everything America supports. They have put teeth to their views and conduct attacks that does not distinguish between military or civilian. The reason they don't distinguish is that their concept of a war is one that is against everything and everyone who upholds American or Western ideal since this poses the greatest threat to their own ideals. They are basically against everything and everyone that holds ideals different from the own. Truly a clash of civilizations.

What is the alternative? What is our Neo? What is our Filipino version of Neo?

From aqueducts to the international space station...these are all infrastructures built on the spoils of war. Is worldwide peace truly achievable? From the actions of most world powers, it may seem that the only achievable peace is one that they define and one that will ultimately benefit their own coffers.

Time to re-think--the blue pill or the red pill? Once you choose, you can never come back. Filipinos need to make the choice that looks at an alternative. An alternative that will usher in a more civilized generation--a synthesized generation.

Who is our Filipino "Neo"?

Partners And Marriage

PARTNERS AND MARRIAGE
By Eduardo Jose E. Calasanz

I have never met a man who didn't want to be loved. But I have seldom met a man who didn't fear marriage. Something about the closure seems constricting, not enabling. Marriage seems easier to understand for what it cuts out of our lives than for what it makes possible within our lives.

When I was younger this fear immobilized me. I did not want to make a mistake. I saw my friends get married for reasons of social acceptability, or sexual fever, or just because they thought it was the logical thing to do. Then I watched, as they and their partners became embittered and petty in their dealings with each other. I looked at older couples and saw, at best, mutual toleration of eachother. I imagined a lifetime of loveless nights and bickering and could not imagine subjecting myself or someone else to such a fate.

And yet, on rare occasions, I would see old couples who somehow seemed to glow in each other's presence. They seemed really in love, not just dependent upon each other and tolerant of each other's foibles. It was an astounding sight, and it seemed impossible. How, I asked myself, can they have survived so many years of sameness, so much irritation at the other's habits? What keeps love alive in them, when most of us seem unable to even stay together, much less love each other? The central secret seems to be in choosing well. There is something to the claim of fundamental compatibility. Good people can create a bad relationship, even though they both dearly want the relationship to succeed. It is important to find someone with whom you can create a good relationship from the outset. Unfortunately, it is hard to see clearly in the early stages.

Sexual hunger draws you to each other and colors the way you see yourselves together. It blinds you to the thousands of little things by which relationships eventually survive or fail. You need to find a way to see beyond this initial overwhelming sexual fascination. Some people choose to involve themselves sexually and ride out the most heated period of sexual attraction in order to see what is on the other side. This can work, but it can also leave a trail of wounded hearts. Others deny the sexual side altogether in an attempt to get to know each other apart from their sexuality. But they cannot see clearly, because the presence of unfulfilled sexual desire looms so large that it keeps them from having any normal perception of what life would be like together.

The truly lucky people are the ones who manage to become long-time friends before they realize they are attracted to each other. They get to know each other's laughs, passions, sadness, and fears. They see each other at their worst and at their best. They share time together before they get swept into the entangling intimacy of their sexuality.

This is the ideal, but not often possible. If you fall under the spell of your sexual attraction immediately, you need to look beyond it for other keys to compatibility. One of these is laughter. Laughter tells you how much you will enjoy each other's company over the long term. If your laughter together is good and healthy, and not at the expense of others, then you have a healthy relationship to the world. Laughter is the child of surprise. If you can make each other laugh,you can always surprise each other. And if you can always surprise each other, you can always keep the world around you new. Beware of a relationship in which there is no laughter. Even the most intimate relationships based only on seriousness have a tendency to turn sour.

Over time, sharing a common serious viewpoint on the world tends to turn you against those who do not share the same viewpoint, and your relationship can become based on being critical together. After laughter, look for a partner who deals with the world in a way you respect. When two people first get together, they tend to see their relationship as existing only in the space between the two of them. They find each other endlessly fascinating, and the overwhelming power of the emotions they are sharing obscures the outside world. As the relationship ages and grows, the outside world becomes important again. If your partner treats people or circumstances in a way you can't accept, you will inevitably come to grief. Look at the way she cares for others and deals with the daily affairs of life. If that makes you love her more, your love will grow. If it does not, be careful. If you do not respect the way you each deal with the world around you, eventually the two of you willnot respect each other.

Look also at how your partner confronts the mysteries of life. We live on the cusp of poetry and practicality, and the real life of the heart resides in the poetic. If one of you is deeply affected by the mystery of the unseen in life and relationships, while the other is drawn only to the literal and the practical, you must take care that the distance doesn't become an unbridgeable gap that leaves you each feeling isolated and misunderstood.

There are many other keys, but you must find them by yourself. We all have unchangeable parts of our hearts that we will not betray and private commitments to a vision of life that we will not deny. If you fall in love with someone who cannot nourish those inviolable parts of you, or if you cannot nourish them in her, you will find yourselves growing further apart until you live in separate worlds where you share the business of life, but never touch each other where the heart lives and dreams. From there it is only a small leap to the cataloging of petty hurts and daily failures that leaves so many couples bitter and unsatisfied with their mates.

So choose carefully and well. If you do, you will have chosen a partner with whom you can grow, and then the real miracle of marriage can take place in your hearts. I pick my words carefully when I speak of a miracle. But I think it is not too strong a word.

There is a miracle in marriage. It is called transformation. Transformation is one of the most common events of nature. The seed becomes the flower. The cocoon becomes the butterfly. Winter becomes spring and love becomes a child. We never question these, because we see them around us every day. To us they are not miracles, though if we did not know them they would be impossible to believe.

Marriage is a transformation we choose to make. Our love is planted like a seed, and in time it begins to flower. We cannot know the flower that will blossom, but we can be sure that a bloom will come. If you have chosen carefully and wisely, the bloom will be good. If you have chosen poorly or for the wrong reason, the bloom will be flawed. We are quite willing to accept the reality of negative transformation in a marriage. It was negative transformation that always had me terrified of the bitter marriages that I feared when I was younger. It never occurred to me to question the dark miracle that transformed love into harshness and bitterness. Yet I was unable to accept the possibility that the first heat of love could be transformed into something positive that was actually deeper and moremeaningful than the heat of fresh passion. All I could believe in was the power of this passion and the fear that when it cooled I would be left with something lesser and bitter.

But there is positive transformation as well. Like negative transformation, it results from a slow accretion of little things. But instead of death by a thousand blows, it is growth by a thousand
touches of love. Two histories intermingle. Two separate beings, two separate presence, two separate consciousnesses come together and share a view of life that passes before them. They remain separate, but they also become one. There is an expansion of awareness, not a closure and a constriction, as I had once feared. This is not to say that there is not tension and there are not traps. Tension and traps are part of every choice of life, from celibate to monogamous to having multiple lovers. Each choice contains within it the lingering doubt that the road not taken somehow more fruitful and exciting, and each becomes dulled to the richness that it alone contains.

But only marriage allows life to deepen and expand and be leavened by the knowledge that two have chosen, against all odds, to become one. Those who live together without marriage can know the pleasure of shared company, but there is a specific gravity in the marriage commitment that deepens that experience into something richer and more complex. So do not fear marriage, just as you should not rush into it for the wrong reasons. It is an act of faith and it contains within it the power of transformation.

If you believe in your heart that you have found someone with whom you are able to grow, if you have sufficient faith that you can resist the endless attraction of the road not taken and the partner not chosen, if you have the strength of heart to embrace the cycles and seasons that your love will experience, then you may be ready to seek the miracle that marriage offers. If not, then wait. The easy grace of a marriage well made is worth your patience. When the time comes, a thousand flowers will bloom...endlessly.