The form to directly feel or to think regarding something, to the people, is influenced by surrounding factors as, in special, culture. In this way, if we could build a graph of the process, people (defined as social beings) is changedded into the intersection of these factors, that is, we, the human beings operate in our life in many and different reality domains, which as different chambers of colloquies and explanations interconnected in our bodies. In other words, ego is a dynamic way in a multidimensional space of human beings' identities, and the I, the individual human being, is the corporality carried through the chambers intersection of colloquies that constitute the ego ".
If we could construct another reading to this proposal, it can be said that human beings possess encapsulated a certain form to feel and to think (our subjectivity), in other words, the proper and own subjective living is limited by the culture in which it is inserted, in this way, if an African woman is close to contract marriage won't feel and think the same regarding the marriage that an American woman in the same situation, simply because they are two different people who had constructed themselves in different places, with different characteristics, different characters, different social representations and different marriage rituals.
In accordance with this previous idea, if somebody is determined by the culture in which this person is inserted, it could be thought that life quality concept would be regulated by the same laws and so, for different cultures, it would be enough that the concept of life quality could be defined approaching different factors of each culture, but it is not enough. There is a gap inside these intersections of factors that influences action and thinking as the so mentioned culture, personal history, social and geographic localization where individual is born, etc.
And is this gap that gives to each person a way to feel the life, expectations, goals, desires, direction of life, etc and that becomes related directly with freedom (always understanding it as limited for the factors of the way).
Freedom, straightly understood is a fulfillment, for the person, of the commanded sequence of events of his life. A free person moves in a volunteer fashion, exempts responsibly and plays his individual important role in a world whose definitive events pass through him and by his election and spontaneous will.
And is this freedom that differentiates each person's being, this gap that is inside the heart (in a metaphorical way) and that is intersected by many factors, this is what leads to choose different things, in other words is the proper subjectivity.
Since this perspective, we cannot speak about life quality without take in consideration individual differences, without considering the importance of the subjective aura that encircles these differences and, most important, without forgetting what is being said about people's happiness.
As mentioned previously, many people had tried to theorize about the concept of life quality, and the form to people reaches it. These theories, generally, are obliqued by some vision or approach from the proponent; therefore, they present limitations in its concepts. In this direction, it is interesting to ask how much we must take in consideration personal subjectivity, differences and the spirituality (such as experiences, sensations, styles of creation, birthplace, among others) to the moment to define the concept of life quality and subjective well-being. These factors fulfill a basic paper in which the person goes to understand or goes to look for its subjective well-being or life quality and as they will face adversities.
While nowadays there is an advance about the conception beyond the material aspect that the forms where people would get subjective well-being, still there are some theories, and practices supported by those, that do not approach the more subjective spiritual aspects and by means of which people understands the world and constructs reality.
It is understandable that when some entity or institution desires to implant politics or measurements of life quality of some population (for example, the UNU), it would be necessary to operate the concept in more objective or observable elements and, so, in front of that limitation, it is much more difficult to take in consideration some individual or subjective elements. In this direction, we are right in our proposal of central necessities inside different cultures, as, for example, feeding, which could be used in this direction. But also, each person will find the form to use satisfaction elements and to supply its necessities.
If we could construct another reading to this proposal, it can be said that human beings possess encapsulated a certain form to feel and to think (our subjectivity), in other words, the proper and own subjective living is limited by the culture in which it is inserted, in this way, if an African woman is close to contract marriage won't feel and think the same regarding the marriage that an American woman in the same situation, simply because they are two different people who had constructed themselves in different places, with different characteristics, different characters, different social representations and different marriage rituals.
In accordance with this previous idea, if somebody is determined by the culture in which this person is inserted, it could be thought that life quality concept would be regulated by the same laws and so, for different cultures, it would be enough that the concept of life quality could be defined approaching different factors of each culture, but it is not enough. There is a gap inside these intersections of factors that influences action and thinking as the so mentioned culture, personal history, social and geographic localization where individual is born, etc.
And is this gap that gives to each person a way to feel the life, expectations, goals, desires, direction of life, etc and that becomes related directly with freedom (always understanding it as limited for the factors of the way).
Freedom, straightly understood is a fulfillment, for the person, of the commanded sequence of events of his life. A free person moves in a volunteer fashion, exempts responsibly and plays his individual important role in a world whose definitive events pass through him and by his election and spontaneous will.
And is this freedom that differentiates each person's being, this gap that is inside the heart (in a metaphorical way) and that is intersected by many factors, this is what leads to choose different things, in other words is the proper subjectivity.
Since this perspective, we cannot speak about life quality without take in consideration individual differences, without considering the importance of the subjective aura that encircles these differences and, most important, without forgetting what is being said about people's happiness.
As mentioned previously, many people had tried to theorize about the concept of life quality, and the form to people reaches it. These theories, generally, are obliqued by some vision or approach from the proponent; therefore, they present limitations in its concepts. In this direction, it is interesting to ask how much we must take in consideration personal subjectivity, differences and the spirituality (such as experiences, sensations, styles of creation, birthplace, among others) to the moment to define the concept of life quality and subjective well-being. These factors fulfill a basic paper in which the person goes to understand or goes to look for its subjective well-being or life quality and as they will face adversities.
While nowadays there is an advance about the conception beyond the material aspect that the forms where people would get subjective well-being, still there are some theories, and practices supported by those, that do not approach the more subjective spiritual aspects and by means of which people understands the world and constructs reality.
It is understandable that when some entity or institution desires to implant politics or measurements of life quality of some population (for example, the UNU), it would be necessary to operate the concept in more objective or observable elements and, so, in front of that limitation, it is much more difficult to take in consideration some individual or subjective elements. In this direction, we are right in our proposal of central necessities inside different cultures, as, for example, feeding, which could be used in this direction. But also, each person will find the form to use satisfaction elements and to supply its necessities.