In Conversation With X
X:Oh!Look at that guy.Pity him.He has no confidence.
Y:What makes you think that you have confidence?
X:Well,because I have confidence and I feel it from inside.And then everyone around me says that I am a very confident person.
Y:What makes you have it?
X:Many things which work out for me and make me have it.
Y:Can you name few?
X:The way I speak and my marks they definitely make me have my confidence.
Y:How do you speak?
X:I speak confidently
Y:But you just said that your so called speaking abilities make you have confidence and now you say that you speak confidently....?
X:Yes,that is true.Should I explain?
Y:No
X:But,you must know.What I mean is that I always speak confidently even if I have nothing to say.So many instances come when I have nothing to put forth.Yet I always make it a point to speak something.This is called speaking with confidence.The best part is most of the times I am able to involve myself so much in the conversation and I have so much to speak(although trust me it is all bullshit)that the other person gets in awe with me.And this boosts my confidence.
Y:I see.And yes,getting marks also boosts your confidence?
X:Yes,a lot
Y:How do you score marks?
X:To score marks it is not necessary to think much and go into the depth of the subject.You can score it otherwise too.
Y:Without thinking and going into the depth.I see.
X:Yes.You can learn stuff without thinking.The faster you learn the better marks you get.I find it an impractical and superfluous job to go into the depth of the subject.I like to remain superficial.Being superficial makes you reach at the top.I have seen people in my class studying so much,going into the depth crap but finally who gets marks???Not them,it's me.I get more marks than those bookworms.
Y:So this makes you have confidence?
X:Yes,this makes me have confidence.Although I am not over confident.
Y:Really,why?
X:See being over confident I feel acts in a negative rather than in a positive way.It is like trusting yourself too much.So,I avoid it.
Y:Who says it?
X:Everyone does.It's not just me.Extremism is bad.Being consistent is much more worse.You must never show too much love towards an act.It hinders the growth rather than sustaining it.
Y:But what if you love something so much,what if you think a lot about it that you would want to go in its extremes...?
X:No,that much love is not possible according to me.You cannot love something so much that you would want to go in its extremes.And if it is possible then you must must avoid it.I am hearing it for the first time only that one would want to go in the extremes.People don't want it,it happens automatically.But pity them.It bursts their mind.
Y:That is true.It does burst something.Don't know about the mind.
X:See,I love my confidence a lot.But I don't love it so much that I would want to go in its extremes.
Y:You rather not try it too.That would be your end.
X:Yes,I know.Now you get me.Nice talking to you.Thank you.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Being right and being wrong!
Living life with a mentality to have the right values and to think in the right direction is a volitional choice.What might appear right to me may appear wrong to someone else.But`that does'nt mean that nothing in this world could ever be right or wrong.To judge the right thing man has to deal his mind with an art of 'noncontradictive reality'.Reality is an axiom that existence exists and things are what they are.That A is and will always be A.This reality cannot be changed.It is the metaphysical.It is what it is seen that man cannot perceive it according to his own whims.To be noncontradictive is not to face any negation in your reasons.For if there occurs any then you are wrong.There might be a stage when your lack of knowledge makes you go in a wrong direction(There is never any automatic knowledge of knowing the right things in life).In that case perceiving the reality and observing the contradictive actions makes you achieve the truth.
Things are interrelated to each other.To sight a very basic example,whenever I read politics the only way I am able to relate the truth is by my philosophical habit to introspect the truth.However,I will not deny this fact that I am always right.I am wrong too.Thats different that few days back while reading this book 'Philosophy:Who needs it' I came to know that politics is one of the branches of philosophy.By,this statement all I am trying to put forth is that things are coming from a same source,with the same ideology that makes us move towards only one way and search for only one answer i.e. the truth.
We come in this world as totally incoherent beings,we who are born with nothing but only with a choice to think;yes it is a 'choice' only.Our senses are totally equipped with its presence,yet only few give sanction to it and accept it,only few desire to think;the rest remain as they were born-'inanimates'.
There is an initial stage of learning when man learns the basic things in his life:To write,To read,To see,To hear,To touch;in total I would say he learns to use his senses.Something that is common to every physically normal individual.Now the second stage is in which man is given a volitional choice to accept.If man accepts this choice then he chooses to think.If he does not
then you know the end consequence.Now when one deals with anything he has to have certain sets of values and virtues.These cannot be made in one day.They are made in the being of the process.Values depend on an individual himself and so his course of thinking and action also varies among individuals depending on the same.The more variable the values the more different is the course of the individual.This in turn makes one person say something about an idea and the other person say something else about the same idea.That is to say that the same idea is both wrong and right.However every problem can have only one solution i.e.there is only one answer,the truth.Either one of them is wrong or both of them are wrong but both of them can never be right.It is an impossible task to link both contradiction and non contradiction together.If done so then it is a compromise.
Its the way one moulds his values in the face of an alternative that makes him choose one path.However,finally its objectivism only that makes one judge the truth,no matter which path one takes according to his values.Hence,values must always be built on objectivism in order to achieve a non contradictive realm.
Living life with a mentality to have the right values and to think in the right direction is a volitional choice.What might appear right to me may appear wrong to someone else.But`that does'nt mean that nothing in this world could ever be right or wrong.To judge the right thing man has to deal his mind with an art of 'noncontradictive reality'.Reality is an axiom that existence exists and things are what they are.That A is and will always be A.This reality cannot be changed.It is the metaphysical.It is what it is seen that man cannot perceive it according to his own whims.To be noncontradictive is not to face any negation in your reasons.For if there occurs any then you are wrong.There might be a stage when your lack of knowledge makes you go in a wrong direction(There is never any automatic knowledge of knowing the right things in life).In that case perceiving the reality and observing the contradictive actions makes you achieve the truth.
Things are interrelated to each other.To sight a very basic example,whenever I read politics the only way I am able to relate the truth is by my philosophical habit to introspect the truth.However,I will not deny this fact that I am always right.I am wrong too.Thats different that few days back while reading this book 'Philosophy:Who needs it' I came to know that politics is one of the branches of philosophy.By,this statement all I am trying to put forth is that things are coming from a same source,with the same ideology that makes us move towards only one way and search for only one answer i.e. the truth.
We come in this world as totally incoherent beings,we who are born with nothing but only with a choice to think;yes it is a 'choice' only.Our senses are totally equipped with its presence,yet only few give sanction to it and accept it,only few desire to think;the rest remain as they were born-'inanimates'.
There is an initial stage of learning when man learns the basic things in his life:To write,To read,To see,To hear,To touch;in total I would say he learns to use his senses.Something that is common to every physically normal individual.Now the second stage is in which man is given a volitional choice to accept.If man accepts this choice then he chooses to think.If he does not
then you know the end consequence.Now when one deals with anything he has to have certain sets of values and virtues.These cannot be made in one day.They are made in the being of the process.Values depend on an individual himself and so his course of thinking and action also varies among individuals depending on the same.The more variable the values the more different is the course of the individual.This in turn makes one person say something about an idea and the other person say something else about the same idea.That is to say that the same idea is both wrong and right.However every problem can have only one solution i.e.there is only one answer,the truth.Either one of them is wrong or both of them are wrong but both of them can never be right.It is an impossible task to link both contradiction and non contradiction together.If done so then it is a compromise.
Its the way one moulds his values in the face of an alternative that makes him choose one path.However,finally its objectivism only that makes one judge the truth,no matter which path one takes according to his values.Hence,values must always be built on objectivism in order to achieve a non contradictive realm.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Worshipping False Gods
- ARUN SHOURIE
The feedom for struggle could be traced long back to 1920's,when it was in full swing.
While the years culminated in the country's independence,in Ambedkar's case they culminated in his becoming a member of the Viceroy's Council,that is- to use the current terms-a Minister in the British Cabinet
Government has by now published 14 Volumes of the speeches and writings of Ambedkar.These cover 9996 pages.Volume up to the 12th contain his speeches and writings up to 1946.These extend to 7371 pages.You would be hard put to find one article,one speech,one passage in which Ambedkar can be seen even by interference to be arguing for India's Independence.Quite the contrary.
Pause for a minute and read the following:
Allow me to say that the British have a moral responsibility towards the Scheduled Castes.They may have a moral responsibility towards all the minorities.But it can never transcend the moral responsibility which rests on them in respect of the untouchables.It is a pity how few Britishers are aware of it and how fewer are prepared to discharge it.British rule in India owes its very existence to the help rendered by the Untouchables.Many Britishers think that India was conquered by the Clives,Hastings,Cootes and so on.Nothing can be a greater mistake.India was conquered by an army of Indians and the Indians who formed the army were all Untouchables.British rule in India would have been impossible if the Untouchables had not helped the British to conquer India.Take the battle of Plassey which laid the beginning of British rule or the battle of Kirkee which completed the conquest of India.In both these fateful battles the soldiers who fought for the British were all Untouchables...
Who is pleading to whom?It is B.R. Ambedkar writing on 14 May 1946 to a member of the (British)Cabinet Mission, A.V.Alexander.#1
Ambedkar refused to join the struggle for feedom.
The reason they have not joined this sham "Fight for Freedom", Ambedkar claims, "is not because they are the tools of British Imperialism but because they fear that freedom of India will etablish Hindu domination which is sure to close to them and forever all prospect of life,liberty and persuit of happiness and that they will be made the hewers of wood and drawers of water."#2
And they have from the beginning been the loyal supporters of and the beneficiaries of British rule in India,he says."Until the advent of the British,the Untouchables were content to remain Untouchables."Ambedkar writes."It was a destiny pre-ordained by the Hindu God and enforced by the Hindu State.As such there was no escape from it.Fortunately or unfortunately,the East India Company needed soldiers for their army in India and it could find none but the untouchables.The East India Company's army consisted,at any rate in the early part of its history,of the Untouchables are now included among the non-martial classes and are therefore excluded from the army,it is with the help of an army composed of Untouchables that the British conquered India..."The Untouchables too gained,he adds:among the things that were done to the recruits was to give them education.This awakened them both to their condition,and to the fact that there was no just no justification for it...#3
The Freedom Struggle,in his words
For one thing the Movement is unnecessary,for it is a sham,a hoax to fool the people of India.
The Movement which Gandhi is leading is unjustified,it is unnecessary,Ambedkar declares,for the simple reason that the British do not want to stay,they do not want to rule India in any case,indeed they are anxious to leave.They are being compelled to stay by the fact that Indians are not able to come to an agreement among themselves about the form that the new country,the new constitution must take.
"The British conquered India by the sword and they will hold it by the sword"as proclaimed by Lawrence whose statue in Calcutta has this motto.This attitude is dead and buried and it is no exaggeration to say that every Englishman today is ashamed of it.
This stage was followed by another,Ambedkar acknowledges in which,in which the argument of the British government against India's freedom was the alleged incapacity of the Indians for the parliamentary institutions.The British government admits India's right to freedom,even to independence,if Indians so desire.The British government admits thr right of Indians to frame their own constitution.There can be no greater proof of this new angle of vision than the Cripp's Proposals.The condition precedent laid down by the British government for India's freedom is that Indians must produce a constitution which has the concurrence of the important elements in the national life of country.Such is the stage we have reached.The untouchables therefore cannot understand why the congress instead of trying to achieve agreement among Indians,should keep on talking in terms of a "Fight for Freedom" and maligning the Untouchables in not joining it...#4
Notice first that were this claptrap to be written by anyone today-unless of course,he is a champion of "social justice"-he would be hauled up and prosecuted:for not only is it full of conjured up falsehood about groups and classes,it is nothing but incitement and is calculated to sow enmity between groups.But,as it has been written by Ambedkar,and Ambedkar has been anointed the Redeemer,with his books sold all over the country at subsidised prices!
That very Ambedkar is a Bharat Ratna!
With a national holiday granted on 14th April as "Ambedkar Jayanti"
#1The letter is reproduced in Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar,Writings and Speeches,Volume X,the pp.492-99
#2Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar,Writings and Speeches,Volume IX,p.168
#3Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar,Writings and Speeches,Volume IX,p.189
#4Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar,Writings and Speeches,Volume IX,p.177
- ARUN SHOURIE
The feedom for struggle could be traced long back to 1920's,when it was in full swing.
While the years culminated in the country's independence,in Ambedkar's case they culminated in his becoming a member of the Viceroy's Council,that is- to use the current terms-a Minister in the British Cabinet
Government has by now published 14 Volumes of the speeches and writings of Ambedkar.These cover 9996 pages.Volume up to the 12th contain his speeches and writings up to 1946.These extend to 7371 pages.You would be hard put to find one article,one speech,one passage in which Ambedkar can be seen even by interference to be arguing for India's Independence.Quite the contrary.
Pause for a minute and read the following:
Allow me to say that the British have a moral responsibility towards the Scheduled Castes.They may have a moral responsibility towards all the minorities.But it can never transcend the moral responsibility which rests on them in respect of the untouchables.It is a pity how few Britishers are aware of it and how fewer are prepared to discharge it.British rule in India owes its very existence to the help rendered by the Untouchables.Many Britishers think that India was conquered by the Clives,Hastings,Cootes and so on.Nothing can be a greater mistake.India was conquered by an army of Indians and the Indians who formed the army were all Untouchables.British rule in India would have been impossible if the Untouchables had not helped the British to conquer India.Take the battle of Plassey which laid the beginning of British rule or the battle of Kirkee which completed the conquest of India.In both these fateful battles the soldiers who fought for the British were all Untouchables...
Who is pleading to whom?It is B.R. Ambedkar writing on 14 May 1946 to a member of the (British)Cabinet Mission, A.V.Alexander.#1
Ambedkar refused to join the struggle for feedom.
The reason they have not joined this sham "Fight for Freedom", Ambedkar claims, "is not because they are the tools of British Imperialism but because they fear that freedom of India will etablish Hindu domination which is sure to close to them and forever all prospect of life,liberty and persuit of happiness and that they will be made the hewers of wood and drawers of water."#2
And they have from the beginning been the loyal supporters of and the beneficiaries of British rule in India,he says."Until the advent of the British,the Untouchables were content to remain Untouchables."Ambedkar writes."It was a destiny pre-ordained by the Hindu God and enforced by the Hindu State.As such there was no escape from it.Fortunately or unfortunately,the East India Company needed soldiers for their army in India and it could find none but the untouchables.The East India Company's army consisted,at any rate in the early part of its history,of the Untouchables are now included among the non-martial classes and are therefore excluded from the army,it is with the help of an army composed of Untouchables that the British conquered India..."The Untouchables too gained,he adds:among the things that were done to the recruits was to give them education.This awakened them both to their condition,and to the fact that there was no just no justification for it...#3
The Freedom Struggle,in his words
For one thing the Movement is unnecessary,for it is a sham,a hoax to fool the people of India.
The Movement which Gandhi is leading is unjustified,it is unnecessary,Ambedkar declares,for the simple reason that the British do not want to stay,they do not want to rule India in any case,indeed they are anxious to leave.They are being compelled to stay by the fact that Indians are not able to come to an agreement among themselves about the form that the new country,the new constitution must take.
"The British conquered India by the sword and they will hold it by the sword"as proclaimed by Lawrence whose statue in Calcutta has this motto.This attitude is dead and buried and it is no exaggeration to say that every Englishman today is ashamed of it.
This stage was followed by another,Ambedkar acknowledges in which,in which the argument of the British government against India's freedom was the alleged incapacity of the Indians for the parliamentary institutions.The British government admits India's right to freedom,even to independence,if Indians so desire.The British government admits thr right of Indians to frame their own constitution.There can be no greater proof of this new angle of vision than the Cripp's Proposals.The condition precedent laid down by the British government for India's freedom is that Indians must produce a constitution which has the concurrence of the important elements in the national life of country.Such is the stage we have reached.The untouchables therefore cannot understand why the congress instead of trying to achieve agreement among Indians,should keep on talking in terms of a "Fight for Freedom" and maligning the Untouchables in not joining it...#4
Notice first that were this claptrap to be written by anyone today-unless of course,he is a champion of "social justice"-he would be hauled up and prosecuted:for not only is it full of conjured up falsehood about groups and classes,it is nothing but incitement and is calculated to sow enmity between groups.But,as it has been written by Ambedkar,and Ambedkar has been anointed the Redeemer,with his books sold all over the country at subsidised prices!
That very Ambedkar is a Bharat Ratna!
With a national holiday granted on 14th April as "Ambedkar Jayanti"
#1The letter is reproduced in Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar,Writings and Speeches,Volume X,the pp.492-99
#2Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar,Writings and Speeches,Volume IX,p.168
#3Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar,Writings and Speeches,Volume IX,p.189
#4Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar,Writings and Speeches,Volume IX,p.177
Monday, June 15, 2009
Individualism and Society
When I talk about individualism I will not exclude the word society out of it.Individualists work according to their own will.They live for themselves and never expect any other person to live for them.However,they live in a world where individualists make up the society.Both society and an individual seek benefits from one another.Wherever in a transaction one of them is at a loss,then they never deal in that transaction.The only thoughts that are kept in their minds before dealing are syllogism,logic and self-interest.If they offer a sanction then the transaction takes place otherwise it gets rejected.They let the dissenters go their way and do not swerve from their own and thus there is no place for any sort of indignant objection.
As Ayn said,"To interpose the threat of physical destruction between man and his perception of reality,is to negate and paralyze his means of survival;to force him to act against his own judgement,is like forcing him to act against his own sight.Whoever,to whatever purpose or extent,initiates the use of force,is a killer acting on the premise of death in a manner wider than murder:the premise of destroying man's capacity to live."
Individualists never deal with force but with a 'rational mind'and this is an only mean to his end.
Now an individual cannot seek all this without the society.Society has to finally deal with him so that he could attain the benefits.So,indirectly he is working towards building a society.But,this is not his main purpose.His main purpose is to fulfill his own needs.Society is there for the welfare of an individual and so the individual is always inseparabe from the society.
However,individual is always above the society.After all,it is the individual only who at the very first place comes up with new ideas and gives sanction to them by expressing these ideas in his work in turn leading to the growth and development of the society.He sees this growth as his greatest pride.It is like a physical expression of his true values.It is like deriving physical pleasure out of it.
As Ayn said,"To interpose the threat of physical destruction between man and his perception of reality,is to negate and paralyze his means of survival;to force him to act against his own judgement,is like forcing him to act against his own sight.Whoever,to whatever purpose or extent,initiates the use of force,is a killer acting on the premise of death in a manner wider than murder:the premise of destroying man's capacity to live."
Individualists never deal with force but with a 'rational mind'and this is an only mean to his end.
Now an individual cannot seek all this without the society.Society has to finally deal with him so that he could attain the benefits.So,indirectly he is working towards building a society.But,this is not his main purpose.His main purpose is to fulfill his own needs.Society is there for the welfare of an individual and so the individual is always inseparabe from the society.
However,individual is always above the society.After all,it is the individual only who at the very first place comes up with new ideas and gives sanction to them by expressing these ideas in his work in turn leading to the growth and development of the society.He sees this growth as his greatest pride.It is like a physical expression of his true values.It is like deriving physical pleasure out of it.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
A close knit relationship
It is a terrible feeling if someone leaves you.Is it?
Someone you love???
A`person is capable of loving only that person in which he worships his ideals,his values,thus,in turn in which he sees his reflection.There is no other way a person could love and be loved.Just this.And if no values exist for you,then u'll get attracted to another depraved person,an altruist or a person who believes in giving love to the unworthy(could be in any form).Your choice reflects you as a person in every aspect.The kind of people you be with reflects your ideals and not even a single contradiction must exist in such relationships.It is like a close knit circle.The members form the circle and ultimately meet up one another with the same ideals set in their minds;but if they fail to meet then their exists some depravity somewhere which must be excluded.So,if a person leaves you,it completely shows his lack of compatability with your ideals.After all he must be a reflection of your consciousness and being with you would only result in his act of lying to himself,which in turn would destroy him eventually.When happiness is the sole purpose of life then why would he repudiate his own happiness by being with such a person.So the best option is to leave that person.And this must be accepted with great understanding on both the sides.I think it's a wonderful feeling if 'such a being' leaves you.It is terrible for only those who have no ethics set in their lives,those who are incapable of thinking and if someone 'like this' leaves them then they reach upto a level of taking revenge.
But,yes I think it is very important for two such people to clarify all this in between themselves.It is a must requirement and people who are capable of thinking would definitely understand such a state in their relationship.At times,although it is of no use trying to tell all this to unthinkables.They say-'How does it matter the kind of people you be with'.They could never understand this.So just leave them without any explanations.They would feel terrible for the first few months but later on would develop such hard feelings against that person and would try their level best to prove him wrong.It is is such an amusing gesture!
But,if someone whose ideals match with you and leaves you then believe me at some point of time they'll again come together.Such people are capable of loving each other so much that at some phase of life that love develops into reverence.They deny 'it' to each other due the very thought that they need someone in their lives(totally unbeareable to them),but ultimately fail to do so and end up being with each other.
One case,for which no forgiveness is ever possible is when the person 'pretends' to understand your ideals,'pretends' to support your every thought with his own thoughts,never denies anything but ultimately ends up following none of them.Sooner or later his actions betray his intentions.His contradictions act as a limelight and justify his actions.Finally the consequence is always separation,but mind you it hurts a lot for the only reason that at one point of time you end up giving your ego to him.All others are forgivable but these.
For me,this is the only way relationships should be held,a rare sight,yet it is there.
Someone you love???
A`person is capable of loving only that person in which he worships his ideals,his values,thus,in turn in which he sees his reflection.There is no other way a person could love and be loved.Just this.And if no values exist for you,then u'll get attracted to another depraved person,an altruist or a person who believes in giving love to the unworthy(could be in any form).Your choice reflects you as a person in every aspect.The kind of people you be with reflects your ideals and not even a single contradiction must exist in such relationships.It is like a close knit circle.The members form the circle and ultimately meet up one another with the same ideals set in their minds;but if they fail to meet then their exists some depravity somewhere which must be excluded.So,if a person leaves you,it completely shows his lack of compatability with your ideals.After all he must be a reflection of your consciousness and being with you would only result in his act of lying to himself,which in turn would destroy him eventually.When happiness is the sole purpose of life then why would he repudiate his own happiness by being with such a person.So the best option is to leave that person.And this must be accepted with great understanding on both the sides.I think it's a wonderful feeling if 'such a being' leaves you.It is terrible for only those who have no ethics set in their lives,those who are incapable of thinking and if someone 'like this' leaves them then they reach upto a level of taking revenge.
But,yes I think it is very important for two such people to clarify all this in between themselves.It is a must requirement and people who are capable of thinking would definitely understand such a state in their relationship.At times,although it is of no use trying to tell all this to unthinkables.They say-'How does it matter the kind of people you be with'.They could never understand this.So just leave them without any explanations.They would feel terrible for the first few months but later on would develop such hard feelings against that person and would try their level best to prove him wrong.It is is such an amusing gesture!
But,if someone whose ideals match with you and leaves you then believe me at some point of time they'll again come together.Such people are capable of loving each other so much that at some phase of life that love develops into reverence.They deny 'it' to each other due the very thought that they need someone in their lives(totally unbeareable to them),but ultimately fail to do so and end up being with each other.
One case,for which no forgiveness is ever possible is when the person 'pretends' to understand your ideals,'pretends' to support your every thought with his own thoughts,never denies anything but ultimately ends up following none of them.Sooner or later his actions betray his intentions.His contradictions act as a limelight and justify his actions.Finally the consequence is always separation,but mind you it hurts a lot for the only reason that at one point of time you end up giving your ego to him.All others are forgivable but these.
For me,this is the only way relationships should be held,a rare sight,yet it is there.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Likes attract and unlikes repell each other
No two objects are ever exactly alike.For if two objects resembled each other completely in every form and structure,there could not possible be any evidence for believing there were two of them.Now when I refer to objects it implies 'inanimate objects' only and I have excluded the part 'individuals' out of it.By an inanimate object I simply mean 'not capable of thinking'.The rest regarding its lack of response,mobility etc all together means nothing to me.The only criteria by which I present my ontology and recognise the difference in between an inanimate object and an individual is by judging the being's thinking process.
For example:
1) A:an object:immobile;unresponsive;cannot think
Hence A must be inanimate
2)B:a being,mobile;responsive(cries and laughs);cannot think(doesn't want to)
Hence B must be inanimate
3)C:a being;thinks
Hence C must be an individual
Now,I'll explain my next concept
Lets suppose two individuals X and Y and their relation to each other
Theory 1)
X:loves white color
Y:loves black color
X:loves playing tennis
Y:loves playing football
X:loves fox
Y:loves dogs
X:loves singing
Y:loves singing
X and Y:hate dancing
I could probably continue more too but I would rather explain the relationship from these very facts only
The above mentioned likes and dislikes are irrational 'superficial attractions'.These may or may not be mentioned at all ever in a relationship.
Theory 2a)
X has no values,standards,ethics and judgements in his life.
Y has no values,standards,ethics and judgements in her life.
Now if I link X and Y it would be like linking B and B
Relationship status:everlasting(superficial attractions work along very well for these two 'inanimates';their conversations are always about 'family relationships','friends','past lovers','likes and dislikes'.)
Theory 2b)
X has no values,standards,ethics and judgements in his life.
Y has certain values,standards,ethics and judgements in her life which mean a lot to her;probably as much as she could sacrifice her life if at any point of time start contradicting her ownviews.
Now if I link X with Y it would be like linking B and C
Relationship status:break
Theory 2c)
X has certain values,standards,ethics and judgements in his life which mean a lot to him;probably as much as he could sacrifice his life if at any point of time start contradicting his ownviews(X's views contradict Y's views)
Y has certain values,standards,ethics and judgements in her life which mean a lot to her;probably as much as she could sacrifice her life if at any point of time start contradicting her ownviews(Y's views contradict X's views)
Now if I link X and Y it would be like linking C and C
Relationship status:break
P.S. I have never understood unlikes attract and likes repell each other [probably quite valid for 'inanimates' of theory 2a)]
Theory 2d)
X has certain values,standards,ethics and judgements in his life which mean a lot to him;probably as much as he could sacrifice his life if at any point of time start contradicting his ownviews(X's views do not contradict Y's views)
Y has certain values,standards,ethics and judgements in her life which mean a lot to her;probably as much as she could sacrifice her life if at any point of time start contradicting her ownviews(Y's views do not contradict X's views)
Now if I link X and Y it would be like linking C and C
Relationship status:everlasting
P.S.likes attract and unlikes repell each other
For example:
1) A:an object:immobile;unresponsive;cannot think
Hence A must be inanimate
2)B:a being,mobile;responsive(cries and laughs);cannot think(doesn't want to)
Hence B must be inanimate
3)C:a being;thinks
Hence C must be an individual
Now,I'll explain my next concept
Lets suppose two individuals X and Y and their relation to each other
Theory 1)
X:loves white color
Y:loves black color
X:loves playing tennis
Y:loves playing football
X:loves fox
Y:loves dogs
X:loves singing
Y:loves singing
X and Y:hate dancing
I could probably continue more too but I would rather explain the relationship from these very facts only
The above mentioned likes and dislikes are irrational 'superficial attractions'.These may or may not be mentioned at all ever in a relationship.
Theory 2a)
X has no values,standards,ethics and judgements in his life.
Y has no values,standards,ethics and judgements in her life.
Now if I link X and Y it would be like linking B and B
Relationship status:everlasting(superficial attractions work along very well for these two 'inanimates';their conversations are always about 'family relationships','friends','past lovers','likes and dislikes'.)
Theory 2b)
X has no values,standards,ethics and judgements in his life.
Y has certain values,standards,ethics and judgements in her life which mean a lot to her;probably as much as she could sacrifice her life if at any point of time start contradicting her ownviews.
Now if I link X with Y it would be like linking B and C
Relationship status:break
Theory 2c)
X has certain values,standards,ethics and judgements in his life which mean a lot to him;probably as much as he could sacrifice his life if at any point of time start contradicting his ownviews(X's views contradict Y's views)
Y has certain values,standards,ethics and judgements in her life which mean a lot to her;probably as much as she could sacrifice her life if at any point of time start contradicting her ownviews(Y's views contradict X's views)
Now if I link X and Y it would be like linking C and C
Relationship status:break
P.S. I have never understood unlikes attract and likes repell each other [probably quite valid for 'inanimates' of theory 2a)]
Theory 2d)
X has certain values,standards,ethics and judgements in his life which mean a lot to him;probably as much as he could sacrifice his life if at any point of time start contradicting his ownviews(X's views do not contradict Y's views)
Y has certain values,standards,ethics and judgements in her life which mean a lot to her;probably as much as she could sacrifice her life if at any point of time start contradicting her ownviews(Y's views do not contradict X's views)
Now if I link X and Y it would be like linking C and C
Relationship status:everlasting
P.S.likes attract and unlikes repell each other
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
