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
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
:D I see you gaining a slight sense of humour in logistifying the whole relationship thing. Nice :)!
ReplyDeleteI never really understood the whole relationship stuff until quite recently and yup you are very right in what finally works out.
Though most people see lust as the primary and many times only means and driving force for one. Which is not all that great a foundation. Collapse is inevitable.
But along with the strong base of 2d, a little 1 for the times when one is just not in the thinking mood(for constant thinking is at times tremendously energy consuming and depressing), and little 2c, for everyone is different. Respecting someone elses views on certain issues or entities is not bad. Demeaning and ridiculing the others' interests may not be all that great, for each to his/her own, as long as it doesn't affect your individuality.
One only learns things by mutual sharing of their own personal interests and that's how one discovers new things, that one may have never or would have never tread upon..so develops a broader view of stuff..the world, people, things etc.
sbheathvan:)
ReplyDeleteThanks:)
Aha!So I have gained a slight sense f humor...
I mentioned it once before too that I definitely respect someone elses views on various issues if somehow I m not satisfied by my own beliefs due to my lack of knowledge or if I am wrong or if its worth my beliefs.
Opening our minds to novelty always broadens our thinking process and I never fail to acknowledge it provided that any of the above mentioned conditions get satisfied.
P.S.I actually wanted to write bout this kinda relationship too but it just slipped out of my mind
Lee Ryan:)
ReplyDeletethanks a lot
hey anisha ..i told you i would comment ..i love ur blog ..it inspires me to think in that direction ..U dint gimme ur number by the way ..mail me on ro2903@gmail.com
ReplyDeleterohit (we the people)