I dreamt of apocalypse last night.It felt like witnessing the very moment when life leaves the body,or maybe it's the other way round.It struck suddenly and it was immediate chaos.Sensing the end,I embraced the person next to me,and he myself,perhaps the tightest we have in our entire life;I remember not who he was,perhaps a complete stranger,but I think,whoever you maybe,whatever you may have done and wherever you may have come from,I love you,I love you so much,more than anything else right this moment,I love you because perhaps you are the last thing I would ever see embodying that overrated thing called life.There's a pause the moment just before it's all over and there's no fear,just one question lingers in the mind - What now?Is this the absolute end?Or do I go to a new place as they say in the 'Holy Books'?I am not a believer,but even then I doubt it.But if it is so,I can think of only one place I'm going.Terror strikes me one last time....Curtains.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Saturday, December 18, 2010
One way traffic - I
I saw her shadow,and loved her
She was beautiful;nothing else did matter ...
The evening before last,on my way home from my university,while I was waiting for the appropriate train at the Sealdah railway station,the above lines were swimming in my head.A very dear friend was just shortly before explaining to me how his love for the queen of his heart isn't to die even if she did not care.He says that of all she can do,she can never dissuade him from loving her.Knowing him as well I do,it felt like I was hearing someone else's words but from his mouth.Somebody had finally stepped into the same boat as me,even if momentarily be it so.
This is my fourth year running in college and I've been known to 'fall in love' twice in this period.That friend of mine has been in two 'relationships',and was attempting at a third.Spot the difference?
We are specifically dealing with the romantic form of love here.Once upon a time I used to plainly ridicule the very thing.That was before I myself tasted it.Even then I have been always been apprehensive of copybook romantic relationships.Firstly,because of the desire it brings.Once you are romantically attached to someone,it inevitably brings in the element.But once you are in a relationship,the desire has now a claim to legitimacy.The derivatives then are sense of possession,jealousy and insecurity.And then the factor of love itself becomes qualified.Conditional.Adulterated.Then come the mutual expectations,which create imposed responsibilities.Result rather than helping each other to develop they tend to limit each other.The more copybook a relationship is,more chained are the people in it.In the words of the Dalai Lama,"...[W]hen I watch a couple, I think it is nice, but then I feel there are too many problems. You first worry about finding the right partner.Then if no children, you worry. If you have children you worry about their health, education, marriage and then the same with grand children."
Maybe my views are right,or they maybe wrong..the speculation is inconsequential.But these were the same reasons I loathed the very concept of romantic love.Seldom did I know that I could never even come close to realizing the full nature of love unless I understood it's romantic,sexual and platonic,form.
It so happened that when I for the first time realized that Cupid's arrow had indeed penetrated through my rhino skin and gathered enough courage and motivation to announce my feelings to a girl with whom I had been sharing a magical friendship for nearly a year,Fate forced me to the gallows of rejection Earlier this year,it was another girl,the result was the same.As a result,I have had ample opportunity to study the mechanics of unilateral love.None's a saint to start with.I had my periods of weakness when I was blinded by desire.One way love is mostly a cruel thing as it is incomplete,the innermost cravings to be loved like you do unsatisfied.Worst thing : it creates an iota of guilt.Your peace robbed and judgement shrouded.Sure,romantic love bode pain either way.
Then I discovered the other side.I found it was easier to conquer and control the cons in the position I was in.Once I managed to do that,I was left with was an indomitable urge,one that reminds me of the force encountered during what we decently term as nature's call.An indomitable urge to give and go on giving to the object of such urge,leaving which the subject instantaneously cares for nothing else.And all at once I had struck upon the essence of that phenomenon before which even the mightiest kneel.One way traffic is the simplest form of not only romantic love,but also love in general.Reciprocation is not necessary for love to be complete.You go on craving,expecting and no matter how fulfilling a relationship you might be in,it never feels complete;eliminate your desire,and there are no blocks to the salvation of your love.
So,I can safely say that my imagination romantically involved with two girls at the same time,and I have a problem with none,neither they have between themselves nor with me for that matter.The latter one is getting married.But who's worried as long as I have my leave to love her!
I saw her shadow,and loved her
She was beautiful;nothing else did matter
She kept her distance,and I kept mine
And all along,we lived it just fine...
She was beautiful;nothing else did matter ...
The evening before last,on my way home from my university,while I was waiting for the appropriate train at the Sealdah railway station,the above lines were swimming in my head.A very dear friend was just shortly before explaining to me how his love for the queen of his heart isn't to die even if she did not care.He says that of all she can do,she can never dissuade him from loving her.Knowing him as well I do,it felt like I was hearing someone else's words but from his mouth.Somebody had finally stepped into the same boat as me,even if momentarily be it so.
This is my fourth year running in college and I've been known to 'fall in love' twice in this period.That friend of mine has been in two 'relationships',and was attempting at a third.Spot the difference?
We are specifically dealing with the romantic form of love here.Once upon a time I used to plainly ridicule the very thing.That was before I myself tasted it.Even then I have been always been apprehensive of copybook romantic relationships.Firstly,because of the desire it brings.Once you are romantically attached to someone,it inevitably brings in the element.But once you are in a relationship,the desire has now a claim to legitimacy.The derivatives then are sense of possession,jealousy and insecurity.And then the factor of love itself becomes qualified.Conditional.Adulterated.Then come the mutual expectations,which create imposed responsibilities.Result rather than helping each other to develop they tend to limit each other.The more copybook a relationship is,more chained are the people in it.In the words of the Dalai Lama,"...[W]hen I watch a couple, I think it is nice, but then I feel there are too many problems. You first worry about finding the right partner.Then if no children, you worry. If you have children you worry about their health, education, marriage and then the same with grand children."
Maybe my views are right,or they maybe wrong..the speculation is inconsequential.But these were the same reasons I loathed the very concept of romantic love.Seldom did I know that I could never even come close to realizing the full nature of love unless I understood it's romantic,sexual and platonic,form.
It so happened that when I for the first time realized that Cupid's arrow had indeed penetrated through my rhino skin and gathered enough courage and motivation to announce my feelings to a girl with whom I had been sharing a magical friendship for nearly a year,Fate forced me to the gallows of rejection Earlier this year,it was another girl,the result was the same.As a result,I have had ample opportunity to study the mechanics of unilateral love.None's a saint to start with.I had my periods of weakness when I was blinded by desire.One way love is mostly a cruel thing as it is incomplete,the innermost cravings to be loved like you do unsatisfied.Worst thing : it creates an iota of guilt.Your peace robbed and judgement shrouded.Sure,romantic love bode pain either way.
Then I discovered the other side.I found it was easier to conquer and control the cons in the position I was in.Once I managed to do that,I was left with was an indomitable urge,one that reminds me of the force encountered during what we decently term as nature's call.An indomitable urge to give and go on giving to the object of such urge,leaving which the subject instantaneously cares for nothing else.And all at once I had struck upon the essence of that phenomenon before which even the mightiest kneel.One way traffic is the simplest form of not only romantic love,but also love in general.Reciprocation is not necessary for love to be complete.You go on craving,expecting and no matter how fulfilling a relationship you might be in,it never feels complete;eliminate your desire,and there are no blocks to the salvation of your love.
So,I can safely say that my imagination romantically involved with two girls at the same time,and I have a problem with none,neither they have between themselves nor with me for that matter.The latter one is getting married.But who's worried as long as I have my leave to love her!
I saw her shadow,and loved her
She was beautiful;nothing else did matter
She kept her distance,and I kept mine
And all along,we lived it just fine...
Monday, December 6, 2010
Knowledge --- Conclusion
The problem of 'The Cow in the Field',the following points are in issue-
1.The farmer believed the cow was safe in the field
2.There was enough justification for himself
3.And it was true that his cow was safe
The last point,as it turns out,was a mere coincidence.
So again,can we say that he knew his cow was safe in the field?
Philosophers have struggled to agree on what indeed is the defining constituent of knowledge.Let us assume that the cow was not found in the field as was believed by the farmer.Could we still say the farmer had the knowledge of his cow's safety and location?Yeah,now we are thinking,aren't we?
Some will say,no.How can know something which is not true?Certainly,it does not count as knowledge,does it?That is what a few philosophers like E.L. Gettier have tried to assert.Nothing,they say,inferred from a false belief counts as knowledge.
A peep closer to ourselves now.Suppose,someone tells you something about a person close to you,who you have absolutely no reason to doubt;what's likely your response?What is the immediate thought in your mind?You don't feel like,'ok let's see if what I've heard is true'.Rather it's like,and mind it,it's not a weak and defensive response,but a cocksure and adamant and emphatic 'no way,I know him better'.'I know'.Right at that instant,you know.You possess the knowledge that your friend is innocent.Whether or not he is does not have anything to do with your knowledge at that very moment.Then what has?
I remember when we were being introduced into the disciplines of physics and chemistry just after the completion of the secondary certificate examinations,we were told that whatever we had learned about these disciplines upto then was all 'bullshit' - either false or incomplete or nothing - and we would do better to 'empty our cups to fill them again'.Weren't our secondary exams are meant to be aptitude of our 'knowledge'?
Man once knew the Earth to be round and the objects seen in the sky to revolve around the Earth.Before Charles Darwin,any scholar of the Holy Bible could boast of knowledge of the history of creation of life.They believed what they knew,or rather,they knew it because they believed it.Farmer Field believed his cow to be safe in the field.So,knowledge depends on belief.They need not be true,or even justified beliefs.You ask a blind believer if God exists,he says,yes.You ask,why?He says,he just knows it.
Knowledge depends also on perception.A bat 'sees' a different world than the eyes.A butterfly sees a hell lot differently than higher animals do.A dog sees and feels differently than a human.So does their knowledge of the world around them.Same with a human with respect to another human,in varying circumstances.Two witnesses in a court proceeding may give different accounts of the same thing,and yet both might be true to their knowledge.We know of nine planets in our solar system until even recently.What is the difference between then and now?Acceptance of the classification.We accepted 9 planets then as we do 8 now.So,acceptance is another material aspect of knowledge.
Fact and knowledge do not necessarily go hand in hand.Knowledge is not in the being of a proposition,but in the satisfaction of its being.It can either be true or false,right or wrong.Farmer Field believed and accepted,i.e.,he was satisfied that his cow was safe.HE KNEW.
1.The farmer believed the cow was safe in the field
2.There was enough justification for himself
3.And it was true that his cow was safe
The last point,as it turns out,was a mere coincidence.
So again,can we say that he knew his cow was safe in the field?
Philosophers have struggled to agree on what indeed is the defining constituent of knowledge.Let us assume that the cow was not found in the field as was believed by the farmer.Could we still say the farmer had the knowledge of his cow's safety and location?Yeah,now we are thinking,aren't we?
Some will say,no.How can know something which is not true?Certainly,it does not count as knowledge,does it?That is what a few philosophers like E.L. Gettier have tried to assert.Nothing,they say,inferred from a false belief counts as knowledge.
A peep closer to ourselves now.Suppose,someone tells you something about a person close to you,who you have absolutely no reason to doubt;what's likely your response?What is the immediate thought in your mind?You don't feel like,'ok let's see if what I've heard is true'.Rather it's like,and mind it,it's not a weak and defensive response,but a cocksure and adamant and emphatic 'no way,I know him better'.'I know'.Right at that instant,you know.You possess the knowledge that your friend is innocent.Whether or not he is does not have anything to do with your knowledge at that very moment.Then what has?
I remember when we were being introduced into the disciplines of physics and chemistry just after the completion of the secondary certificate examinations,we were told that whatever we had learned about these disciplines upto then was all 'bullshit' - either false or incomplete or nothing - and we would do better to 'empty our cups to fill them again'.Weren't our secondary exams are meant to be aptitude of our 'knowledge'?
Man once knew the Earth to be round and the objects seen in the sky to revolve around the Earth.Before Charles Darwin,any scholar of the Holy Bible could boast of knowledge of the history of creation of life.They believed what they knew,or rather,they knew it because they believed it.Farmer Field believed his cow to be safe in the field.So,knowledge depends on belief.They need not be true,or even justified beliefs.You ask a blind believer if God exists,he says,yes.You ask,why?He says,he just knows it.
Knowledge depends also on perception.A bat 'sees' a different world than the eyes.A butterfly sees a hell lot differently than higher animals do.A dog sees and feels differently than a human.So does their knowledge of the world around them.Same with a human with respect to another human,in varying circumstances.Two witnesses in a court proceeding may give different accounts of the same thing,and yet both might be true to their knowledge.We know of nine planets in our solar system until even recently.What is the difference between then and now?Acceptance of the classification.We accepted 9 planets then as we do 8 now.So,acceptance is another material aspect of knowledge.
Fact and knowledge do not necessarily go hand in hand.Knowledge is not in the being of a proposition,but in the satisfaction of its being.It can either be true or false,right or wrong.Farmer Field believed and accepted,i.e.,he was satisfied that his cow was safe.HE KNEW.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Knowledge-----Continuation
Knowledge is learning, perception, association, communication, and reasoning .
It is the quest to find the absolute.
Like every basic human characteristics it is only congruent, confined, and controlled by our mind. Evidently knowledge is that which brings satisfaction deep within and brings forth a confidence that what we know, we belief, and we learned is correct. It may not be the exact reality but we in our subconscious mind we are satisfied if we do not find a proper contradiction to it.
Thus knowledge is that belief which is self evident to the believer.
According to me this was the very reason why Farmer Field was satisfied. And why my friend Caesar thought the object to be a line of cloth until he found his reason to contradict..
It is the quest to find the absolute.
Like every basic human characteristics it is only congruent, confined, and controlled by our mind. Evidently knowledge is that which brings satisfaction deep within and brings forth a confidence that what we know, we belief, and we learned is correct. It may not be the exact reality but we in our subconscious mind we are satisfied if we do not find a proper contradiction to it.
Thus knowledge is that belief which is self evident to the believer.
According to me this was the very reason why Farmer Field was satisfied. And why my friend Caesar thought the object to be a line of cloth until he found his reason to contradict..
Monday, November 29, 2010
Knowledge
This morning when I was standing on the Barasat Junction railbridge,waiting for my train,an object on the first floor of a building on the east side caught my eye.It was a line of yellowish cloth carelessly suspended against a black paned window.But after a few minutes,the cloth moved.The black of the window pane ate into the metal frame.I realised that object I was looking at was not suspended cloth but a boy,standing pressed to that window,who was wearing a black full sleeved tee with yellowish sleeves and underarms,his arms lifted and joined together upwards against the window.The dent made into the frame I could make out as part of his head that had moved.As long as his head did not come in between my sight and the frame,the black of his hair and his dress along with that of the glass created the illusion of some hanging cloth.I grinned to myself,as I remembered that one of the 101 Philosophy Problems,authored by Martin Cohen.It read as follows...
'Farmer Field is concerned about his prize cow Daisy.In fact,he is so concerned that when his dairyman tells him that Daisy is in the field happily grazing,he says he needs to know for certain.He doesn't want just to have a 99 per cent idea that Daisy was safe,he wants to be able to say that he knows Daisy is okay.
Farmer Field goes out to the field and standing by the gate sees in the distance,behind some trees, awhite and black shape that recognises as his favourite cow.He goes back to the dairy and tells his friend that he knows Daisy is in the field.
At this point,does Farmer Field know it?
The dairyman says he will check too,and goes to the field.There he finds Daisy,having a nap in a hollow,behind a bush,well out of sight of the gate.He also spots a large piece of black and white paper that has got caught in a tree.
Daisy is in the field,as Farmer Field thought.But was he right to say that he knew she was?'
This one is an adaptation from the original set out in Plato's Theaetetus.The central question it asks is what is the definition of knowledge?Did Farmer Field have the knowledge of the safety and location of his cow?
And speaking of my little hallucinations in the morning,suppose the boy had not moved from his initial position as I caught the scene,could I say that I knew that the object I was looking at was a line of cloth,and not a boy?
What,according to you,constitutes KNOWLEDGE?
'Farmer Field is concerned about his prize cow Daisy.In fact,he is so concerned that when his dairyman tells him that Daisy is in the field happily grazing,he says he needs to know for certain.He doesn't want just to have a 99 per cent idea that Daisy was safe,he wants to be able to say that he knows Daisy is okay.
Farmer Field goes out to the field and standing by the gate sees in the distance,behind some trees, awhite and black shape that recognises as his favourite cow.He goes back to the dairy and tells his friend that he knows Daisy is in the field.
At this point,does Farmer Field know it?
The dairyman says he will check too,and goes to the field.There he finds Daisy,having a nap in a hollow,behind a bush,well out of sight of the gate.He also spots a large piece of black and white paper that has got caught in a tree.
Daisy is in the field,as Farmer Field thought.But was he right to say that he knew she was?'
This one is an adaptation from the original set out in Plato's Theaetetus.The central question it asks is what is the definition of knowledge?Did Farmer Field have the knowledge of the safety and location of his cow?
And speaking of my little hallucinations in the morning,suppose the boy had not moved from his initial position as I caught the scene,could I say that I knew that the object I was looking at was a line of cloth,and not a boy?
What,according to you,constitutes KNOWLEDGE?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)