In continuation with the last thread..
It really is hard to focus on a single point, to think-analyse-meditate over it and then pour the extracts of that thought-train in words. I do realise that with time it may get easier to sync up with a single thought for prolonged snaps & do get a hold of what I am thinking on the blast of subjects & their affairs which all come in simultaneously. I may be sounding blurred but if am to explain in more words will like to analogise with the state of a dreamer where billion things happen yet most of the times he can't describe it.
Anyways, to further the start,
: Wrong & Right
Lately seem to be stumbling upon this particular & one of the most favourite of all quests of mine. Though mine take in this particular writing may not be reflective of what i have thought of in-time over this very interesting topic but this approach sure seems no-nonsense.
What actually is right?
Ah, sure the Norms which I, or a group of I's or You or a Group of You's have established over time & am leaving aside whether this Norms is all place-all time applicable or not — Just suit yourself with the most comfortable answer you have of it.
What in particular I am currently trying to think over is — What is Right without Wrong? In fact if you think loosely or better put without any reservations of your perceptions just for a moment — Do you see the worth of right is to be measured in the unit of wrong? Ah again to help with comes a analogy How good is a hero is defined by how bad is the villain or How strong are you is defined by how worse circumstances you have overcome. What I am trying to establish is the discussion — a) How will we be able to identify a Right(strength) if their aint a Wrong(weakness)? b) If so how is the Wrong Wrong for sure without the Wrong how will there be a Right? c) Now comes even more interesting thing is how am I not advocating for Negativity?
Leave the last question for there is no positivity without it.
Sure this all seems nonsense & absurd if the dilemma is presented to a "Grown Up" living in the "Real society" but this very Grown-Up will teach lessons of honesty to his kid & then later show him instances where the standard definition can be obliterated. I like to define such remarkable explanations "The answer which suits him".
There seems a way - The Gandhian one. We can win the other one with & only by love[or good by more good]. But in an idealistic debate the opponent will again bounce back with: But what is love? If put on a scale, 3love is better than 2love, so is(& sure in due course of time) 2love replaceable with words like hatred/enmity? And if you are gonna say love can not be measured or bound in terms of explainability, don't we love ours more than others? Me mine house than yours? The point being made is more good thing will replace the meaning of less good things with bad.
The answer seems to be there is no good or bad, they are just mere words or ways of explaining ones feelings. Also comes to mind is the hoax story where elders told: In the darkness lies the devil, to keep the little ones off wandering. The whole concept of good bad is something to keep the society in tracks by the thinkers & it sure works[I am sure of it.] & by tracks I mean what suits the majority.
Also, I have tried to expand the grid to animal kingdom too & come to conclude the instances apart from their regular behavior can be described as mood swings or some disorder for life is an series of finite events with infinite outcomes & no one can really predict the next one.
-- [15/4/16] continuing --
The paradox
Realised today, Isn't all (which I put forth yesterday) turned in rubbish with a single statement "so a Bad act can be turned/deemed Good simply by doing a even worse act?"
Oh! Really shocked. How much I might have been distracted/blind-sided last night in putting forth the thoughts in words.
But wait, let's just fiddle little more.
First, this ain't a conclusion but an exploration & no way to follow or enact idea in real life, at-least yet.
Now next is I am not discussing what to follow or not but what is "good & bad". After having put more thoughts, would like to describe it as the "Why is their Bad at all? Couldn't only good have been devised?" dive.
Also, rules are made for a sustainable society & in order to be a part of a environment where weak too can thrive(& do remember one cannot be always the strong most) we must adhere to them i.e. follow the good, try to be good. This self-debate is more about understanding the so called sorrows & griefs where one questions what he doesn't understands & develops a deeper understanding of things working beyond. By beyond what I am referring is off humane limits.
Now coming to the query "Can a bad act be seen/deemed as good in comparison to an even worse act?"
Yes, sure. For principles define that only. But aren't we already doing the same? What do we mean when we refer to instances in our daily life where a current scenario is blamed for & speak of "Even last one was better than this..". I have personally witnessed words "British were good.."
"Can we practice the same ideology?"
No, as I just answered in the para before, the goal should be a sustainable society not an sustainable individual. But I know of people doing/living this too.
...(will continue)
It really is hard to focus on a single point, to think-analyse-meditate over it and then pour the extracts of that thought-train in words. I do realise that with time it may get easier to sync up with a single thought for prolonged snaps & do get a hold of what I am thinking on the blast of subjects & their affairs which all come in simultaneously. I may be sounding blurred but if am to explain in more words will like to analogise with the state of a dreamer where billion things happen yet most of the times he can't describe it.
Anyways, to further the start,
: Wrong & Right
Lately seem to be stumbling upon this particular & one of the most favourite of all quests of mine. Though mine take in this particular writing may not be reflective of what i have thought of in-time over this very interesting topic but this approach sure seems no-nonsense.
What actually is right?
Ah, sure the Norms which I, or a group of I's or You or a Group of You's have established over time & am leaving aside whether this Norms is all place-all time applicable or not — Just suit yourself with the most comfortable answer you have of it.
What in particular I am currently trying to think over is — What is Right without Wrong? In fact if you think loosely or better put without any reservations of your perceptions just for a moment — Do you see the worth of right is to be measured in the unit of wrong? Ah again to help with comes a analogy How good is a hero is defined by how bad is the villain or How strong are you is defined by how worse circumstances you have overcome. What I am trying to establish is the discussion — a) How will we be able to identify a Right(strength) if their aint a Wrong(weakness)? b) If so how is the Wrong Wrong for sure without the Wrong how will there be a Right? c) Now comes even more interesting thing is how am I not advocating for Negativity?
Leave the last question for there is no positivity without it.
Sure this all seems nonsense & absurd if the dilemma is presented to a "Grown Up" living in the "Real society" but this very Grown-Up will teach lessons of honesty to his kid & then later show him instances where the standard definition can be obliterated. I like to define such remarkable explanations "The answer which suits him".
There seems a way - The Gandhian one. We can win the other one with & only by love[or good by more good]. But in an idealistic debate the opponent will again bounce back with: But what is love? If put on a scale, 3love is better than 2love, so is(& sure in due course of time) 2love replaceable with words like hatred/enmity? And if you are gonna say love can not be measured or bound in terms of explainability, don't we love ours more than others? Me mine house than yours? The point being made is more good thing will replace the meaning of less good things with bad.
The answer seems to be there is no good or bad, they are just mere words or ways of explaining ones feelings. Also comes to mind is the hoax story where elders told: In the darkness lies the devil, to keep the little ones off wandering. The whole concept of good bad is something to keep the society in tracks by the thinkers & it sure works[I am sure of it.] & by tracks I mean what suits the majority.
Also, I have tried to expand the grid to animal kingdom too & come to conclude the instances apart from their regular behavior can be described as mood swings or some disorder for life is an series of finite events with infinite outcomes & no one can really predict the next one.
-- [15/4/16] continuing --
The paradox
Realised today, Isn't all (which I put forth yesterday) turned in rubbish with a single statement "so a Bad act can be turned/deemed Good simply by doing a even worse act?"
Oh! Really shocked. How much I might have been distracted/blind-sided last night in putting forth the thoughts in words.
But wait, let's just fiddle little more.
First, this ain't a conclusion but an exploration & no way to follow or enact idea in real life, at-least yet.
Now next is I am not discussing what to follow or not but what is "good & bad". After having put more thoughts, would like to describe it as the "Why is their Bad at all? Couldn't only good have been devised?" dive.
Also, rules are made for a sustainable society & in order to be a part of a environment where weak too can thrive(& do remember one cannot be always the strong most) we must adhere to them i.e. follow the good, try to be good. This self-debate is more about understanding the so called sorrows & griefs where one questions what he doesn't understands & develops a deeper understanding of things working beyond. By beyond what I am referring is off humane limits.
Now coming to the query "Can a bad act be seen/deemed as good in comparison to an even worse act?"
Yes, sure. For principles define that only. But aren't we already doing the same? What do we mean when we refer to instances in our daily life where a current scenario is blamed for & speak of "Even last one was better than this..". I have personally witnessed words "British were good.."
"Can we practice the same ideology?"
No, as I just answered in the para before, the goal should be a sustainable society not an sustainable individual. But I know of people doing/living this too.
...(will continue)
