Saturday, December 8, 2012

The Futility of Debate with an "unequal"

I'm sure he doesn't even know what my "theory" is, forget about his counters and arguments and his special interest in rejecting and shooting it down with his so called "practical" generalities. My simple theory that underlines my unwillingness to participate at all or else to minimize any dealing or interaction with intellectually mediocre, morally flexible and run of the mill "aam aadmi" with an externally conditioned conscience. The theory which gives him an automatic but false sense of being right and victorious because of my said unwillingness to wit-wrestle at length with such limited and lesser minds in what is obviously an endeavour ending in futility.

Sunday, November 11, 2012

Charity and Respect

The more one gives in charity, the more one deserves respect. Right?
Wrong.

I knew you'd say that. But why?
It's not important how much he gives to others but how much he keeps for himself.

Well doesn't it mean the same? The more he's giving away, the less he is keeping for himself.
The question is, "How less?"

So you're saying the less one person has, the more he deserves respect?

I'm saying, a person who has less than what he needs himself because he gives away too much doesn't deserve my respect. I'm saying the fact alone that he gives too much, doesn't earn him my respect. How much he keeps for himself is equally important. 

So you're saying that in order to deserve your respect, he should keep more?
He should keep enough so that he can maintain a decent, comfortable life for himself.

And how do you define a "decent, comfortable" life?
The one that doesn't require charity.

That was easy! But coming back to the subject, I thought Charity was all about giving and not keeping.
It's about both. And that's what decides whether a person should be respected for it or not.

Explain to me how.
Sure I will. First let me lay down some ground rules:
  1. Charity, as such, is not an indication of a person's character. A person who gives is not necessarily good and a person who doesn't isn't necessarily evil. You cannot call a person "morally challenged" if he earns his money honestly and doesn't give any to charity. Charity is a matter of prerogative and not moral obligation.
  2. Closer to the subject at hand, i.e., on the question of how deserving respect for Charity is also about keeping, and not just the obvious giving, let me safely say that we can put a philanthropist in one of the two categories:
    • One who keeps more than (or equal to) he needs himself
    • One who keeps less than he needs himself
We'll restrict ourselves to the second category here.

Why not the first?
Because he is excluded by the first rule, which is altogether a different subject.

Alright, let's stick to the subject then. What about the second?
I think it's simple to understand now. If a person donates more than he needs himself (and hence suffers hardships), he is nothing but a self-loathing masochist. No points for that. Moreover, what he is doing by indulging such level of "altruism", is bringing himself down to the level of the person who he helps, i.e., the person who lives on charity. Though the latter is not necessarily brought down to that level himself, but the former, i.e. the donator in this case, is. In another words, he is just passing his burden onto somebody else, in process of relieving his own conscience. And while the fact that he does it unknowingly is a reflection on his low intelligence level (because seriously?), the fact that he does it knowingly makes it still more abominable. Therefore, no respect.

So, the bottom-line...
It's not important alone how much one gives in Charity, but also how much he keeps for himself.

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

Story of my life...

These are the lyrics of the latest song of our band called "We don't exist". The song is called "Story of my life". Here it goes...

****************************************
I've the makings of a rockstar,
Except I'm no good with my damn guitar.
I've the makings of a sportstar,
Except I push my body just so far.

I've the makings of a writer,
Except I can't hold my train on for too long.
I've the makings of an actor,
Except my face and mind don't just go along.

I've the makings of a thinker,
Except on that front I don't hold much clout.
I've the makings of a singer,
Except I can't bring those words properly out.

I've the makings of a painter,
Except I can't get my colours right.
I've the makings of an astronaut,
Except I'm bound to the ground so tight.

I've the makings of a businessman,
Except I can't deal with the middleman.
I've the makings of a saint now,
Except I can't live for the little man.

I've the makings of a scientist,
Except I'm so twisted I can't think straight.
I've the makings of a hero,
Except I'm unwilling to carry the weight.

I've the makings of a leader,
Except I just don't want to break my shell.
I've the makings of an angel,
Except I'm too caught up in my private hell.


I have all the makings...
Except I'm stuck...in this muck...in the darkness...with just no luck...

{awesome guitar solo followed by the chorus}

We can all fly to the paradise and...
we can all hear them chimes,
we can all hear them bells...
We can be anything,
Except we're just ourselves...

We all have all the makings,
Except we're just ourselves...
Except we're just ourselves...
Except we're just ourselves.

****************************************

Sunday, July 1, 2012

Sigh...

Nothing is more lovable than a woman in love with you. Nothing surpasses it in sight, in sound and in knowledge. And when it becomes only a past memory, no pain, no emptiness exceeds it.

Monday, June 18, 2012

People's Man

Our great former president (whom we affectionately called the "People's President") has declined to contest for another tenure and he has written a sweet letter about it too.
Yes I have seen the letter and it's tragic, not sweet.

Oh yes, it is tragic that he couldn't be our next President. The country needs him. 
No, that's not the tragic part. In fact, that's a commendable decision he's taken.

So what is tragic?
That he still wants to be a "People's man". Even after this decision that he has taken, he thinks being a "People's man" is the ideal. That's ironical.

How so?
What people WANT and NEED from you matters squat when it's your ass on stake. That's the fact. That's Nature's law and that's how a Man (and an animal) would act, acts, is supposed to act. But "OFFERING YOUR ASS BECAUSE PEOPLE NEED IT" is still considered to be the greatest virtue! That's how.

But how does this apply in this context?
This applies to every context. In this particular case, this is where lies the dilemma of our ever so humble missile-man.

How?
Here's how:
"People want my ass to save their asses. And since I'm such a "People's President", it's my duty to put my ass on line, i.e., to get into this whole shitty politics thing because people NEED me! Then why the fuck I'm not feeling like doing it?!! Man I don't know, I love these people and all but still somehow this "love" is not enough. What the fuck is wrong with me??!! Damn I want to serve them, I love them, they love me, they need me, screw them...I love my ass more and it already has enough shit to deal with! But they are crying...they NEED me, to guide them, direct them, to lead them towards "progress" and out of this shit they've gotten themselves into. Just look at the huge number of comments on my post, crying for me to change my decision to save their asses instead of my own! Oh man, what do I do?! Here's a chance for me to achieve that supreme ideal, but what about MY ASS in which they are the ones who are the biggest pain!!"

So, in a nutshell, our poor rocket scientist, who can understand the complexities involving sending out payloads on rockets into the space, can't understand the simple fact that you just can't beat your Nature, whatever bullshit you've been believing to be "Virtue". Because virtue is not being a humble (another way of saying bending-over-for-next-person's-pleasure) "People's Man" but simply being a MAN. That your (and everybody else's) basic Nature is not and can never be to live for the sake of others, but for your own.

But anyhow, our favourite presidential candidate (along-with 99.99% of the world) being one of the staunch subscribers to the above school-of-thought(lessness) is what if not the biggest tragedy that's ever happened to the mankind? As long as our so-called role-models continue to subscribe to this "ideal", the world will keep heading where it's headed. Towards doom. How? Because this "ideal" is impossible and aspirations to such an ideal only leads to dilemmas and frustrations. If all your energies and efforts are channelized towards
such an ideal, i.e., to serve others, to make everyone happy, to be a People's Man...you're in for a severe shock. You can never achieve it and even if you can and do, you'll not find happiness and joy but only pain in your ass and a bad taste in your mouth.

:|
:D


Saturday, June 16, 2012

Lessons from a Daisy



Sweet in the wilderness,
is the sight of a daisy
that flutters in the breeze,
on the slope of a mound.

For this lonely flower,
now joyfully dancing,
has faced the mighty winds,
and held its ground.

- N

Saturday, April 21, 2012

"Spreading awareness"

Who admires a piss-stain on the wall or an empty plastic bottle, a chips packet on the road or an ugly stinking dump of garbage on the roadside? Do you think people who do this, they admire it? I think not. Then why do they do it? But more importantly, what is it that you're going to tell them that they don't know already? Are you going to lecture them on "duties, responsibilities, aesthetics, civic sense"? Are you going to appeal to their sensibilities? Or are you going to appeal to their sensitivities and their "Love for Nature"? Or are you going to threaten them with law?

...Just what is the grand plan and what do you expect to achieve from it?

Friday, March 30, 2012

Smoke:2

You find yourself lonely in the dark jungle of your mind. Lost in dismal thoughts, fearful of approaching shadows, surrounded by nothing but cold gloom and pressing on from above like a giant burden, a dull dusky sky. What do you do? You light up a fire. Replace the gloom with a glow. That's what they do, the smoke rings you blow...

...False assurance, one might say: Deferring the fear, bringing closer the Death. But an assurance all the same. And then the reassurance: To have your death (and life) in your own hands and in your sight rather than in the hands of some unknown, unseen chance comer...

...So you light up. Lighten up. Such momentary relief from griefs is all that you have and need, as the night gets darker. The fire carries you through to the dawn of yet another day which might have a similar end, but probably with clearer skies and twinkling stars. But if not, you'll still have one in between your fingers. One spark will always be there.

Smoke:1

That man smokes. It's a bad thing. I tell you he is not right.


Well, what if I said that a cigarette shows a man's capacity for Joy and his longing for Activity? And a man who longs for Joy and Activity cannot be wrong.




WTF! How and why would you say that?!

Mixing a dose of celebration, the lighting up, to every dull, empty, tense, seriously thoughtful or drunk, already euphoric, already happy moment shows just that. He can never be happy or active enough. His capacity for these always exceeds the range by that one more cigarette :)




That's the problem! There's always a justification and excuse for every wrong thing.


Oh yes, that is true. But my problem is that in this sad world, there has to be a justification and an excuse for every right thing too.