Logic and Language

Exhibit 1:

X: An apple a day keeps the doctor away.

Y: Does that mean that half an apple a day keeps half the doctor away?!

X&Y: hahaha!

Exhibit 2:

X: An apple a day keeps the doctor away.

Y: My cousin eats half an apple a day. She stays ill half the time!
X&Y: hahaha!

(...and so on)

What's happening above? The above two exhibits show the interplay of "Logic" and "Language". In these cases, what's essentially happening is that Logic is being brought down to the level of illogic by a fairly logical usage of Language (for the sake of amusement or similar such end). In other words, Logic is being limited, distorted by Language through misuse or even abuse. Now as a side note, I'd like to admit that using Logic for entertainment via Language is a good thing. In fact, I may allow myself to even go as far as to say that there can't be a better form of entertainment. It's an Art (rhetoric), but as it happens, this game of Logic and Language has only ended up becoming a mere toy in the hands of unthinking populace. That's it for the side-note.

Coming back, isn't this what we observe in our day to day interactions: The emphasis on Language, even if it means a compromise on Logic. People use Logic to engage in mere repartee, or when 'debating', they simply fight over semantics, side-lining or completely ignoring the "idea" that the language is supposed to express. It brings to mind the story of a prophet who's pointing his finger to show his followers a path to paradise. But the followers, instead of following the direction at which the prophet's finger is pointing, merely keep focussing on the finger. Language is the finger here.

Now, it is mostly unnecessary to point out here that both Logic and Language are important as is the case with all 'Content and Form' (Logic being the content and Language being the form), but which is 'more important'? The answer is Logic. It's Logic that's above Language and not the reverse. It's also important to understand that Language is only supplemental to Logic and not complemental. Logic stands on it's own even in the absence of Language. Language is just a tool to facilitate our understanding of Logic. So it's crucial that one should try not to lose sight of Logic even in case Language falters or finds itself inadequate to keep up. And that one should always apply his mind to whatever is being said, focussing on the context instead of in what way the idea is being presented. In other words, if we're to put them in the order of importance, "what's" being said should always hold our attention more than "how's" it being said. That, I think, is what makes conversations worthwhile because after all it should be the exchange of ideas (set in logic) and not of words that we're after when we converse.

In conclusion, the interplay of Logic and Language is a fascinating dance, often amusing but with profound implications. While Language serves as the vehicle for expression, Logic stands as the driving force behind meaningful communication. The analogy of followers fixating on the prophet's finger highlights the risk of prioritizing form over substance in our conversations.

It is crucial to recognize that while Language is a valuable tool, Logic reigns supreme in the hierarchy of importance. Conversations gain true value when the focus shifts from how ideas are expressed to the ideas themselves. Let us not lose sight of the essence in the pursuit of linguistic flair. In the symphony of Logic and Language, harmony is achieved when the melody of ideas takes precedence over the cadence of words.

The Romantic

Oh what can I say except...
On one hand, I have a powerful imagination and on the other, a strong talent for falling in love with images.

Oh I don't have words except...
I am a hopeless romantic with nothing to romance really. Until. Occasionally, there comes along someone who fits an image so beautifully.

Oh how can I express it except...
That when it happens, life becomes rosy and fragrant for a while. And then the rose wilts.

Oh what can I say except...
I am a hopeless romantic with nothing and so much to romance.

I am a Man

I am a Man.
I do what I like.
And I don't like screwing up other people's life.
I respect those who earn my respect by respecting my freedom.
I like to deal with, help those from whom I get "value" in exchange.
Value can be anything that advances me in my life.
It can be money, goodwill, love or respect.
Value cannot be unearned.
Favour is not a value.
So is not power or force.
I do not initiate force.
Not for my advantage, not for any fun.
That should be enough.
That should be ALL you need to be a Man, or Human if you please.

But you impose upon me "duties", "responsibilities", "social contracts", "obligations", "accountability", "answerability", "sacrifices" for things I don't like, don't do and never asked for.
You want me to share your burden and guilts.
The burden that you took upon yourselves.
And the guilt that you did that.
You try to impose upon me your faulty and distorted notions.
You do that all the time and almost always win and get away with it too.
Because you are the majority.
And your notions of Right and Wrong are all inside out.
You rule by force.
You manipulate, sentimentalise everything.
You inflict mental tortures.
When that doesn't help, you cause physical pain.

But being the majority doesn't mean you are right.
It doesn't change what's right, no matter with what righteous and condescending air you lash your whips.
Your ignoring the facts doesn't alter the reality.
And your blindness doesn't blind me.
I see through your whips what you try not to see.
In my book, you are not fit to be called Man.

My alternative

My alternative? Stop being the part of this system...this democratic farce, this collectivist humbug and just be concerned about what you do. No voting, no movements, no concerns for negative things in which you don't have any direct contribution. Stop watching TV, especially news channel, don't read newspapers. Just and only just...do your work - Honestly, sincerely. If you're a "cause" man, make self-improvement your only cause. There's a lot you can achieve when you channelize your energies and calibre towards this one single cause rather than wasting it in these superficial concerns. Be a hardcore individualist, deal with people you have to deal with with utmost integrity and rationality. Sounds impractical or utopian? You have all the evidence of the so called "practical" and "pragmatic" alternatives scattered all around you. See for yourself, think for yourself and choose accordingly. I have.

No leaders

Leader, by implication, means there is a sheep herd following him. And since I don't like these "sheep herds", I don't like the concept of the poor straw-men, the use and throw martyrs, they call their leaders. The fact that people need "leaders" (or at least label them that, as unwilling as the poor bastards maybe) for the stupidest of causes and so wasted reasons like telling each other not to kill each other or to kill each other or to not infringe upon the freedom of the next man, next state, next country or to breach the freakin' hell out of it, makes me want no part of it. So, no leaders, no revolutions, no movements, no causes for me. Only individuals - Responsible, with incorruptible integrity and intelligence. Too much to ask I know but I'm not losing hope as yet.

Zombie mentality

People are free to oppose his views, but should refrain from using derogatory language against a well-meaning intellectual person.

People do that exactly because he is a "well-meaning and intellectual person". Because to be well-meaning and to be intellectual these days, is to shake their pathetic comfort levels, to constantly remind them of their flaws. An ugly, deformed person doesn't want you to show him a mirror. And an ugly, deformed, mindless zombie does feed and relish on live "brains", doesn't it?

Reflection

Either I know you too well and so can tell that you don't know me at all, or, I don't know you at all to tell if you know me too well.

Bringin' them up

Everyone knows "what" is wrong with the world and its people, but if you have little children in your home, how they're being brought up every minute, every day, you'd see more clearly of "why", "how" and "when" it starts. 0-3 years is mostly the age of "whats". And that's where the screwing up starts. It's because people feed all kinds of bullshit to their minds in the name of "whats". So don't do that. Do this instead:-

Feed your children only the facts. Tell them what *is* and not what *you* think it is. When you don't know what it is, tell them you don't know or are not sure what it is and then try to find an answer and be sure. Whatever you do, just don't push your *beliefs and opinions* down their little throats. If you can't find the answer, help them keep the question alive, maybe one day they will find it on their own. Let them find the answers of questions you don't know of, let them build their own knowledge-base based on facts and not on your deeply ingrained whims and fantasies (by your parents); let them form their own opinions and ideas overtime instead of trying your best to hard-code your own into their vulnerable little brains.

Break the cycle of centuries of conditioning and let them get on the path of being the BS-free human beings (superhuman even) they have the potential to become.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

Brothers Under The Sun - (Video by Travelosophic)

"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?

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.

"AM" "THINKING"

Logic and Illogic presuppose the existence of Consciousness, which in turn presupposes the Existence of Existence. So for something to "be" logical or illogical to something, the minimum condition would be the "Existence" of at least two things -

1. That which is Logical/Illogical - i.e., something (let's call it A) which exists, and
2. That to which the first is Logical/Illogical - i.e., something (let's call it B) that exists outside and apart from A (though not necessary) but necessarily is NON-A.

A would be Existence, B would be Consciousness. Now when you say "when nothing existed" (a statement which I do not subscribe to, but that'd be another story), you're only saying that there was nothing which was Logical or Illogical and to No-one.

As for the question Are there any facts?, yes there are. Existence and Consciousness to name two. These are facts, or another word for it would be Absolutes. When you try to deny the existence of an Absolute, by uttering a sentence like "There are no facts!", you're only committing a fallacy, because by speaking that sentence you're trying to utter an Absolute only.

Travelosophic

If you hear in the roars of a river,

A calling, as you do in the silence of jungle,

If you feel majestic and not just awe

To stand on a mountain, both proud and humble…

If you wish to breakaway, but haven't been able to yet

Or if you already are a wanderer who wonders,

If you're the kind to feel excitement and not fear

When you see lightening and hear loud thunders…

If you've fought to keep the spark alive,

If you're not the one who waits to die,

To escape all misery and reach heaven

As you know, the Earth is where peace and joy lie...

If you have the wings but feel tied to the ground,

If you're free in spirit but still somehow feel chained

And having earned success and all things good

You still feel there's something left to be gained…

If you've ever turned to Nature,

For rapture, adventure or reasons philosophic,

Or to get away from, if not to get to somewhere,

It's time to revive the quest, it's time to go Travelosophic.