BEING AND BECOMING

Portrait Source: innerself.com We listen and communicate with dead people. They live in us, in our languages, concepts, history, societies, literature, mythology, and so on. They talk to us in the technology of language, in fact, we talk to them in their language; we carry on our identity and the concept of identity, thanks to their ingenuous gift. In the pursuit of our blaming gesture, history and society blame to each-other. History responds our presence with their glorious misadventure and ridicules our present societies, its mediocrity, baseness, and its all too normal abnormalities. Contemporary societies are always already in transition; visit its past with glorified vision to select a few dots, suitable to current necessity, but rejects many painful stories, tragedies, cruelties. History has been a source of legitimacy of contemporary societies and vice versa; cultural mythology must be the father of civilization. What makes civilization possible in the first place? Against whom

People like to say, "stop judging me!" What does it signify? This statement appears in the process of judgment about judgment. Judgment as a process is usually attached to decision making activity. Decision is taken only when ambiguity emerges or confusion clouds the mind. When conflict is apparently visible in form of choices; decision must be a progeny of choices.  The whole question of "being" is answered in the language of choices, for decision making activity has a central role to define and unite the characteristics of being. It won't be outrageous to say that everyone is a judge who decides a way to adopt and about a means to neglect or denounce. Every judge is a moral or aesthetic being. Judging is an art of reaching over conclusion from preliminary sensation and experience. One has to decide about taste, distaste, morality, immorality, beauty, ugliness, good, evil, just, unjust, and so on. The act of deciding is an act of choosing between choices. The m

Doctrine of Basic Structure has been subject matter of contention since Kesavananda Bharti case. Many argue that this doctrine is not in line with the democratic principle for a republican state like India. One of the arguments is generally advanced that it is abstract, vague, and ready to be misinterpreted in many ways, particularly this doctrine endows unlimited powers to judges, which cannot be checked by other organs of state. It is often argued that basic structure must be defined once for all time. Strangely, no society is able to define what is their core ethos. Ethical dimensions of each society are as evolutionary as life and death of each and everything. Ethics is as organically dynamic as the planetary systems or the expanding universe. There is no single definition of what is a good way of life. There cannot be, in fact, a single unifying definition. The quest to define each and everything is the highest misadventure one may imagine. It's like a mountain of sands; the m

Better follow your heart and soul It will lead to peace and joy The moment you lead a path of mind You win the world at the cost of loosing self Better ignore the violence of words The moment you take it seriously  You burn in shallow heat of ego and passion  Better let the emotions channelised  In the service of life-energy  The moment it transforms into a passion to compete You suffer each moment in conflict and fragmentation  Better choose your own way, your own destination  The moment you carry the ambition of crowd You loose your freedom forever And it won’t return back Better listen the song of conscience  There is no better law humanity has ever crafted The moment you ignore your inner-voice You surrender your own being for servile existence

It is generally understood that words are like a empty vessel. The moment a writer picks a few words to enunciate his or her feelings, words become free to be interpreted as per the perceptual background of a reader. Roland Barthes' The Death of Author reflects on the enunciated domain of text, which remains free from the imaginative cage of the author for the open possibilities of its significance. Interpretation is really a serious task, a playful activity, the first condition for epistemic freedom. I'm compelled to write this little know to express my sublime feeling for a transformative work in many ways. Authors in this marvellous work have composed the poetics of systemic thinking, which is missing in the rigorous pursuit of analytics. Not a single epistemic domain is missing in this visionary craft. I want to be a reader for the work which is created with lots of love and passion. Only love transcends the boredom of official routine. The moment a passion is reduced to wo

What resists the death except life and art, remarked by Giles Deleuze. His thematic expression is unmatched and unparalleled in the craft of art in philosophy. Michel Foucault once remarked that the last century would be known as Deleuzean. There are various themes and colours in the enunciatory leadership of French philosopher, Giles Deleuze. But what has impressed me the most is his philosophy to understand philosophy, art, and cinema. He loves to see philosophy as a creative art to construct and decimate concept.  Term such as "Philosopher" has etymologically evolved from Greek, which is translated as the "friend of wisdom". Friend has a huge significance in the exploration of new ideas. That was the reason why dialogues were preferred as a medium of creativity and construction of concept. For democracy is the conducive factor to lead towards unceasing inquiry. Deleuze explains the necessity and urgency behind the development of philosophy as the necessity to rai

Those who don't have questions rely on unbounded answers of authority. Revelation was invented as a full stop for inquiry. Relying what big people say enslaves and dulls an inquisitive mind. Ready-made answer is the most illusionary product of our culture. The reality of our universe is approachable by the tool of three questions; what, why, and how. Modern science has restricted itself to how question only. Inquiry could be invigorated with a simple question of "why" without relying upon what a great man had said once upon a time. Those who desire to craft footnotes may continue searching authorities for validity. There is a difference between validity and truth. Every valid thing is not necessarily real. It is, in fact, a byproduct of human's thoughts. The whole culture of research has restricted search and inquiry. It is presupposed in re-search that the best ideas have already been searched and inquired. Our duty is only to carry them on in our texts, contexts, an

People often blame media for media trial. The origin of trial begins with our own fragmentary thoughts which anxiously blame others or at least like to avoid our own responsibility. Every socio-political, legal or religious institution is the mirror of what people think or like to do. Medium can't be blamed. The first change may be brought by our own conviction for the honesty, truth, and justice. The process of blaming is often underestimated. It is, in fact, a germinal base for avoiding the questions and its answers. Trial is essentially rooted in our culture. One likes to judge and this process doesn't start with self. It is often pursued to avoid or rather hide our own truth. We know not for the sake of extracting truth from falsehood; in fact, every limitation, dissection of truth-false dichotomy is the first step to efface the totality of truth. In modern paradigm, truth is not discovered rather invented and re-invented. There can't be a truth which is wishful or fanc

Picture's Source: Gettyimage K had a great gift of verbalising everything at the pretension of knowledge. He was fond of expression. But it seemed as if he had no question to answer. His friends used to consult him for their problems and he had the same old-school solution, though he was confident in expression, and this characteristic made him immensely popular. One day, a friend from the nearest town visited him and asked the solution about his dizziness, fear, and anxiety. K had all the theories to count on, from Freud, Jung, Adler to James Joyce and Jacques Lacan. He presented beautifully all the theories of psychopathology which made his friend anxious. He asked if these theories are any avail for someone? K replied, "These theories are the mirror of human's evolution, their problems and solutions. It will help you". His friend did not find any impact whatsoever of these theories upon him, except he felt the whole discourse very informative. He asked with amuseme

 कुछ धुँधली सी कुछ यादों सी वो शाम की ढ़लती आभा कई सवेरे हुए, अंधेरे हुए, पर वो रंग रही अभागा कई औघड़ देखा, कई रावण देखा हर मौसम में कई सावन देखा कुछ चलता गया कुछ रुक सा गया कुछ बादलों सा बरस सा गया चंद किस्से सही कभी अपने हुए कुछ किस्सों का साथी मैं बनता गया कुछ मिले भी नहीं और बिछड़ से गये कुछ बिछड़न में उनसे मिलना हुआ कई मंज़िलें मिली कुछ रास्ते मिले कुछ रास्तों की कोई ना मंज़िल मिली कई बहारों की गलियों में उदासी मिली कई बेचारों के छत बेसहारे मिले कुछ लिखता गया कुछ भूल सा गया मैं राही जो था बस चलता गया

हर विचार, व्यवहार के पीछे कोई वज़ह होती है, हर वज़ह में स्थित कोई सुलह होती है, जिसके दामन से ब्रह्याण्ड का जन्म हुआ था। हर बिखरे स्वरूप में, गहरे आकाश में, जीवन-रूपी असीमित ऊर्जा की धारा बह रही है। जिन्होंने इसे पदार्थ-रूपी देखा, उन्होंने पदार्थों की दुनिया बना दी। जिसने जीवन को मानव के केंद्र में रखा, उसने राजनीति बना दी। कल्याण और स्वच्छंदता कोई मनुष्य रूपी वरदान नहीं है, ब्रह्याण्ड का हर सूक्ष्म कण स्वतंत्र है। अहंकार का सृजन इस विचार से होता है कि सिर्फ हम हैं और हम ही हैं, जबकि सृष्टि में अहम का कोई स्थान नहीं है। ये नाम, वर्ग, पहचान एक कल्पना है, कोरी कल्पना, जिसके साथ संघर्ष में लीन ना जाने कितने दुःख उठाए गए हैं। संसार की सभी बेड़ियों में विचार का पहला स्थान है, जिसके क़ैद को भी सहर्ष स्वीकृति मिलती है। जीवन किसी विचार का गुलाम नहीं है, किसी संकल्प से बाँधा नहीं जा सकता, हाँ, स्वप्न में जीने वालों ने इसे स्वर्ग-नरक, अपने-पराए, और सुख-दुःख में बांट रखा है।