Selfishness...

In my personal opinion, which I know not many would agree... the word selfish is one of the most besmirched words. Further to add I wouldn't respite from adding that "selfishness is the crux to survival and extinction". I say extinction because, as i have already commented in my earlier posts, too much of anything is never good and that it often leads to results that can ever be treasured or cherished...
Now having laid the stage for my arguments, let me continue talking about the fundamental truth - "Selfishness". In my opinion, every being in this world is selfish and if that had not been the case, I doubt our existence and this blog that you r reading. Lets consider a hypothetical world (I call it so 'cos i believe dat selfless world can't exist) where each being is selfless and lets go of each and everything that they posses/possessed/will possess, then do you think the evolution would have happened? And in that case, we would have to redo our coursework for biology and the Darwinian theory which talks about the survival of the fittest. Now with that thought, lets move on the evolutionary track... since we know that all traits we possess are resultants of the evolutionary precess... and is the case with "selfishness'.
Now lets talk about ourselves, how many times in your (however many years u've walked this earth) have you done something big or small selfless... selfless which is marked by the distinction that u did not even derive pleasure out of the act (irrespective of the time frame when u get back the returns). What I want to point out is the fact that there is always a bigger picture to any relationship which at most instance is abstracted and only we know about...
Ok, now here is a thought... talking about people who say they do selfless social service... do you really think they are as selfless as they portray themselves....?

This is pretty unusual of me...

Well I really couldn't resist not having this life cycle of a blog on my page... i just had to have it...

Persecption...

Reality is just another perception of what the mind wants to see...

Perception defined in simple words as a way of conceiving something or becoming aware of something via the senses, conveys little about the use of the word. Perspective in my opinion is just the state of mind which only accepts what it likes or thinks is correct. Also considering the fact that we live a rather short life and we can't understand all the factors affecting a particular situation, it might at times be impossible that one knows all (i mean all) the information which would be necessary to make decisions. Thus in a way no decision can be 100% correct and that there is always a better decision than the best. In other words, every decision a human makes is based on what he perceives the world to be which is never too complete.

Considering the fact that there are about 6 Billion people in this world who are separated from each other by at the max 6 degrees, the influence of each human being on each other is both direct and indirect, implicit and explicit, and it would hence, at times be impossible for one to understand/gauge this indirect and implicit influence. Furthermore, each individual has a different perspective which arises from one's experience and learnings through the years spent understanding the complexities of this world we live in.

Yet again, the energies that relate us humans with our environment has a very important role to play. Where again what we perceive is what we see around us. Thus perception is not by chance it is a consolidated effect of all actions and reactions around us, including the intangible ones.

Sins...

If i were to say that "no man commits sins..." der might be a million people against me protesting dat wat I write here is incorrect...

Lets first analyze what Sins are... In my opinion, a sin is a deed committed by an individual such that it goes against the ethics or the code of conduct defined by a certain set of people of a particular region, sharing similar thoughts... and probably a similar past. Now if this definition is correct, it would inherently mean that the perception of the deed committed may differ from region to region... and culture to culture... which we know today is the fact!! thus... what is sin in a particular region may not be so in another... thus the whole idea of a sin is Flawed!!

Now going back to the Energy theory... which remains to be the essence of all my discussions... I would say that a balance in a system can be reached in two conditions... One in which, the entropy remains to be zero... which is not the case... or in the second case where... there is a constant pursuit towards attaining stability by means of canceling out on equal and opposite reactions... which seems much like the world we are in.... THUS!! not all individuals can perform good deeds... and there would be a need for some one to perform a sin (only one perspective is taken) Further, since each man performs tasks that he deems performable... it thus stands true that to that individual the task he performs in not a "Sin"... Consider a case of a war... where a soldier is prepared to kill the enemies... in this case.. the emotions are mutual at both ends... and that they are both performing their duties... Now who do you think is performing a SIN??

Extending the argument... in the event of the outbreak of a riot... each individual does what he thinks is right!! Even though he may be killing another individual (act of killing other humans is considered a Sin in most cultures around the world) he does not have second thoughts about it... And at this instance... it is more important to recognize the cause of the event... and that is where one would realize that the riot in place is just a balancing equation... just a small part of a much larger picture...

Thus to say... there is no such thing as a SIN!! each man does what he deems correct to him at a particular instance in time...

Love...

Every one falls in love... Sometimes the experiences are cherishing and sometimes not so cherishing... Irrespective if the fact that whether it lasts/or is cherishable or not, it leaves a mark, a mark that is not only irreversible, but a mark that that keeps reminding the individual about the good, not so good and the not so bad times of "union". The union that I refer to here is a state of mental and physical being such that the energy levels of the two balance out or in other words, reach an equilibrium by means of compensating for each others energy levels to reach an optimal level. This optimum level I assume to be a constant and the phase or period required to attain this equilibrium which i will from now on call the meta-phase of a relationship, is where the balance is being attempted to be reached; it is not so surprising that this phase is commonly known and is by a term called "compromise" which is a rather common word which we use in our day to day life which also means reaching agreements...

The success of a relationship depends on the magnitude or the length of this meta-phase where the individuals are assessing one another and derive mental calculations relating to the
probabilities of success that the balance in energies may be reached. And like any other meta-phase, if the duration of this phase is longer than the 'critical time' the probabilities of a success slenderize.

All this while I have had been talking about the couple as an isolated system which is not affected by any other external entity, which is never the case... which wasn't the case even with Adam n Eve... thus we have to take into account the possible effects of external forces। These external forces can be classified under three different categories... catalysts, retardants and the neutrals. As the names suggest these entities would influence the couple on subject in ways beyond imagination, and yet again, the same phenomenon of interaction as described above takes place... where either a balance is reached depending upon individual energy levels or the meta-phase lasts long enough that a compromise is not reachable; thus depending on the influence of the individuals in question the boat of love is steered... Further it is also important to note that the influence of external forces also depends on the number of individuals involved and their respective levels of energy...

Thus in a nut shell it would not be wrong in saying that love like any other phenomenon can be explained, just that we need to know the ingredients... and the ingredients in this case are the number of elements involved and their respective energy levels...

Endless Needs…

We often crib about what we don’t have, even though in a way don’t know exactly how our lives would be different had we had it, and also the effects or consequences of us possessing “it “at that point of time. A thought on this subject may in a way be hypothetical, or even be too far from reality, its just that, those times when we long for “that” something we don’t have is exactly when, we can do without it. This theoretical or philosophical view of mine can again be viewed with two perspectives, the first one and the more realistic, just though a little selfish one would be the individual’s perspective in one of “those” situations and the other would be a global perspective where the whole community/ society is taken into consideration. Now let us look at both these together in a system which by default is stable.

An individual in one of “those” situations is naturally inclined towards achieving what he/she as an individual doesn’t have in an efficient manner, and thus he/she is frustrated with life at that particular moment when he/she as an individual doesn’t have what he/she wants; but considering that he/she as an individual strives to achieve what he/she as an individual doesn’t have, then is when the difference is made. Upon performing “that” act, would they, as individuals realize that in the process of reaching the goal, they affected more lives than one in a way which could either be alterable of unalterable. Further it would be interesting to note that, as both these effects reach a greater magnitude of audience “which” in this case is participative in the act of the change, hence the distribution of the said energy affects more lives than one, again in either a positive or a negative manner such that it balances the total entropy of the system maintaining it a constant Zero and keeping it stable. Thus we can discuss that these effects of change (which shall in the following discussion be considered as an introduction of a new element into the old system in consideration) as a if brought about by an external system would not only disturb the system but will need the expulsion of an equally weighted influence from the earlier stable system. This would in-turn mean that this new change will though affect the individual positively; it may have a rather profound effect on the society. Also considering the effects of the expulsion of the said influence from the “new” system would require it to be balanced by new expulsion from the “old” system, which may not be an exact match. Thus this change will affect more lives than one and consequently being a disturbing element, it shall preferably not be considered. Further, to maintain the equilibrium of all the isolated systems, existing freely inside a large stable system it would require that all activities be performed such that they make efficient and diligent use of all resources contained in that sub-system.

Hence the conclusion that what is not there was never meant to be…