The Rationalist and the Mystic

23 06 2005

The yin recited melodies;
Bombarment of feelings unexplainable.
The yang offended and deffended with arguements convincing.
But who defined the planes still remained a mystry.
And what ever they said, both went in harmony is all what I felt.

I can’t explain why I write this. May be because I’m overwhelmed by one of them (I mean in comparison). The issue so far had been discriminating Yin as “feminine” attitude and “Yang” as “masculine”. But aren’t there “yin” nature in males (biologically and psychologically) and “yang” in females too? I feel so. The classifications and discriminations come, once we look below that plane. The statistical classification of females being “yin” and males representing “yang” was only based on numbers that the people saw in their life time. If reality exists, I believe it shouldn’t based on numbers (those people could percieve only in their limited period of existance). And so far as we can’t percieve accurately, it is vagueness that rules (Theories came from vagueness!). But once theorised, they tend to reveal us more possibilites; at times of “deeper” confirmations or outright negations) . But his process has been going on in history since a long time that it resembles the mathematical concept of limit, although we can’t comment anything accurately on its direction in our limited time frame……

“Exact scientists” are not people who know everything within their bounderies (Who defined bounderies? Did we analyse all subtilities inside each boundry? ). But comparitively better than anybody else in a rational sense but still, at times never had a feeling of what exists (‘to know’ is different from ‘to feel’).

Yes, I’m vague; just because rationality has a so called precise language of expression (I don’t know if it really is). But “emotions” or “feelings” are unexpressable in human language; when people put exclamation marks! But those things convey to different people in a different sense, all the same conveying something.

There is a difference between exactness (as in “rationality”) and vagueness (as in “emotions”) which cannot be compared in the same plane (quite trivial might be). When I express it, I find no language. Exactly! No language to convey some things which can only be felt. Atleast, the only optimism for me (I’m also human – a blend of both yin and yang as all!) is that all people can feel, although in different ways. And what is wrong about being different apart from our ego (which all do possess)?

Let me be a perfectly human male now- A classification but no discrimination.

This just means that I’m trying to speak from my heart and senses as far as possible; that expression is lesser distorted by pretentions about how you would like to be.

Why do people hate classifications as such? Classicfication (not in the sense of artificial barriers like religion, caste or creed), as like many other human terminlogies, doesn’t mean anything pertaining to a social action or mentality. It is just a tool for “memory” (which at times decides the intensity of your affinity too). What is wrong is the discrimination on the basis of classification. Yes, what I mean to say is that “we have to discriminate between discrimination and classification“. People tend to use classification as tool to discrimate, as evident from history. A short term solution might be “removal of all classifications”. It would serve as long as all human beings be idealist. But as long as that doesn’t happen, the paradigm of “some animals are more equal” will always turn up. The ideal state which I can think about is, when people give no meaning to classification other than as a tool for “rationalist” thinking. I emphasize here that discrimination and more than that the ill-treatment, comes due to involvement the of emotions along with classifications.

Yes. people discrimate not based on any rational. For “2 > 1” gains a significance to affect life only when some emotions based on numbers get involved; that two is a “large” number. Large is something perfectly secular in mathematics. It doesn’t mean that something is “good” or “bad”. It is human consciousness that judges it. So a combination of emotions happen in our world so as to add adjectives. Yin adds “qualifications”, which form the spirit or emotions associated with every human being. While “Yang” form the meaning, which are our definitions. Both of them together make us! No discriminations here ………. Might be just that the people are different; made up of dissimilar combinations in a “rationalist” sense.

PS :- To Ashutosh – I thought of explaning my views, untill I found that mine couldn’t be. So language of “publication” (in any sense) cannot convey mine. They have to be felt. Atleast in one split second you did feel something inexplicable from here (IMSc), I guess ! (I believe you know what I’m talking about!). So somethings are simply unexplaninable by “rationality” (All though I do like to stick on to rationalism at some arbitrary points! But yes, still could feel a lot, although vaguely). I don’t think our language (any one for that matter) is that precise yet ……………!




6 responses

23 06 2005

My_views on classifications and discriminations follow. I’ll try to make things very clear and straight forward. And there might be certain notions with which you may not agree.

Classification involves partitioning (may not be a well defined partition) a class of objects on some basis. Like classifying people as men and women (not well defined!!??) or as belonging to a particular religion (not well defined) or to a particular country. No classification is precise; they simplify certain descriptions in many situations so they act as a handy tool to systematize a subject, like classifying different civilizations while studying history.
The aptness of a classification has to be judged by the precision in the definition of the underlying partition and the extent to which they simplify things.

Discrimination involves practising a certain class of views based on one of more classifications. The notion is subjective in that the choice of views may vary from person to person for a given classification. Everyone discriminates. No discrimination is apt or inapt. Aptnes doesn’t enter here.

One must classify to discriminate. This implies that the removal of all classifications ipso facto leads to removal of all discriminations.

I think that I must discriminate in the sense explained above. And I know that everybody does.

Some classifications are just good_for_nothing. Discriminating on their basis is undesirable too.
Some classifications are extremely ill-defined but I feel obliged to discriminate on their basis.

Every language has certain restrictions. And you might sometimes feel tempted to attribute your inability to understand what you are thinking to these restrictions. To know something without being able to express it is something extremely bad and rare. The thing is you have to know what you understand. And the notion of understanding shud be made as precise as possible.

23 06 2005
aYyApPaDaS a. M.

I agree with the first part. Your view point suits rationality. But is rationality the sole ingredient of life? The sole measure to percieve things? I disagree there.

Define pain? Define love? What guarantee do you have that a definition that you attribute to a feeling is universal? A simple term of ill-defined won’t suffice here. So I know exactly what I’m talking about. EXACTLY! (to the extend rational thinking permits, but never believe that it is my obligation to define it to anybody)

Some of your comments were out of place. It wasn’t the issue of the discussion here too. Obviously our views differ. You can’t live with vagueness and so it is a vice for you. But even when you cannot understand or feel my views I can feel yours. About why you are thinking in this manner. I disagree with you since it isn’t convincing for me. I repeat, “somethings have to be felt”.

And I’m sure all you tried was to put accross your views (which were already known to me). I wrote about “Yin and Yang” nature in all humans and that one is not the substitute of another or there exists no comparison between both. To understand that you have to feel it first.

23 06 2005

No. Rationality ain’t the sole aim in life. This does’t imply that we should not act rationally.

I never claimed that I could define everything. And the question of universality of these ideas doesn’t arise for everyone has his own way of interpreting these emotions.

I was not writing with an issue in my mind.

I like precision doesn’t mean that I can’t live with vagueness. But I’d continue to dislike it.

You said: Even when you can’t understand me I can feel your views. I would never make such a claim.

You said you disagree with me. Be explicit. Where do you disagree with me?

You assumed or incorrectly inferred many things from my statements. Please think before drawing any conclusions.

I never said “that which can be felt but can’t be expressed doesn’t exist”.

You keep on repeating that you know my views. And yet you persume so many incorrect things about my beliefs.

I am ignorant about “Yin and Yang” stuff.

I sometimes get a feeling that you either overemphasize the impossibility of avoiding vagueness or draw pleasure by being in a hazy state.

23 06 2005
aYyApPaDaS a. M.

Rationality is a nice thing which I would like to follow when my actions have a direct or percievable indirect social effect. It is better to have an argueably consistent yard stick to measure actions. But this is no yard stick to measure thoughts. I wouldn’t like to be entirely rational (neither enirely emotional) when I read a poem or enjoy the company of a friend. It is immaterial for me whether his views are precise or rational. Sure it does when his actions becomes a nuisance.

I said ” I can feel your views”. I understand the premises of your thoughts. I understand your reason for thinking that way (to some extend …). There is a huge difference between feeling something and understanding it. You can appreciate somethings which are felt even if it is contrary to your own views (to the extend you can understand).

And regarding the question where exactly do I disagree with you – We were talking in two different planes. That is why I emphasized the importance of feeling things. I have certains views which came from feelings (for that reason never bothered to convice others). You can call it arbitrary. It might be. But I don’t agree with this statement that all views of people are governed only by rational. Not even you as far as I have seen. Nothing bad in it too as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody else. We will discuss with more precision regarding “opinions” (or rather difference in opinions) later. It is subjective.

24 06 2005

I am taking a break. I suggest the same to you. Try “Hey Joe” by Jimi Hendrix. I liked it.

27 02 2006

This blog ##TITLE## is a great place for acne laser treatment. Thanks ##NAME##.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: