random thoughts:
i often think that a commonly seen realist is one who doesnt have any standrads in life. he keeps fickling from one thought to another, justifying each of his jump to being real 'coz thats what hapens in this world'. such a person can easily get misguided, or get on the wrong. the judgemental sense of mind should be expected to be lesser developed in a realist. on the other hand an idealist should not be understood as somebody very much dogmatic, or strict with the temporal behaviour, living life in some heaven. he is one who knows how the idealism is difficult, and in most cases, impossible, to achive. so he learns to bridge the gap of idealism and realism. in true sense, therefore, this is being an ideal 'realist'. most commonplace 'realist' are nothing but thugs and fools, trying to mask their foolishness under 'realism'. an ideal realist , in first place ,would never disagree to doing any un-ideal or the wrong things. better, he would be less defensive to his action, unlike the fake 'realist'. he would still be having a high sense of good judgements, even when in reality, he may be conducting himself contrary to it. his keenness to apply himself to attain idealism is another such telltaling ground from a fake realist. the latter take wrong acts earlier, faster and more easily than an ideal realist. to decide on most matters of life, some comparative standards are essential. otherwise, we all know and agree, that everything is relative or based on one's perception. so even the rights and wrongs would be relative, making everything and this world so conflicting and eventually so choatic. to resolve out this, we all set some standards, --some common standards, by which to differ the rights from wrongs. such standards are normally set as per the evolution of the encompassing society and culture. for example, most of our sandards, or ethos as we also know them as, come from the ramayana and the mahabharata. so much pronouncing is the influence of the relativity that these standards itself can undergo changes upon changes of living environment or the society. our corrupt and depraved society, thus has already started producing the 'fake' realist whose judgement standards itself has undergone mutation due to long years of corruption/malpratices pervading in the society n culture.
The man-woman relationship
My recent take on the subject:
1. Women, although they have ability to choice, but tend to act without choice in most cases. Anybody can make upto them with slight efforts. Men may be little more selective and promiscuous.
2. They tend to get most emotional, and almost get down to begging the man for ‘getting married’ just at the point they are getting physically intimate. This she may be doing without actual choice also, because the purpose is to save the ‘disgrace’ of getting intimate without the compliance of social restriction of ‘Marriage first’. Also, it becomes a justification for their compromise for their animal needs.
3. It is at this point that men may tend to get fooled by a woman’s emotions.
4. Social stability is as it is more of a woman’s need than men’s.
5. They want ‘it’ as much as men do. But changing partners may not be as much frequent as in men’s case. Perhaps, in each relationship, they pause to look around for social stability. Thankfully there are enough men to provide that.
6. And around certain age, say 30, even men tend to look for relation stability, perhaps realizing that old age is getting on in time to come.
7. With every failed relationship women try to act smarter by concluding that ‘having fun’ is the norm of the day. They tend to be promiscuous now. Easier to be ‘set’ by anybody at this point.
8. Men don’t like ‘fun loving’ women for marriage.
9. Men like to sing around their bed time conquest. Or make MMS, video clips etc. Women, even when they know its repercussions, may agree to getting one made. They may not hesitate going overboard to please their men. Webcam is also in, thus.
10. Nature’s design; even with the knowledge of most of the above points the system will continue as it is.
ps: at the time of writing the above i was imagining of a girl coming to me to seek justice after she was dithced by her lover.the lover was a close pal of mine, also my gender, so i had this feeling to defend him.
1. Women, although they have ability to choice, but tend to act without choice in most cases. Anybody can make upto them with slight efforts. Men may be little more selective and promiscuous.
2. They tend to get most emotional, and almost get down to begging the man for ‘getting married’ just at the point they are getting physically intimate. This she may be doing without actual choice also, because the purpose is to save the ‘disgrace’ of getting intimate without the compliance of social restriction of ‘Marriage first’. Also, it becomes a justification for their compromise for their animal needs.
3. It is at this point that men may tend to get fooled by a woman’s emotions.
4. Social stability is as it is more of a woman’s need than men’s.
5. They want ‘it’ as much as men do. But changing partners may not be as much frequent as in men’s case. Perhaps, in each relationship, they pause to look around for social stability. Thankfully there are enough men to provide that.
6. And around certain age, say 30, even men tend to look for relation stability, perhaps realizing that old age is getting on in time to come.
7. With every failed relationship women try to act smarter by concluding that ‘having fun’ is the norm of the day. They tend to be promiscuous now. Easier to be ‘set’ by anybody at this point.
8. Men don’t like ‘fun loving’ women for marriage.
9. Men like to sing around their bed time conquest. Or make MMS, video clips etc. Women, even when they know its repercussions, may agree to getting one made. They may not hesitate going overboard to please their men. Webcam is also in, thus.
10. Nature’s design; even with the knowledge of most of the above points the system will continue as it is.
ps: at the time of writing the above i was imagining of a girl coming to me to seek justice after she was dithced by her lover.the lover was a close pal of mine, also my gender, so i had this feeling to defend him.
Bhajji's punishment
(from orkut to blogs).... http://www.orkut.com/CommMsgs.aspx?cmm=41824382&tid=2576426728417585582&start=1
here is something new to munch> 3 Test ban on Harbhajjan Singh
It is fully agreed that such a ban at international level to any indian, cricket player or whatever, will reflect too bad on each of us, standing up against any kind of discrimination.
So, any act which may give any indication of discrimination, including racism, should be severey dealt with even by own people against us also.
The match at that high point had tension soaring high after the wrong dismissal of indian players. The frustation in india camp must have been palpable.
Before this, renowned news mags like India Today, has scathingly reported of racial remark and gestures by Indian crowd on Aussie player, Andrew Symonds, who is of Aboriginal background. The photgraphs of indian people, with arms turned in to scratch own arm pits was shown, to imitate monkeys, to tease Symonds. This was also felt so by the entire Aussie team.
Laddish Sreesanth, has openly thumped on the pitch squating down, knowingly or unknowingly , indicating primitive people or apes, a gesture which may get misread as racial remark.In the match in question, Bhajji is often shown taking two rolls on the ground, something like the Chimp of Tarzan, perhaps again to be misread as teasing mannerism. However, there are good odds, no wrong word might have been spelt out during verbal duel with Symonds, which was witnessed by the umpires, Clarke, Hussey n others. The full report on basis of awarding punishment to Bhajji is still not known.
By my understanding of international community's procedures to control such things in any multi-national environment including ship's, or other maybe ITs and ITES, it is the responsibility of the 'speaker' that his manners n words are not misread in this way. This is coz proving a word to be so, or not so, is very very difficult. So the onus has been put on the speaker also. If, in the professional judgement of the judges, there are odds of such slurrs then action is taken.Proofs are not awaited.
Comment, please.
(from orkut to blogs).... http://www.orkut.com/CommMsgs.aspx?cmm=41824382&tid=2576426728417585582&start=1
here is something new to munch> 3 Test ban on Harbhajjan Singh
It is fully agreed that such a ban at international level to any indian, cricket player or whatever, will reflect too bad on each of us, standing up against any kind of discrimination.
So, any act which may give any indication of discrimination, including racism, should be severey dealt with even by own people against us also.
The match at that high point had tension soaring high after the wrong dismissal of indian players. The frustation in india camp must have been palpable.
Before this, renowned news mags like India Today, has scathingly reported of racial remark and gestures by Indian crowd on Aussie player, Andrew Symonds, who is of Aboriginal background. The photgraphs of indian people, with arms turned in to scratch own arm pits was shown, to imitate monkeys, to tease Symonds. This was also felt so by the entire Aussie team.
Laddish Sreesanth, has openly thumped on the pitch squating down, knowingly or unknowingly , indicating primitive people or apes, a gesture which may get misread as racial remark.In the match in question, Bhajji is often shown taking two rolls on the ground, something like the Chimp of Tarzan, perhaps again to be misread as teasing mannerism. However, there are good odds, no wrong word might have been spelt out during verbal duel with Symonds, which was witnessed by the umpires, Clarke, Hussey n others. The full report on basis of awarding punishment to Bhajji is still not known.
By my understanding of international community's procedures to control such things in any multi-national environment including ship's, or other maybe ITs and ITES, it is the responsibility of the 'speaker' that his manners n words are not misread in this way. This is coz proving a word to be so, or not so, is very very difficult. So the onus has been put on the speaker also. If, in the professional judgement of the judges, there are odds of such slurrs then action is taken.Proofs are not awaited.
Comment, please.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)