Bigotry (बिगेट ) का अर्थ हिंदी भाषा के शब्दकोशों में कट्टर, अड़ियल इत्यादि दिया गया है । मगर भाषा-अनुवाद की असल दुविधा यह रहती है की न सिर्फ शब्द, वरन उसके सही भाव को भी अनुवाद करी गयी भाषा में परिवर्तित करना चाहिए । उदहारण के लिया अब Bigot को ही ले लीजिये । बाज़ार में उपलब्ध शब्दकोष के माध्यम से तो कोई भी छात्र यह समझ लेगा की जो व्यक्ति किसी वस्तु को पाने के लिए हट करे जब वह वस्तु उसे प्राप्त नहीं हो सकती तब वह Bigot हुआ ।
है, की नहीं? अब खुद ही सोचिये , “अड़ियल” से तो कुछ भाव ऐसा ही आता है । या फिर की ....वह व्यक्ति जो सिर्फ अपनी ही चलता है वह Bigot है । अब यह अर्थ सुनने के बाद कौन पसंद करेगा एक समालोचनात्मक चिंतन के भाव में अपने मस्तिष्क को डाल कर यह प्रशन करना की अगर “बिगेट” का अर्थ होता है 'वह जो सिर्फ हर समय अपनी ही चलता है ', तब फिर यह कैसे तय होगा की किस विषय में या किसी परिस्थिति में किसकी चलनी चाहिए ।
साधारणतः , हम लोग बिगेट से अर्थ निकलते है , "जिद्दी", या फिर "हट्टी "।
और फिर जिद्दी का अर्थ समझने के लिए अपने बाल्य काल का उदाहरण ले लेते है की जब हम एक खिलौना चाहिए था जो हमने पिता हमे नहीं दिल सकते थे , मगर फिर भी हम उनसे उस खिलौने के मांग बार बार करते है तब हम "हट्टी " हुए ।
और जब थोडा बड़े हो गए और फिर किसी दिन कहीं जाने की या कुछ पाने की मांग बार बार करी तब हम "जिद्दी " हो गए ।
यानी 'जिद्दी' और 'हट्टी' में मुख्य अंतर मांग करने वाले की आयु का है ।
धीरे-धीरे हमारा मस्तिष्क ऐसा ही समझने लगता है ।
मगर ऐसा नहीं है । 'बिगेट' का अर्थ है वह जो किसी एक ख़ास पंक्ति पर ही न्याय की स्थिति को देखता है ।
जैसे की, हमे बचपन से यह सिखाया जाता है की "माता-पिता का आदर करना चाहिए"। या की "संसार में माता-पिता से अधिक मूल्यवान और सत्य प्रेम करने वाला कोई नहीं होता "। ऐसे में जब हम वास्तविक जीवन में यदि किसी परिथिति में माता-पिता को कोई अन्याय करते देखें मगर उसका विरोध न करे क्योंकि वह उनका अनादर होगा तब हम स्वयं न्याय को तलाशना बंद चुके होंगे और एक अड़ियल व्यक्ति हो जायेंगे जो यह मानता है की 'उसके माता-पिता तो कभी कोई गलत या अन्याय कर ही नहीं सकते '।
यह ‘बिगेट’ यानि अड़ियल का सही भाव है ।
गौर करने की बात यह है की अड़ियलता का भाव अक्सर कर के धार्मिक संस्कारों में 'गुण' और 'दुर्गुण' के ज्ञान से विकसित होता है जब हम किसी ख़ास मनो भाव में,तर्क को मात देते हुए , किसी क्रिया के होने या न होने से 'गुण ' और 'दुर्गुण ' की पहचान करने लगते है । जैसे की जो बड़ों के या की माता-पिता के पैर नहीं छूता , वह दुर्गुण है , इत्यादि । धार्मिक भाव में गुण और दुर्गुण को चिन्हित करना , तर्क और न्याय की बदलती परिस्थिति को समझे बिना, अड़ियलता है।
अंतर-व्यक्ति विवाद का एक कारण
अंतर-व्यक्ति विवाद का एक कारण यह भी है की मानव संवाद, ख़ास कर जो हिंदी भाषा में है , वह वस्तु-विशेष से सिद्धांत-विशेष होने की त्रज्य में होता है जिसमे वाद-विवाद में समल्लित व्यक्ति एक दूसरे को क्रोधित ही कर रहे होते हैं , सामने खड़ी समस्या को सामूहिक तौर पर सुलझा नहीं होते ।
यह उदहारण देखिये -
रमेश :- राम, आज कर तुम सिगरेट बहोत पी रहे हो ।
सुरेश :- नहीं भाई, मैं बस तुम्हारे साथ ही पीता हूँ ।
रमेश (एक मजाकिया स्वर में):- तो क्या जो मेरे साथ सिगरेट पीता है वह कभी भी ज्यादा सिगरेट नहीं पीता?
उपर्युक्त उधाहरण में रमेश तीसरी पंक्ति के संवाद में बहोत ही चपलता से एक वस्तु-विशेष संवाद से एक सिद्धांत-विशेष संवाद में जा कर एक प्रकार का व्यंग रचता है । हालाँकि इस अनुछेद में व्यंग को स्पष्ट भी कर दिया गया है "एक मजाकिया स्वर में" को लिख कर, मगर दिन-प्रतिदिन के संवाद में मनुष्य यह व्यंगात्मक त्रुटी हर बार सफलता से पकड़ नहीं पाता, और एक आपसी विवाद में पड़ जाता है जब हो सकता है की सुरेश कुछ यु उत्तर देता -
सुरेश :- क्यों, जो तुम्हारे साथ में ही पी रहा हो , वो तुम्हारे से ज्यादा तो पी ही नहीं सकता, कम भले ही पी ले अगर तुम्हार साथ की एक भी सिगरेट का संग छोड़ दे तो ।
रमेश और सुरेश यहाँ से एक विवाद की दिशा में अग्रसर हो जायेंगे,यह प्रमाणित करने में की क्या सुरेश ने ज्यादा सिगरेट पी है, या फिर की , क्या रमेश भी ज्यादा सिगरेट पीता है , या फिर की रमेश सुरेश पर यह इलज़ाम कैसे लगा सकता है जब की वह खुद भी इतनी ही पीता है, इत्यादि । रमेश और सुरेश के बीच के होने वाले विवाद में इस तरह के अनगिनत पहलू तैयार हो सकते है और सिद्धन्त में इनमे से किसी भी विवाद को कोई न्याय नहीं है, कोई हल नहीं है । सिद्धांत , यानी दर्शन शास्त्र में ऐसे विवादों का वस्तु-विशेष हल ही जाना जाता है , और यहाँ हम एक वस्तु-विशेष समस्या को सिद्धांत-विशेष बना कर उसका हल दूंढ रहे होते हैं ।
यह उदहारण देखिये -
रमेश :- राम, आज कर तुम सिगरेट बहोत पी रहे हो ।
सुरेश :- नहीं भाई, मैं बस तुम्हारे साथ ही पीता हूँ ।
रमेश (एक मजाकिया स्वर में):- तो क्या जो मेरे साथ सिगरेट पीता है वह कभी भी ज्यादा सिगरेट नहीं पीता?
उपर्युक्त उधाहरण में रमेश तीसरी पंक्ति के संवाद में बहोत ही चपलता से एक वस्तु-विशेष संवाद से एक सिद्धांत-विशेष संवाद में जा कर एक प्रकार का व्यंग रचता है । हालाँकि इस अनुछेद में व्यंग को स्पष्ट भी कर दिया गया है "एक मजाकिया स्वर में" को लिख कर, मगर दिन-प्रतिदिन के संवाद में मनुष्य यह व्यंगात्मक त्रुटी हर बार सफलता से पकड़ नहीं पाता, और एक आपसी विवाद में पड़ जाता है जब हो सकता है की सुरेश कुछ यु उत्तर देता -
सुरेश :- क्यों, जो तुम्हारे साथ में ही पी रहा हो , वो तुम्हारे से ज्यादा तो पी ही नहीं सकता, कम भले ही पी ले अगर तुम्हार साथ की एक भी सिगरेट का संग छोड़ दे तो ।
रमेश और सुरेश यहाँ से एक विवाद की दिशा में अग्रसर हो जायेंगे,यह प्रमाणित करने में की क्या सुरेश ने ज्यादा सिगरेट पी है, या फिर की , क्या रमेश भी ज्यादा सिगरेट पीता है , या फिर की रमेश सुरेश पर यह इलज़ाम कैसे लगा सकता है जब की वह खुद भी इतनी ही पीता है, इत्यादि । रमेश और सुरेश के बीच के होने वाले विवाद में इस तरह के अनगिनत पहलू तैयार हो सकते है और सिद्धन्त में इनमे से किसी भी विवाद को कोई न्याय नहीं है, कोई हल नहीं है । सिद्धांत , यानी दर्शन शास्त्र में ऐसे विवादों का वस्तु-विशेष हल ही जाना जाता है , और यहाँ हम एक वस्तु-विशेष समस्या को सिद्धांत-विशेष बना कर उसका हल दूंढ रहे होते हैं ।
a collection of Sophist arguments
read the image below. What sort of logical conclusion can your derive from it?
___________________________________________________________________________
a Sophist-like quote. Or maybe something which the Socrates , if he did so about which I have doubts, said in response to some Sophist action. Such viewpoints only contribute to stifle free speech, people's thoughtful self , and in a very intricate way , put a brake on Enquiry and Reason. Some people react to such quote by stopping to answer or even to accept those for an Answer which have already been time tested and well - founded, well- reasoned.
___________________________________________________________________________
a Sophist-like quote. Or maybe something which the Socrates , if he did so about which I have doubts, said in response to some Sophist action. Such viewpoints only contribute to stifle free speech, people's thoughtful self , and in a very intricate way , put a brake on Enquiry and Reason. Some people react to such quote by stopping to answer or even to accept those for an Answer which have already been time tested and well - founded, well- reasoned.
Compulsory teaching of the spirit of Freedom!
Maharashtra Government makes it compulsory to recite Preamble to Constitution in the schools.
Isn't the very notion of making a thing *Compulsory or putting a ban/censoring* a thing the very opposite of the idea which the Constitution would want to sow into the people- that Spirit of Freedom. thinking minds say that the best way to teach the spirit of freedom is by rendering Help, a help to each person so that he may *discover for himself* that spirit of freedom. Schools may teach that as a regular curriculum , but a Compulsory teaching is , in a sense, the very violation of the idea these future citizens are expected to absorb.
The neo-commercialized offers very little in the name of freedom. It is rather impossible to know whether the game of cricket is being so excessively played because the people like to watch the game , or because it is being so excessively played so the citizens have least choices on the television to watch but this game.Freedom, hobbies , likes, dislikes are all so commercialised choices. Rather, it has become a question to own self if we have a choice remaining within us at all.
Has the commerce become the new trap of ensalving the free spirit of Man? An occasion when your choices , likes and dislikes are done so much in excess that you rather forget to think whether you like it , or dislike it, the when's and the why's. The better way to imbibe and preserve the spirit of freedom was by way of giving a leisure time, a time to explore (making sure that we DON'T push the students to explore) their own choices likes and dislikes in things they have around. The inculcation of a hobby is the spark that will ignite freedom in students.
Isn't the very notion of making a thing *Compulsory or putting a ban/censoring* a thing the very opposite of the idea which the Constitution would want to sow into the people- that Spirit of Freedom. thinking minds say that the best way to teach the spirit of freedom is by rendering Help, a help to each person so that he may *discover for himself* that spirit of freedom. Schools may teach that as a regular curriculum , but a Compulsory teaching is , in a sense, the very violation of the idea these future citizens are expected to absorb.
The neo-commercialized offers very little in the name of freedom. It is rather impossible to know whether the game of cricket is being so excessively played because the people like to watch the game , or because it is being so excessively played so the citizens have least choices on the television to watch but this game.Freedom, hobbies , likes, dislikes are all so commercialised choices. Rather, it has become a question to own self if we have a choice remaining within us at all.
Has the commerce become the new trap of ensalving the free spirit of Man? An occasion when your choices , likes and dislikes are done so much in excess that you rather forget to think whether you like it , or dislike it, the when's and the why's. The better way to imbibe and preserve the spirit of freedom was by way of giving a leisure time, a time to explore (making sure that we DON'T push the students to explore) their own choices likes and dislikes in things they have around. The inculcation of a hobby is the spark that will ignite freedom in students.
Tipping/gift is essential to business, not bribery
Tipping is an essential part of conducting businesses. When a person feels please or grateful to someone for the service the other has rendered, he expresses this pleasure or gratefulness by giving him a gift. Tipping originates from giving a small gift to someone lower in the rank and who is likely to be getting less salaries. Compliments are an extension of the same idea relevant for people of higher ranks, who have been useful in accomplishing some task. Bakhshish and Touffa are the Arabic word for these same notions.
The critical challenge is essentially about differentiating a Gift/Tip from a Bribe. Essentially, bribe refers to payments to a government officials for doing manipulations in his regular duty, or even to private company employees for 'adjusting' his decisions.
The law in general honours the notions accepted and practised in the society. Therefore , it does not forbid the very notion of gift/tip exchange altogether, but puts a condition tag of making the public-declaration of this exchange so to help clearly differ it from a Bribe. as a matter of fact, the bribe givers had earlier, in the past, conducted their exchange using gift/tip as the camouflage. In the more recent years, the corrupt have discovered an advanced technique of accomplishing the unlawful exchange. The exchange today is via an apparently lawful looking business like the purchases of some wasteful commodity from the receiver of the bribe at an unusually high price. The higher price is the method of transmitting the bribe to the receiver, who acts as the seller of the goods.
In the affairs, what stands outright is the fact that tipping and gift exchanges are not illegal per se.
The other obstruction to the idea of giving tip/gift as a business exchange is the socialist and communist ideology where all businesses are deemed to be a part of the state's resources. Therefore everyone is supposedly a paid employee of the state, both the business/service seeker and the service giver. Resultant belief is that there is no argument to feel pleased with someone personalized or impersonalised service because all services are a part of the government nominated duties. The argument for not giving gift/tip is that 'you have just done your duty for which you are being given a salary''.
As is obvious, the liberal Democractic beliefs discard this argument where businesses, many of them, Infact hinge on the 'pleased' responses of the customers. Why and how will an individual start or even think of setting a business of washing your car, or giving a wash to your dog unless he has a means to judge that some people are actually 'pleased' with such services and ready to pay , even if in terms of gift/tip, to the service giver. Obvious enough, in a socialist/communist state, the state is not going to organise such business. Such business can hardly find their origin roots in these states. If these business make big in liberal Democractic world, the socialist/communist are likely to follow suit.
the above can reveal why even the perfectly socialist/communist states are also difficult to find long term existence. This ,in turn, might explain why gift/tip cannot be done away with from human society.
However, some distractors use the above argument to suggest that corruption/bribe is also an essential part of the businesses. Truth could rather be indeed restrained, that since gift/tip cannot be differed away, bribe will remain out from being perfectly abolished.
The critical challenge is essentially about differentiating a Gift/Tip from a Bribe. Essentially, bribe refers to payments to a government officials for doing manipulations in his regular duty, or even to private company employees for 'adjusting' his decisions.
The law in general honours the notions accepted and practised in the society. Therefore , it does not forbid the very notion of gift/tip exchange altogether, but puts a condition tag of making the public-declaration of this exchange so to help clearly differ it from a Bribe. as a matter of fact, the bribe givers had earlier, in the past, conducted their exchange using gift/tip as the camouflage. In the more recent years, the corrupt have discovered an advanced technique of accomplishing the unlawful exchange. The exchange today is via an apparently lawful looking business like the purchases of some wasteful commodity from the receiver of the bribe at an unusually high price. The higher price is the method of transmitting the bribe to the receiver, who acts as the seller of the goods.
In the affairs, what stands outright is the fact that tipping and gift exchanges are not illegal per se.
The other obstruction to the idea of giving tip/gift as a business exchange is the socialist and communist ideology where all businesses are deemed to be a part of the state's resources. Therefore everyone is supposedly a paid employee of the state, both the business/service seeker and the service giver. Resultant belief is that there is no argument to feel pleased with someone personalized or impersonalised service because all services are a part of the government nominated duties. The argument for not giving gift/tip is that 'you have just done your duty for which you are being given a salary''.
As is obvious, the liberal Democractic beliefs discard this argument where businesses, many of them, Infact hinge on the 'pleased' responses of the customers. Why and how will an individual start or even think of setting a business of washing your car, or giving a wash to your dog unless he has a means to judge that some people are actually 'pleased' with such services and ready to pay , even if in terms of gift/tip, to the service giver. Obvious enough, in a socialist/communist state, the state is not going to organise such business. Such business can hardly find their origin roots in these states. If these business make big in liberal Democractic world, the socialist/communist are likely to follow suit.
the above can reveal why even the perfectly socialist/communist states are also difficult to find long term existence. This ,in turn, might explain why gift/tip cannot be done away with from human society.
However, some distractors use the above argument to suggest that corruption/bribe is also an essential part of the businesses. Truth could rather be indeed restrained, that since gift/tip cannot be differed away, bribe will remain out from being perfectly abolished.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)