जहाँ हम भारत वर्ष के नागरिक अभी तक इसी सच को समझने में लगे हैं की कैसे राजा-रजवाड़ों के ज़माने अब अतीत में जा चुके हैं , आधुनिक युग प्रजातंत्र का युग है , - प्रजातंत्र व्यवस्था के सर्वप्रथम पालक - ब्रिटेन - में राजा-रजवाड़ों की व्यवस्था को बहुत चतुराई से प्रजातंत्र से संगम कर के प्रयोग किया गया है की जिस से की धर्म , नैतिकता और सत्य को किसी भी प्रकार के कूटनैतिक शिकस्त से संरक्षण हमेशा के लिए मिला रहे । ब्रिटेन प्रजातंत्र (democracy) होने के साथ-साथ एक 'राज-तंत्र' (monarchy) राष्ट्र भी है । जहाँ भारत एक 'गणतंत्र' (republic) व्यवस्था का पालक है , और देश का 'प्रथम व्यक्ति , देश प्रमुख' एक चुनावी क्रिया से तय किया हुआ व्यक्ति होता है , जिसे हम "राष्ट्रपति" कह कर संबोधित करते है , ब्रिटेन में देश का 'प्रथम व्यक्ति , देश प्रमुख' वहां पर सदियों से चले आ रहे राज शाशक , वहां के सम्राट होते है ।
ब्रिटेन में संसद भवन नाम की व्यवस्था वहां के पारंपरिक शाशक , यानि सम्राट (महाराज /अथवा महारानी , जैसे मौजूदा में महारानी एलिज़ाबेथ ), की शक्तियों को दिशा नियंत्रित करने के लिए बनाया गया था ।
भारत की ही भाँती ब्रिटेन की संसद में सदस्य एक 'आम चुनाव' की प्रक्रिया से जीत कर आते हैं । वह विभिन्न गुटों (political parties ) में बंट कर चुनाव में शमलित होते हैं , और सबसे अधिक सदस्यों वाला गुट सरकार बनता है और प्रधान मंत्री चुनता है ।
तो जहाँ देश के प्रमुख एक 'सम्राट' होता है , उनका 'प्रधान मंत्री' (वजीर-ए-आला ) एक आम जनता से आया व्यक्ति होता है ।
ब्रिटेन की व्यवस्था में भी भारत की ही तरह सभी कानून , निति-विधान को वहां के "सम्राट " से पारित हो कर ही लागू करने में लिया जाता है ।
मगर ब्रिटेन और भारत की व्यवस्था में यहाँ थोडा-सा मगर बहोत महतवपूर्ण अंतर हैं । चुकी वहां "सम्राट" की 'राज-व्यवस्था' है , वहां के 'सम्राट' को अपने जागृत , चैतन्य मस्तिष्क और हृदय से संसद द्वारा प्रस्तावित नियम को पारित या परास्त करने में कोई हिचक नहीं होती । वह आजीवन वहां का सम्राट रहने वाला है , और उसके उपरान्त उसकी पीड़ी , उसकी संतानें ! (यानि की पीड़ी-वाद )।
इसके मुकाबले भारत में "राष्ट्रपति" की पदवी खुद संसद की और बहुमत राजनैतिक गुट की मोहताज़ होती है की कहीं किसी संसद से (यानि बहुमत वाली पार्टी से ) प्रस्तावित निति को खंडित करा तब पता नहीं वह अगली बार राष्ट्र पति बने या नहीं । दूसरे शब्दों में "राष्ट्रपति" का स्वतंत्र मस्तिष्क , चेतना , हृदय खुद किसी का बंधक होता है । अभी हाल के दो "राष्ट्रपति" ने तो पद ग्रहण के बाद सबसे पहले राजनैतिक गुट के शीर्ष नेता को अपना आभार व्यक्त किया की इनकी बदौलत ही तो वह राष्ट्रपति बन सके। इनके आगे के कर्मों ने भी यही संकेत दिए की यह राष्ट्रपति स्वतंत्र चैतन्य की रक्षा कर सकने के काबिल नहीं थे ।
राष्ट्रपति ए पी जे अबुल कलम शायद अकेले ऐसे राष्टपति थे जिन्होंने एक प्रस्तावित विधेयक पर यह कह कर हस्ताक्षर माना कर दिया था की वह विधेयक "अनैतिक , धर्म-संगत " (moral propriety ) नहीं था । कलाम साहब को किसी ख़ास वोट-वर्ग को आकर्षित करने के चक्कर में राष्ट्रपति बना देने की 'गलती हुयी थी' , वह दुबारा राष्ट्र पति नहीं बनने वाले पहले कुछ शख्स में थे ।
इसी "पराधीन राष्ट्रपति " की परिपाटी में राष्ट्रपति फखरुद्दीन का नाम सबसे "उच्च" है । प्रधानमंत्री इंदिरा गाँधी नें मध्य-रात्रि में ही इन्हें नींद से जगा कर देश में इमरजेंसी लगाने वाले विधेयक पर हस्ताक्षर करवा लिए थे । सोचिये की क्या यह काम ब्रिटेन में वहां का प्रधान मंत्री क्या वहां के 'सम्राट' से कभी करवा पायेगा ।
भारत के गणतंत्रता के शुरूआती दौर के चिंतकों को भविष्य में "राष्ट्रपति" पद के इस 'स्वाभाविक पराधीन' होने की गुंजाइश का संज्ञान था । इसलिए उस समय की संसद ने यह परिपाटी के चलन को अपनाया था की 'राष्ट्रपति' एक राजनैतिक गुट से बहार का व्यक्ति होगा (non-partisan ) और जहाँ तक हो सके किसी विश्वविद्यालय का संचालक । राष्ट्रपति राजेंद्र प्रसाद के बाद डा राधाकृष्णन और फिर डा जाकिर हुसैन इसी परिपाटी के तेहत ही राष्ट्रपति बने थे ।
मगर इसके उपरांत राजनैतिक गुटों ने चुपके से इस परिपाटी को बदल लिया और राष्ट्रपति पद भी गुटों के उम्मीदवारों का गिरवी हो चला ।
अब आज तो आलम यह है की संसद, निति-निर्माण , विधेयक, राष्ट्रपति और राष्ट्रपति का आत्म-चिंतन-- सब के सब राजनैतिक गुटों के गुलाम हो गए हैं । शायद इनको अनैतिक , अधार्मिक होने से रोक सकने का कोई तरीका ही नहीं बचा है । मौजूदा वोट-बैंक समीकरण में तो शायद यह संभव नहीं है की इन गुटों पर लगाम लगायी जा सके । भविष्य में पता नहीं 'देश ' बचेगा भी की नहीं ।
Joining merchant navy profession with the emotional attributes of joining services to his country !
I think it is important to understand how a 'Service' differs from a 'Profession'.
Word 'Service' has different meanings in different context. In the broadest of meanings of 'Service or Profession', everything that a person does is , in a way, a service to his society. 'Profession or service' (used alternately) refers to any job outside of the two most commonest method of earning food seen in nature - Hunting and Agriculture. In this very broad meaning, All people who are not a Hunter or an Agriculturist (A farmer) are a 'Professional or service' class of human.
But when it comes to Economics of modern times as the context, a person can be 'dealing in certain goods' , or he could be 'dealing in services'. Thus, for an example, a person can be selling wheat, rice, grains, general provisions, cars, vehicles. These are 'goods', and he would call himself a 'businessman'. Another person could be doing occupation of plumbing, masonry, carpenter, doctor, nurse, engineer. he would call himself a 'in service/profession'. (implying, he is not a businessman).
In Economics, the balances of Trade are affected by either 'goods', or 'by services'. India has a large 'service sector' whereby it means that India has large human resources, working outside of Business and agriculture (the farming), which make a significant contribution to the 'balance of trade' of our country.
In government context, 'services' refers to those jobs where a person is in direct employment of a government organisation, thereby giving his 'services' to the general public and the government. His salary is derived from the taxpayers . He is assured of a payment by the Government, and he is guaranteed of certain privileges, certain Honors and Medals for giving 'services'. Examples of 'services' in context of Government organisation are : Civil Services, Military servicess, the Office Staffs, The politicians, and all that.
'Profession or service' (used alternately) refers to any job outside of the two most commonest method of earning food seen in nature - Hunting and Agriculture. In this very broad meaning, All people who are not a Hunter or an Agriculturist (A farmer) are a 'Professional or service' class of human. But with respect to a government organisation, a 'Profession' is those jobs which are meant to earn food(by way of earning Money), by selling 'one's superior skills in certain field'. Thus, for example, Doctors, Medicine, Merchant Navy, lawyers, plumber, carpenter, masonry, - are all 'professions', in contrast to 'services'.
The above difference is important to be understood when it comes to understanding how the Tax Laws have been framed different for the 'services' people and the 'professionals'.
It is important to note that certain times an occupation could be a 'service' or a 'profession' just by a small change in the nature of the organisation the person is attached to. Thus, a doctor working in a private hospital is a 'professional' , where another doctor in a Government run hospital is in 'services' . You can notice that doctors of private hospital are paid more money, but at the risk of losing jobs any time , say if the hospital runs into financial crisis. He can refuse to not to work in hard , rural areas. He will demand excessive money and might give treatment only to rich people who can pay him well. A doctor in a Government hospital has not so many privileges , for he is almost duty-bound to give his 'services' to all the citizens of the country- rich or poor, and at the fixed rate declared by the government. He earns less money, but his salaries are guaranteed. He cannot be expelled from his job, no matter the hospital is earning good or not. His salaries can be paid by the Government from their ex-chequer.
The consumer protection laws and the labour laws also vary slightly in regard to 'Services' and 'Profession'. A Government doctor cannot be easily prosecuted for a negligence, whereas a private doctor in a private hospital can be. A 'services' doctor cannot reject a duty , and cannot demand salaries equivalent to a 'professional' doctor, through the labour laws negotiations. He can however go on a strike in a collective bargaining action. 'Professional' doctors are employed 'on contract' or 'articles of agreement'- hired. They cannot go on strike, as a logical consequence. The payment of a professional doctor is a factor of market demand and supply; and of the monetary value of the skills he possesses. A 'service' doctor is employed by the Government, and therefore is 'in services'.
Labour laws grant for different types of labour exploitation protections to a 'professional' , and different ones to 'services'.
This understanding of the differences between Services and Profession, is also essential so to correctly apply the *emotional attributes* by our young friends coming from a school or a college, when they are on crossroads to choose a career. It is common to see that young people are mistakenly bearing the dedication, heart and a burning desire to join a 'profession', as if they are wanting to join a 'services to their country.'
Young people offering to compromise on salaries, or the rest-hours in order to join a 'profession', is a juxtaposition of a 'services' emotional attributes at a wrong place. In a way, this behavior is a direct statement to offer violating the Government Laws in regard to Labour Exploitation Protection. Employment scarcity often causes young candidates to show extreme dedication towards their potential 'employer'. Hence they make the offer , thinking that they are only being sincere , and dedicating to join the 'services' (which is correctly to called a 'profession'). But from the Labour Laws point of view, these people have offered themselves to be exploited, and also put a risk on the Government body on how to stop such exploitation. Often times when young candidates making such offers are holding a high qualified 'professional' degrees, the Government officials will be in a bigger trouble to figure out how to prevent a possible exploitation of an educated, high qualified , person who is himself willing to be exploited !
Word 'Service' has different meanings in different context. In the broadest of meanings of 'Service or Profession', everything that a person does is , in a way, a service to his society. 'Profession or service' (used alternately) refers to any job outside of the two most commonest method of earning food seen in nature - Hunting and Agriculture. In this very broad meaning, All people who are not a Hunter or an Agriculturist (A farmer) are a 'Professional or service' class of human.
But when it comes to Economics of modern times as the context, a person can be 'dealing in certain goods' , or he could be 'dealing in services'. Thus, for an example, a person can be selling wheat, rice, grains, general provisions, cars, vehicles. These are 'goods', and he would call himself a 'businessman'. Another person could be doing occupation of plumbing, masonry, carpenter, doctor, nurse, engineer. he would call himself a 'in service/profession'. (implying, he is not a businessman).
In Economics, the balances of Trade are affected by either 'goods', or 'by services'. India has a large 'service sector' whereby it means that India has large human resources, working outside of Business and agriculture (the farming), which make a significant contribution to the 'balance of trade' of our country.
In government context, 'services' refers to those jobs where a person is in direct employment of a government organisation, thereby giving his 'services' to the general public and the government. His salary is derived from the taxpayers . He is assured of a payment by the Government, and he is guaranteed of certain privileges, certain Honors and Medals for giving 'services'. Examples of 'services' in context of Government organisation are : Civil Services, Military servicess, the Office Staffs, The politicians, and all that.
'Profession or service' (used alternately) refers to any job outside of the two most commonest method of earning food seen in nature - Hunting and Agriculture. In this very broad meaning, All people who are not a Hunter or an Agriculturist (A farmer) are a 'Professional or service' class of human. But with respect to a government organisation, a 'Profession' is those jobs which are meant to earn food(by way of earning Money), by selling 'one's superior skills in certain field'. Thus, for example, Doctors, Medicine, Merchant Navy, lawyers, plumber, carpenter, masonry, - are all 'professions', in contrast to 'services'.
The above difference is important to be understood when it comes to understanding how the Tax Laws have been framed different for the 'services' people and the 'professionals'.
It is important to note that certain times an occupation could be a 'service' or a 'profession' just by a small change in the nature of the organisation the person is attached to. Thus, a doctor working in a private hospital is a 'professional' , where another doctor in a Government run hospital is in 'services' . You can notice that doctors of private hospital are paid more money, but at the risk of losing jobs any time , say if the hospital runs into financial crisis. He can refuse to not to work in hard , rural areas. He will demand excessive money and might give treatment only to rich people who can pay him well. A doctor in a Government hospital has not so many privileges , for he is almost duty-bound to give his 'services' to all the citizens of the country- rich or poor, and at the fixed rate declared by the government. He earns less money, but his salaries are guaranteed. He cannot be expelled from his job, no matter the hospital is earning good or not. His salaries can be paid by the Government from their ex-chequer.
The consumer protection laws and the labour laws also vary slightly in regard to 'Services' and 'Profession'. A Government doctor cannot be easily prosecuted for a negligence, whereas a private doctor in a private hospital can be. A 'services' doctor cannot reject a duty , and cannot demand salaries equivalent to a 'professional' doctor, through the labour laws negotiations. He can however go on a strike in a collective bargaining action. 'Professional' doctors are employed 'on contract' or 'articles of agreement'- hired. They cannot go on strike, as a logical consequence. The payment of a professional doctor is a factor of market demand and supply; and of the monetary value of the skills he possesses. A 'service' doctor is employed by the Government, and therefore is 'in services'.
Labour laws grant for different types of labour exploitation protections to a 'professional' , and different ones to 'services'.
This understanding of the differences between Services and Profession, is also essential so to correctly apply the *emotional attributes* by our young friends coming from a school or a college, when they are on crossroads to choose a career. It is common to see that young people are mistakenly bearing the dedication, heart and a burning desire to join a 'profession', as if they are wanting to join a 'services to their country.'
Young people offering to compromise on salaries, or the rest-hours in order to join a 'profession', is a juxtaposition of a 'services' emotional attributes at a wrong place. In a way, this behavior is a direct statement to offer violating the Government Laws in regard to Labour Exploitation Protection. Employment scarcity often causes young candidates to show extreme dedication towards their potential 'employer'. Hence they make the offer , thinking that they are only being sincere , and dedicating to join the 'services' (which is correctly to called a 'profession'). But from the Labour Laws point of view, these people have offered themselves to be exploited, and also put a risk on the Government body on how to stop such exploitation. Often times when young candidates making such offers are holding a high qualified 'professional' degrees, the Government officials will be in a bigger trouble to figure out how to prevent a possible exploitation of an educated, high qualified , person who is himself willing to be exploited !
on anonymous political donations
Anonymous political donations are not as much a problem if they are meant to service the question of "who". But anonymous political donations MUST NOT become means to round about the question of "from where" did the money come. People may want to hide their political preference out of neighbourhood reasons too. It could be as simple reasons as avoiding a dishormony in your neighbourhood while living in a locality where mostly the rival political camp dwells. The avoidance of question "who" can cater to these situations. The tricky aspect is that of using the tool of anonymity which has actually found legs on the above mentions situations, to buy out the political system itself. the political party must mention how much of anonymous donation has come to it, and must be able to assist the electorate in decoding it the outfit is secretly being bought out by someone taking cover of the anonymity.
The inter-religion rivalry in Indian politics, against an absolute lacking of Ethics and Morality in Indian politicians
Believe it or not, the core problem from a philosophical point of view, is that of lacking ethics. Ethics surround themselves around the rise of Conscitiousness wherein a man may decide 'by' himself , and 'for' himself what is right and what is wrong. The first flow of a Conscitiousness is by demonstration of one's own Free-will, and by honouring others free-choice. '
'You have to CHOOSE to accept it'' said the message to Ethan Hunt everytime it came him, in the movie ''Mission Impossible 4''.
A 'Choice' is the exercise of Free-will, and it is the foundation tenet of all contracts - business or otherwise. India is a rural society and mentality, still suffering from the feudal Narcissism, incapable of progressing a business if the free-will exercises itself to refuse or reject the contract offer. Indians proceed on, as a cultural habit, to apply force - coerce or apply duress into accepting the contract. In their own knowledge and belief , ''there is no way out after rejection and refusal''. Rejection and refusal are acts of ''gross indiscipline'', as a rural Narcissist mentality habitually looks at it.
It is Free-will which is the soul of all Ethics, the dharma, where a man has conscitiousness to take responsibility of his actions. The vast political structure which evolves from a free-will society is the Freedom society, called by a Democratic society.
It is a pertinent to point out that our education system is so far designed and also working itself to create a *compliant* person out of us, instead of a *conscitious person*. We are ingrained to become a slave , instead of flowing our inner callings as a Free man. The economic pressure acts to reinforce a slave mentality within us. The government , the laws, the judiciary. The office environment - these all are flooded with the coercion habits of the Narcissist indians. Infact wherever there are Indians , they carry the rural and primitive Narcissism with them. Our political problems, Naxalim and Casteism, duly point toward our psychometric cultural shortcoming.
Rape , be it of woman, or man, or of the national economy - has all happened within the due knowledge of many human beings present in the circuit. It happened, and it keeps happening again and again. We lack conscience itself, truthfully , and thereby we lack the Ethics, the dharma. the truth is endorsed by the claims of the 'godmen', too, giving statements or doing deeds which are obnoxious to the exercise of Free will. The spirituality of Godmen is a Narcissism of own worship. The idol is a non-living representation of own self, even if it is carved in the appearance of some mythological deity. This is spiritual Narcissism- a worship of ownself.
Our politics today stands a captive of the Communal disharmony between two major religions, but the taller facts which stands out from the series of these dismissal acts of corruption and predatory behavior is that we absolutely lack in ethics and morality.
'You have to CHOOSE to accept it'' said the message to Ethan Hunt everytime it came him, in the movie ''Mission Impossible 4''.
A 'Choice' is the exercise of Free-will, and it is the foundation tenet of all contracts - business or otherwise. India is a rural society and mentality, still suffering from the feudal Narcissism, incapable of progressing a business if the free-will exercises itself to refuse or reject the contract offer. Indians proceed on, as a cultural habit, to apply force - coerce or apply duress into accepting the contract. In their own knowledge and belief , ''there is no way out after rejection and refusal''. Rejection and refusal are acts of ''gross indiscipline'', as a rural Narcissist mentality habitually looks at it.
It is Free-will which is the soul of all Ethics, the dharma, where a man has conscitiousness to take responsibility of his actions. The vast political structure which evolves from a free-will society is the Freedom society, called by a Democratic society.
It is a pertinent to point out that our education system is so far designed and also working itself to create a *compliant* person out of us, instead of a *conscitious person*. We are ingrained to become a slave , instead of flowing our inner callings as a Free man. The economic pressure acts to reinforce a slave mentality within us. The government , the laws, the judiciary. The office environment - these all are flooded with the coercion habits of the Narcissist indians. Infact wherever there are Indians , they carry the rural and primitive Narcissism with them. Our political problems, Naxalim and Casteism, duly point toward our psychometric cultural shortcoming.
Rape , be it of woman, or man, or of the national economy - has all happened within the due knowledge of many human beings present in the circuit. It happened, and it keeps happening again and again. We lack conscience itself, truthfully , and thereby we lack the Ethics, the dharma. the truth is endorsed by the claims of the 'godmen', too, giving statements or doing deeds which are obnoxious to the exercise of Free will. The spirituality of Godmen is a Narcissism of own worship. The idol is a non-living representation of own self, even if it is carved in the appearance of some mythological deity. This is spiritual Narcissism- a worship of ownself.
Our politics today stands a captive of the Communal disharmony between two major religions, but the taller facts which stands out from the series of these dismissal acts of corruption and predatory behavior is that we absolutely lack in ethics and morality.
The ethics in granting someone prayers or request - "Pay it forward" or "Pay it back"
Do you agree that all the prayers and request made to person above you in your organisational hierarchy, should be seen as contributory to your performance of your duty, and not your personal needs or requirements?
There are two possible ways of judging the inter-personal relationship of requests, and prayers made to you. (A) Some people see it as their own 'performance of duty' to decide on the request and prayers of their subordinates.
(B) Some people see it as their 'power' (as if a power of God's representation on earth) to decide on the fate of their subordinates.
Which one do you think is the correct approach?
A sea of difference exist between the attitudes of these two kinds of people. (A) is a conscious being, himself risen through ranks wherein he too had made request , and prayers in his young days. He understands the human aspects of emotions and reasons for why it should be accepted with great dutifulness. He knows how the other view will shake up the emancipation of human society from its miseries.
(B) is a Narcissist view where he is not able to take the large impacts of his viewpoints - his attitude on service and slavery. Although he too must have risen through ranks, unless Ofcourse he is a 'minister' who has suddenly arrived into a system by winning an electoral battle, he is someone who is not holding empathy for his own occupation. Such people 'abuse' their subordinates for their personal works, because they see the generous enactment of their 'power' as a return 'personal favour' done to the subordinates who have put any requests and prayers.
The trick of bring a general sobriety in the office environments while granting someone's request/prayer is by way of "Paying it forward". The (B) type of people instead work to ask "pay it back".
There are two possible ways of judging the inter-personal relationship of requests, and prayers made to you. (A) Some people see it as their own 'performance of duty' to decide on the request and prayers of their subordinates.
(B) Some people see it as their 'power' (as if a power of God's representation on earth) to decide on the fate of their subordinates.
Which one do you think is the correct approach?
A sea of difference exist between the attitudes of these two kinds of people. (A) is a conscious being, himself risen through ranks wherein he too had made request , and prayers in his young days. He understands the human aspects of emotions and reasons for why it should be accepted with great dutifulness. He knows how the other view will shake up the emancipation of human society from its miseries.
(B) is a Narcissist view where he is not able to take the large impacts of his viewpoints - his attitude on service and slavery. Although he too must have risen through ranks, unless Ofcourse he is a 'minister' who has suddenly arrived into a system by winning an electoral battle, he is someone who is not holding empathy for his own occupation. Such people 'abuse' their subordinates for their personal works, because they see the generous enactment of their 'power' as a return 'personal favour' done to the subordinates who have put any requests and prayers.
The trick of bring a general sobriety in the office environments while granting someone's request/prayer is by way of "Paying it forward". The (B) type of people instead work to ask "pay it back".
Mental ability problems -Versus - Personality Disorder problems
How are Mental Ability problems different from the Personality Disorder problems?
Consider a case, wherein an imaginary person named Mr Lallo is asked a question "If, on a bench, Ramesh is sitting next to Mohan, Mohan is on the left of Shyam, and Rajesh is on the right of Mohan , what is the position of each person sitting on the bench? "
What if Mr Lallo answers this question with arrogance, " What is this non-sense. you are not telling in the question who is sitting where then how can I tell you? You should only know who is sitting where. Don't ask me. I am not here to answer to these silly questions of yours. The question is incomplete. It does not mention who is sitting where , so how can I answer that!."
Consider the complete situation above and then reason out for yourself,--What in your good opinion is the actual problem? Is this a problem of Arrogance (a personality disorder issue) or a problem of lacking Mental Ability? Or, the arrogance has become a mask to hide away the core problem? Is it merely a case of anger being displayed by Mr Lallo ( again, a mood/behaviour problem).
Anyway, Mental ability is the Natural ability of human mind , gifted by birth, to reason out things to find a answer to the question which are not directly answered . Personality disorder is the challenge of human mind to be not able to control his general temperament , and to be not able to conduct itself as per how other 'normal' people would do. In science, the branch or subject in which the Mental problems are studied and worked is Neuroscience, whereas the branch or subject where mood and personality are studied are called Psychology and Psychometry. Two different words have been brought into use to refer to the two different objects of their study- "the Brain" , and "the Mind". In Neuroscience, the scientist and doctors study about 'the brain', whereas in Psychology, the scientist and the doctors study about 'the mind'.
Most times, the people suffering from mental problems also have lots of personality disorder problems in them. But it is not necessary to see people having personality disorder problems to have mental ability problems too. In personality disorder issues, if the challenge of mental ability (the ability to think logically and to be able to reason) is burnt off, it is only a momentary aspect, wherein once the rage of hyper personality (disorder) is passed off in time, the person returns to his normal self and is able to work along a standard mental ability. In such case, just keeping quiet for time being hlps as a good remedy to the problem of evaporated mental ability. But in a mental ability aspect, working with the personal will be difficult anyday, anytime. However, such persons get recognised by the society much quickly. The challenge truely is of detecting the 'personality disorder' people in our society.
In the Narcissist personality disorder problems, people become lacking in mental abilities in their rage of NPD. Then the logical fallacies begin to follow and completely opposite solutions are obtained to the ones which were desired. the effect of the solutions is also revered to work the opposite way. These Personality disorder problems are one possible root cause for why the "Ganges appears to flow the opposite way", in normal course of decisions and actions. The PD problems become the igniting source for the MA problems suffered in the decision-making.
Consider a case, wherein an imaginary person named Mr Lallo is asked a question "If, on a bench, Ramesh is sitting next to Mohan, Mohan is on the left of Shyam, and Rajesh is on the right of Mohan , what is the position of each person sitting on the bench? "
What if Mr Lallo answers this question with arrogance, " What is this non-sense. you are not telling in the question who is sitting where then how can I tell you? You should only know who is sitting where. Don't ask me. I am not here to answer to these silly questions of yours. The question is incomplete. It does not mention who is sitting where , so how can I answer that!."
Consider the complete situation above and then reason out for yourself,--What in your good opinion is the actual problem? Is this a problem of Arrogance (a personality disorder issue) or a problem of lacking Mental Ability? Or, the arrogance has become a mask to hide away the core problem? Is it merely a case of anger being displayed by Mr Lallo ( again, a mood/behaviour problem).
Anyway, Mental ability is the Natural ability of human mind , gifted by birth, to reason out things to find a answer to the question which are not directly answered . Personality disorder is the challenge of human mind to be not able to control his general temperament , and to be not able to conduct itself as per how other 'normal' people would do. In science, the branch or subject in which the Mental problems are studied and worked is Neuroscience, whereas the branch or subject where mood and personality are studied are called Psychology and Psychometry. Two different words have been brought into use to refer to the two different objects of their study- "the Brain" , and "the Mind". In Neuroscience, the scientist and doctors study about 'the brain', whereas in Psychology, the scientist and the doctors study about 'the mind'.
Most times, the people suffering from mental problems also have lots of personality disorder problems in them. But it is not necessary to see people having personality disorder problems to have mental ability problems too. In personality disorder issues, if the challenge of mental ability (the ability to think logically and to be able to reason) is burnt off, it is only a momentary aspect, wherein once the rage of hyper personality (disorder) is passed off in time, the person returns to his normal self and is able to work along a standard mental ability. In such case, just keeping quiet for time being hlps as a good remedy to the problem of evaporated mental ability. But in a mental ability aspect, working with the personal will be difficult anyday, anytime. However, such persons get recognised by the society much quickly. The challenge truely is of detecting the 'personality disorder' people in our society.
In the Narcissist personality disorder problems, people become lacking in mental abilities in their rage of NPD. Then the logical fallacies begin to follow and completely opposite solutions are obtained to the ones which were desired. the effect of the solutions is also revered to work the opposite way. These Personality disorder problems are one possible root cause for why the "Ganges appears to flow the opposite way", in normal course of decisions and actions. The PD problems become the igniting source for the MA problems suffered in the decision-making.
How do you read (make sense of) the news of 'Desh Shanti' affairs?
How do you read (make sense) of the news of 'Desh Shanti' affairs?
An oil slick was discovered in the Persian Gulf region, about 10 miles long. A 'MARPOL' special area where oil discharge is completely prohibited via the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) law, accepted and ratified by all the member nations of the world, the local authorities in the region would surely take concern of this oil slick. Iran, being one of the concerned nations, would be very much lawful to take up the investigations, no matter the oil slick is in territorial waters , or the contiguous zones ( the in-physical-contact areas to one's territory). The Iranian authorities would , as a matter of fact, send out messages to all the ships in the area to 'confirm if they have suffered any oil leakages'.
There begins the 'low mental ability in the matters of law' situation. The language of message, the legal verbose, would be a standard 'threatening' language reminding the receiving ships of the legal consequences of the pollutions , if they have done any. The local navigational observing ports would do the maths calculations to approximately find out which all ships would likely have traversed the geographical position where oil slick would have occurred. 'Desh Shanti' might have emerged as one of the possible suspects, among many other vessel. A special message might have come up to 'Desh Shanti'.
Now, try imagining the reactions of Indian crew to such a message. Remember the movie 'Special 26', where the bunch of 'fake CBI' was looting the rich people, purely on the basis of reaction people show to the mere name of 'Police'.
To a general and an otherwise ordinary enquiry coming from the Iranian authorities, the master and crew of 'Desh Shanti', out of his own fears ( the fear actually stemming from the low mental ability in the matters of laws') would have 'frozen' into refusing to give anything in writing.
This action of refusal, on the other side, would strengthen the seed of suspicion of Iranian authorities, so to detain the vessel after hauling the vessel out from International waters.
The indian news media, at the far side, which is as it is lacking understanding and knowledge on almost all technical matters, would turn the issue into a diplomacy and international affairs between Iran and India. A 'Peepli Live' will start in the news media.
The involved authorities will be forced to take a stand with respect to the 'news media theory', although in the broader perspective this action of taking stand by all the concerned authorities will run the risk of the standpoint being played out against the actual, sincere investigations of the 'Desh Shanti' affairs.
The otherwise simple, innocence and sincere work will dissolve out into a larger India-Iran relationship and greater consequences might follow, much to the revenue gains of the media. A physical crime, which can be detected by use of forensic science will become a political issue, decided by means of popularity support.
This is how it works. The 'lack of mental ability' (i am deliberately separating Intellectualism from 'mental ability' ) leads to such events in the nation of 'stupids'.
An oil slick was discovered in the Persian Gulf region, about 10 miles long. A 'MARPOL' special area where oil discharge is completely prohibited via the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) law, accepted and ratified by all the member nations of the world, the local authorities in the region would surely take concern of this oil slick. Iran, being one of the concerned nations, would be very much lawful to take up the investigations, no matter the oil slick is in territorial waters , or the contiguous zones ( the in-physical-contact areas to one's territory). The Iranian authorities would , as a matter of fact, send out messages to all the ships in the area to 'confirm if they have suffered any oil leakages'.
There begins the 'low mental ability in the matters of law' situation. The language of message, the legal verbose, would be a standard 'threatening' language reminding the receiving ships of the legal consequences of the pollutions , if they have done any. The local navigational observing ports would do the maths calculations to approximately find out which all ships would likely have traversed the geographical position where oil slick would have occurred. 'Desh Shanti' might have emerged as one of the possible suspects, among many other vessel. A special message might have come up to 'Desh Shanti'.
Now, try imagining the reactions of Indian crew to such a message. Remember the movie 'Special 26', where the bunch of 'fake CBI' was looting the rich people, purely on the basis of reaction people show to the mere name of 'Police'.
To a general and an otherwise ordinary enquiry coming from the Iranian authorities, the master and crew of 'Desh Shanti', out of his own fears ( the fear actually stemming from the low mental ability in the matters of laws') would have 'frozen' into refusing to give anything in writing.
This action of refusal, on the other side, would strengthen the seed of suspicion of Iranian authorities, so to detain the vessel after hauling the vessel out from International waters.
The indian news media, at the far side, which is as it is lacking understanding and knowledge on almost all technical matters, would turn the issue into a diplomacy and international affairs between Iran and India. A 'Peepli Live' will start in the news media.
The involved authorities will be forced to take a stand with respect to the 'news media theory', although in the broader perspective this action of taking stand by all the concerned authorities will run the risk of the standpoint being played out against the actual, sincere investigations of the 'Desh Shanti' affairs.
The otherwise simple, innocence and sincere work will dissolve out into a larger India-Iran relationship and greater consequences might follow, much to the revenue gains of the media. A physical crime, which can be detected by use of forensic science will become a political issue, decided by means of popularity support.
This is how it works. The 'lack of mental ability' (i am deliberately separating Intellectualism from 'mental ability' ) leads to such events in the nation of 'stupids'.
अपशब्द क्या हैं, और उनका भाषा विज्ञानं की दृष्टि से क्या योगदान होता है ? Part 2
अपशब्दों से ही मिलती जुलती क्ष्रेणी दो अन्य व्यक्तव्य भी है - अपमान-जनक (insulting ) शब्द, और आपत्ति-जनक (objectionable ) शब्द ।
अपमानजनक शब्द सीधे-सीधे मनोविज्ञान से सम्बन्ध रखते हैं । यह सत्ता-प्रतिद्वन्द से प्रेरित होते है । इन्हें Disparaging शब्द भी कहा जाता है । इनके उदाहरण है - "तुम कभी भी कोई काम ठीक से नहीं करते । " (तर्क संगत दृष्टि में ऐसा कोई मानव है ही नहीं जिसने सब कुछ गलत किया हो । स्पष्ट रूप से इन वाक्यों में किसी की एक गलती पर उसे जीवन परयान्त गलती करने का इलज़ाम दे दिया गया है । ) भाषा के कुछ स्वरुप तो मूल से ही व्यक्ति की मनोवैज्ञानिक सत्ता को चुनौती देते हुए बने है । जैसे "क्या बे , तू क्या कर रहा है ।" कुछ उपभाषाओँ में तो ये सांस्कृतिक है की साधारण वार्तालाप में वह चुनौती पूर्ण शब्दों का प्रयोग करते है । इन उपभाषाओं में सम्मान के शब्द कमजोरी और आत्मविश्वास की कमी का प्रदर्शन माने जाते हैं ।
अपमान जनक शब्द मूलतः तो कोई अपराध नहीं है , मगर किसी घटना अथवा अपराध में इनके योगदान पर कार्यवाई होती है । अपमानजनक शब्दों के प्रभाव में आपसी रिश्ते का असर नाकारा नहीं जाता है । फिर यदि कोई घटना घाट जाये तब अपमानजनक शब्दों को प्रयोग करने वाले व्यक्ति को भी अभियुक्त माना जाता है की उसने एक 'टीम' के निर्माण में बाधा पहुचाई ।
अपमानजनक अथवा आपत्ति-जनक शब्दों का मिला जुला उदाहरण में कुछ वाक्य नीचे दिए है -
"किस्से पूछ कर तुमने यह काम किया ?", (क्या व्यक्ति स्वयं से निर्णय लेने के लिए स्वतंत्र नहीं होता )
"तुम कौन होते हो खुद से यह करने वाले । " (क्या व्यक्ति किसी का दास है )
" तुमसे किसने कहा था यह करने को । " (व्यक्ति क्या हर कार्य किसी के आदेश पर करने के लिए ही बना है )
इन वाक्यों में व्यक्ति को दास , गुलाम होने का अपमान किया जाता है । साथ ही, आपत्ति पूर्ण प्रशन है जिनकी आपत्ति कोष्टकों में लिखी हुई है ।
अपमानजनक शब्द सीधे-सीधे मनोविज्ञान से सम्बन्ध रखते हैं । यह सत्ता-प्रतिद्वन्द से प्रेरित होते है । इन्हें Disparaging शब्द भी कहा जाता है । इनके उदाहरण है - "तुम कभी भी कोई काम ठीक से नहीं करते । " (तर्क संगत दृष्टि में ऐसा कोई मानव है ही नहीं जिसने सब कुछ गलत किया हो । स्पष्ट रूप से इन वाक्यों में किसी की एक गलती पर उसे जीवन परयान्त गलती करने का इलज़ाम दे दिया गया है । ) भाषा के कुछ स्वरुप तो मूल से ही व्यक्ति की मनोवैज्ञानिक सत्ता को चुनौती देते हुए बने है । जैसे "क्या बे , तू क्या कर रहा है ।" कुछ उपभाषाओँ में तो ये सांस्कृतिक है की साधारण वार्तालाप में वह चुनौती पूर्ण शब्दों का प्रयोग करते है । इन उपभाषाओं में सम्मान के शब्द कमजोरी और आत्मविश्वास की कमी का प्रदर्शन माने जाते हैं ।
अपमान जनक शब्द मूलतः तो कोई अपराध नहीं है , मगर किसी घटना अथवा अपराध में इनके योगदान पर कार्यवाई होती है । अपमानजनक शब्दों के प्रभाव में आपसी रिश्ते का असर नाकारा नहीं जाता है । फिर यदि कोई घटना घाट जाये तब अपमानजनक शब्दों को प्रयोग करने वाले व्यक्ति को भी अभियुक्त माना जाता है की उसने एक 'टीम' के निर्माण में बाधा पहुचाई ।
अपमानजनक अथवा आपत्ति-जनक शब्दों का मिला जुला उदाहरण में कुछ वाक्य नीचे दिए है -
"किस्से पूछ कर तुमने यह काम किया ?", (क्या व्यक्ति स्वयं से निर्णय लेने के लिए स्वतंत्र नहीं होता )
"तुम कौन होते हो खुद से यह करने वाले । " (क्या व्यक्ति किसी का दास है )
" तुमसे किसने कहा था यह करने को । " (व्यक्ति क्या हर कार्य किसी के आदेश पर करने के लिए ही बना है )
इन वाक्यों में व्यक्ति को दास , गुलाम होने का अपमान किया जाता है । साथ ही, आपत्ति पूर्ण प्रशन है जिनकी आपत्ति कोष्टकों में लिखी हुई है ।
अपशब्द क्या हैं, और उनका भाषा विज्ञानं की दृष्टि से क्या योगदान होता है ?
अपशब्द क्या हैं, और उनका भाषा विज्ञानं की दृष्टि से क्या योगदान होता है ?
साधारणतः वाक्य में, अथवा किसी वार्तालाप में बिना किसी तर्क के प्रवाह से, यों ही अर्थहीन तरह से प्रेषित करे गए वह शब्द जो हमे किसी मलिन (गन्दा ) ,अशिष्ट वस्तु का स्मरण कराते हैं , वह अपशब्द होते है ।
यहाँ कुछ विचार आवश्यक है । सबसे पहले की (अप )शब्द का प्रयोग वार्तालाप के विषय से किसी स्पष्ट तर्क से नहीं जुड़ा होना चाहिए । अर्थात अगर शब्द किसी तर्कसंगत रूप से विषय से सम्बन्ध रखता है तब वह अपशब्द नहीं है,भले ही वह किसी मलिन वस्तु का स्मरण कराता हो ।
साधारणतः यौन , यौन क्रिया , प्रजनन प्रक्रिया आदि से सम्बंधित शब्दों को अपशब्दों के लिए प्रयोग करा जाता है । हालाँकि फिर इस प्रकार के प्रयोग के लिए इन शब्दों के किसी स्थानीय रूप का प्रयोग होता है , स्थापित भाषा के स्वरुप का नहीं । स्थापित भाषा के स्वरुप वाला शब्द का प्रयोग वैज्ञानिक , चिकित्सीय अथवा न्यायायिक तथ्य के सन्दर्भ में किया जाता है ।
भाषा में अपशब्दों का प्रयोग मानव मनोविज्ञान से सम्बन्ध रखता है । मनुष्य अपशब्द का प्रयोग बहोत अधिक भावुक हो जाने पर करता है। भावनाओं में भी क्रोध भावना सबसे आम प्रेरक है जब मनुष्य अपशब्दों से इस भावना को व्यक्त करता है। अपशब्दों का प्रयोग मानव द्वारा रचित बहोत पुराने साहित्यों में , यहाँ तक की कुछ धार्मिक ग्रंथो में भी पाया गया है । (अधिक जानकारी के लिए विकीपेडिया से शोध करें। )
भावुक मनुष्य अपने विवेक, तर्क पूर्ण विचारों की धारा को खो चुका होता है । इस समझ के सह-प्रसंग में ऐसा भी कहा जा सकता है को अपशब्दों के प्रयोग से अपने प्रतिद्वंदी के विवेक को नाश करने का प्रयोजन भी होता है। न समझ में आने वाले विचार , अथवा अपने विश्वासों के विरूद्ध खड़े विचारों के विरोध में भी अपशब्द प्रयोग होते है । यहाँ अपशब्द का उद्देश्य मात्र अस्वीकारिता , अथवा क्रोध दिखलाना होता है , जब स्वयं का विवेक अपने विचार के समर्थन में कुछ तर्क नहीं दूंढ पा रहा हो ।
आपसी व्यवहार के दौरान दो मनुष्यों में एक मनोवैज्ञानिक गतिविधि चल रही होती है । यह गतिविधि अपनी सत्ता को सिद्ध करने से सम्बंधित होती है । यह मनोवैज्ञानिक गतिविधि प्रायः अन्य जीवों में भी देखी जाती है । मनुष्यों में यह द्वन्द थोडा शिष्टाचार और सभ्यता के दबाव में परोक्ष हो जाता है । तब यहाँ अपशब्द का प्रयोग अपनी सत्ता के परोक्ष प्रदर्शन में होता है ।
अपशब्दों का प्रयोग महिलायों की अपेक्षा पुरुषों में ज्यादा पाया गया है ।
डिस्कवरी टीवी चेनल के एक कार्यक्रम , " मिथबस्टर ", में एक वैज्ञानिक प्रयोग के द्वारा यह दिखाया गया है की अपशब्दों के प्रयोग से मनुष्य में पीड़ा सहन कर सकने की क्षमता बड़ती है । ( अधिक जानकारी के लिए विकीपेडिया से शोध करें। ) यह कुछ ऐसे ही है की चोट लगने पर अधिकतर जीव-जंतु एक स्वक्रिया में चिल्लाने लगते है । संभवतः प्रकृति ने ही जीवों को यह प्रतिक्रीय नैसर्गिक प्रदान करी है , पीड़ा को सहन कर के जीवन के संरक्षण के लिए । मनुष्य , जिसमे ध्वनि- उच्चारण की प्रणाली सबसे अधिक विकसित है , वह चिल्लाने की क्रिया से आगे बढ कर अपशब्द का प्रयोग भी कर देता है ।
बरहाल , राजनैतिक विज्ञान में मनुष्यों ने 'अभिव्यक्ति की स्वतंत्रता' को सबसे सहेज कर रखी स्वतंत्रता बनाया है । मगर इस स्वतंत्रता पर अंकुश लेते हुए अपशब्दों को वर्जित किया हुआ है । वास्तविकता में अपशब्दों को भी सामाजिक सन्दर्भ में बहोत संरक्षण होता है , क्योंकि इनका प्रयोग करीब-करीब सभी मनुष्य प्रायः कर ही लिया करते है । इसलिए यदि स्थिति बहोत विकट न हो , तब अपशब्दों को भी वार्तालाप में अनुमति दे ही दी जाती है ।
अपशब्द का प्रयोग , चूंकि यह मानव मनोविज्ञान से सम्बंधित है , वार्तालाप की विषय वस्तु से हमे भटका देने का कार्य सिद्ध करता है । हमे किसी विषय से विपरीत वस्तु का स्मरण करवा कर उस वस्तु को विचार का विषय बना देता है । सामाजिक सन्दर्भ में अपशब्द का अत्यधिक प्रयोग अथवा निरंतर प्रयोग अशिष्ट , असामाजिक माना जाता है । यह निम्न कुलीन वर्ग के मनुष्यों में अधिक प्रयोग होता है , जहाँ अधिक विकसित विचारों का अभाव स्वाभाविक होता है । क्रोध आ जाना , या अपने विश्वासों के अनुरूप कार्य को संचालित नहीं कर पाना - अपशब्दों को प्रेरित करने के कारण ज्यादा संभावित होते है ।
अंग्रेजी व्याकरण में अपशब्दों को कुछ क्ष्रेणी में में रखा गया है । यह आवश्यक नहीं है की सभी अपशब्द यौन क्रिया अथवा यौन से सम्बंधित हो । कुछ शब्द मात्र किसी विशेष तथ्य को व्यक्ति के सन्दर्भ आवाहन (आह्वान) से भी निर्मित हो सकते है । जैसे की अफ़्रीकी काले चर्म-गुण के व्यक्ति को "कल्लू" कहना , या किसी कम कद के व्यक्ति को 'नाटा' कहना , या किसी को उसके धर्म/ जाती के नाम के आह्वान करना । इस प्रकार के आह्वान से व्यक्ति को उसके अन्दर की किसी कमी की स्मृति होती है और वह दुखी होता है । इसलिए सामाजिक रूप में यह शब्द अशिष्ट माने जाते है । इन्हें Derogatory शब्द कहा जाता है ।
Derogatory को राजनैतिक संवाद से अलग कर के देखना आवश्यक है । समाचार पत्रों के व्यंग चित्रों में किसी बड़ी नाक वाले राजनेता को प्रदर्शित करने के लिए तथ्य के रूप में उसकी बड़ी नाक का प्रयोग होता है । तब यहाँ "बड़ी नाक " को Derogatory नहीं मानते हैं । वैसे फिर व्यंग चित्र का केंद्र राजनेता की बड़ी नाक नहीं होती , अपितु कोई राजनेतिक घटनाक्रम होता है । और जब अभिव्यक्ति की स्वतंत्रता एक राजनैतिक स्वतंत्रता ही है , राजनैतिक कार्यों में तो इसको संरक्षित करना और अधिक अनिवार्य हो जाता है ।
साधारणतः derogatory को वर्जित नहीं करा जाता है , जब तक की वह racial (किसी समुचित प्रजाति पर भद्दा इशारा ) और discriminatory (भेद -भाव पूर्ण ) न हो ।
यौन और यौन क्रिया से सम्बंधित अपशब्दों को Sexual Abuse कहते हैं । पुरुषों में यह ज्यादा अशिष्ट नहीं माने जाते। मगर किसी महिला की उपस्थिति में इनका प्रयोग बहोत अशिष्ट माना जाता है । आधुनिक समय में अपशब्द महिलाएं भी अधिक प्रयोग करने लग गयी है । ऐसे में अपशब्द का अर्ध स्वरुप , जैसे "Sh... ", या कोई प्रासंगिक परिवर्तित स्वरुप (जैसे "जंगल का इकलौता पेड़ " ) प्रचलन में आता है।
धार्मिक गुरुओं , इश्वर , इत्यादि के सन्दर्भ में अपशब्दों का प्रयोग (profanity ) पूर्णतः वर्जित होता है ।
यहाँ अपशब्द के विचार में थोडा विस्तृत हो कर समझाना आवश्यक है। अपशब्द का प्रयोग , और ईशनिंदा (Blasphemy ) दो अलग-अलग शब्द विचार हैं । अपशब्द जहाँ वर्जित है , ईशनिंदा का प्रसंग ऐतिहासिक दृष्टि से ऐसा देखा जाता है-- जब विवेकपूर्ण , तर्क संगत विचार जो समाज में स्वीकृत कर्मकांड धर्म के अनुरूप नहीं पाए गए तब उन्हें "ईशनिंदा " के आरोप दे कर अभिवेचित (सेंसर ) कर दिया गया था । और ऐसे विचार वाले व्यक्तियों को सजा भी दी गयी । आज उन्ही लोगों की जीवन की बलि पर मनुष्यों और वैज्ञानिकों ने इतनी वैज्ञानिक और तकनीकी विकास हासिल किया है । इसलिए , मात्र अपशब्दों का प्रयोग वर्जित है । जो विचार ईशनिंदा जैसे लगते हैं , नए प्रजातान्त्रिक युग में उन पर पाबंदी नहीं लगी है । आज मनुष्यों को सभी प्रकार के विचार रखने की 'अभिव्यक्ति की स्वतंत्रता' उपलब्ध है । यानी, अगर किसी के विचार किसी के धार्मिक भावनाओं के अनुसार न हो , तब उस विचारों पर 'ईशनिंदा' का आरोप लगाना स्वीकृत नहीं किया गया है ।
जैसे - "सूर्य धरती की परिक्रमा करता है" । इस धार्मिक विचार के विरूद्ध कॉपरनिकस के विचार की "धरती सूर्य की परिक्रमा करती है ", उस युग में एक "ईशनिंदा" माने गए थे ।
जो विचार सामाजिक समझ के अनुरूप नहीं होते उन्हें heresy (विधर्म) कहा जाता है । ईशनिंदा की ही भांति , विधर्म विचारों को भी सेंसर करना स्वीकृत नहीं होता । वह मात्र एक मत-विरोधी विचार है , विरुद्ध-विचार है । विज्ञान के इतिहास में ऐसा अक्सर हुआ है की नए क्रांतिकारी विचार आरम्भ में Heresy के रूप में देखें गए है ।
फ्रासिसी युवती 'जोन ऑफ़ अर्क ' के द्वारा अंग्रेजी सेना का परास्त होना अपने युग में एक विधर्म माना गया था , क्योंकि तब यह माना जाता था की इश्वर खुद अंग्रेजों के साथ ही युद्ध करते है । यानि अंग्रेजी सेना को परास्त करना स्वयं इश्वर को परास्त करने जैसा था , और यह कृत्य सिर्फ शैतान ही करना चाहेगा । इसलिए "जोन ऑफ अर्क " को शैतान का प्रतिनिधि मान कर फ्रांसिसियों ने ही (क्योंकि फ़्रांसीसी भी धर्म से उसी इश्वर के उपासक थे ) आग में जिन्दा जला दिया गया था (धार्मिक और कूटनीति -राजनैतिक अन्य कारणों से भी )।
साधारणतः वाक्य में, अथवा किसी वार्तालाप में बिना किसी तर्क के प्रवाह से, यों ही अर्थहीन तरह से प्रेषित करे गए वह शब्द जो हमे किसी मलिन (गन्दा ) ,अशिष्ट वस्तु का स्मरण कराते हैं , वह अपशब्द होते है ।
यहाँ कुछ विचार आवश्यक है । सबसे पहले की (अप )शब्द का प्रयोग वार्तालाप के विषय से किसी स्पष्ट तर्क से नहीं जुड़ा होना चाहिए । अर्थात अगर शब्द किसी तर्कसंगत रूप से विषय से सम्बन्ध रखता है तब वह अपशब्द नहीं है,भले ही वह किसी मलिन वस्तु का स्मरण कराता हो ।
साधारणतः यौन , यौन क्रिया , प्रजनन प्रक्रिया आदि से सम्बंधित शब्दों को अपशब्दों के लिए प्रयोग करा जाता है । हालाँकि फिर इस प्रकार के प्रयोग के लिए इन शब्दों के किसी स्थानीय रूप का प्रयोग होता है , स्थापित भाषा के स्वरुप का नहीं । स्थापित भाषा के स्वरुप वाला शब्द का प्रयोग वैज्ञानिक , चिकित्सीय अथवा न्यायायिक तथ्य के सन्दर्भ में किया जाता है ।
भाषा में अपशब्दों का प्रयोग मानव मनोविज्ञान से सम्बन्ध रखता है । मनुष्य अपशब्द का प्रयोग बहोत अधिक भावुक हो जाने पर करता है। भावनाओं में भी क्रोध भावना सबसे आम प्रेरक है जब मनुष्य अपशब्दों से इस भावना को व्यक्त करता है। अपशब्दों का प्रयोग मानव द्वारा रचित बहोत पुराने साहित्यों में , यहाँ तक की कुछ धार्मिक ग्रंथो में भी पाया गया है । (अधिक जानकारी के लिए विकीपेडिया से शोध करें। )
भावुक मनुष्य अपने विवेक, तर्क पूर्ण विचारों की धारा को खो चुका होता है । इस समझ के सह-प्रसंग में ऐसा भी कहा जा सकता है को अपशब्दों के प्रयोग से अपने प्रतिद्वंदी के विवेक को नाश करने का प्रयोजन भी होता है। न समझ में आने वाले विचार , अथवा अपने विश्वासों के विरूद्ध खड़े विचारों के विरोध में भी अपशब्द प्रयोग होते है । यहाँ अपशब्द का उद्देश्य मात्र अस्वीकारिता , अथवा क्रोध दिखलाना होता है , जब स्वयं का विवेक अपने विचार के समर्थन में कुछ तर्क नहीं दूंढ पा रहा हो ।
आपसी व्यवहार के दौरान दो मनुष्यों में एक मनोवैज्ञानिक गतिविधि चल रही होती है । यह गतिविधि अपनी सत्ता को सिद्ध करने से सम्बंधित होती है । यह मनोवैज्ञानिक गतिविधि प्रायः अन्य जीवों में भी देखी जाती है । मनुष्यों में यह द्वन्द थोडा शिष्टाचार और सभ्यता के दबाव में परोक्ष हो जाता है । तब यहाँ अपशब्द का प्रयोग अपनी सत्ता के परोक्ष प्रदर्शन में होता है ।
अपशब्दों का प्रयोग महिलायों की अपेक्षा पुरुषों में ज्यादा पाया गया है ।
डिस्कवरी टीवी चेनल के एक कार्यक्रम , " मिथबस्टर ", में एक वैज्ञानिक प्रयोग के द्वारा यह दिखाया गया है की अपशब्दों के प्रयोग से मनुष्य में पीड़ा सहन कर सकने की क्षमता बड़ती है । ( अधिक जानकारी के लिए विकीपेडिया से शोध करें। ) यह कुछ ऐसे ही है की चोट लगने पर अधिकतर जीव-जंतु एक स्वक्रिया में चिल्लाने लगते है । संभवतः प्रकृति ने ही जीवों को यह प्रतिक्रीय नैसर्गिक प्रदान करी है , पीड़ा को सहन कर के जीवन के संरक्षण के लिए । मनुष्य , जिसमे ध्वनि- उच्चारण की प्रणाली सबसे अधिक विकसित है , वह चिल्लाने की क्रिया से आगे बढ कर अपशब्द का प्रयोग भी कर देता है ।
बरहाल , राजनैतिक विज्ञान में मनुष्यों ने 'अभिव्यक्ति की स्वतंत्रता' को सबसे सहेज कर रखी स्वतंत्रता बनाया है । मगर इस स्वतंत्रता पर अंकुश लेते हुए अपशब्दों को वर्जित किया हुआ है । वास्तविकता में अपशब्दों को भी सामाजिक सन्दर्भ में बहोत संरक्षण होता है , क्योंकि इनका प्रयोग करीब-करीब सभी मनुष्य प्रायः कर ही लिया करते है । इसलिए यदि स्थिति बहोत विकट न हो , तब अपशब्दों को भी वार्तालाप में अनुमति दे ही दी जाती है ।
अपशब्द का प्रयोग , चूंकि यह मानव मनोविज्ञान से सम्बंधित है , वार्तालाप की विषय वस्तु से हमे भटका देने का कार्य सिद्ध करता है । हमे किसी विषय से विपरीत वस्तु का स्मरण करवा कर उस वस्तु को विचार का विषय बना देता है । सामाजिक सन्दर्भ में अपशब्द का अत्यधिक प्रयोग अथवा निरंतर प्रयोग अशिष्ट , असामाजिक माना जाता है । यह निम्न कुलीन वर्ग के मनुष्यों में अधिक प्रयोग होता है , जहाँ अधिक विकसित विचारों का अभाव स्वाभाविक होता है । क्रोध आ जाना , या अपने विश्वासों के अनुरूप कार्य को संचालित नहीं कर पाना - अपशब्दों को प्रेरित करने के कारण ज्यादा संभावित होते है ।
अंग्रेजी व्याकरण में अपशब्दों को कुछ क्ष्रेणी में में रखा गया है । यह आवश्यक नहीं है की सभी अपशब्द यौन क्रिया अथवा यौन से सम्बंधित हो । कुछ शब्द मात्र किसी विशेष तथ्य को व्यक्ति के सन्दर्भ आवाहन (आह्वान) से भी निर्मित हो सकते है । जैसे की अफ़्रीकी काले चर्म-गुण के व्यक्ति को "कल्लू" कहना , या किसी कम कद के व्यक्ति को 'नाटा' कहना , या किसी को उसके धर्म/ जाती के नाम के आह्वान करना । इस प्रकार के आह्वान से व्यक्ति को उसके अन्दर की किसी कमी की स्मृति होती है और वह दुखी होता है । इसलिए सामाजिक रूप में यह शब्द अशिष्ट माने जाते है । इन्हें Derogatory शब्द कहा जाता है ।
Derogatory को राजनैतिक संवाद से अलग कर के देखना आवश्यक है । समाचार पत्रों के व्यंग चित्रों में किसी बड़ी नाक वाले राजनेता को प्रदर्शित करने के लिए तथ्य के रूप में उसकी बड़ी नाक का प्रयोग होता है । तब यहाँ "बड़ी नाक " को Derogatory नहीं मानते हैं । वैसे फिर व्यंग चित्र का केंद्र राजनेता की बड़ी नाक नहीं होती , अपितु कोई राजनेतिक घटनाक्रम होता है । और जब अभिव्यक्ति की स्वतंत्रता एक राजनैतिक स्वतंत्रता ही है , राजनैतिक कार्यों में तो इसको संरक्षित करना और अधिक अनिवार्य हो जाता है ।
साधारणतः derogatory को वर्जित नहीं करा जाता है , जब तक की वह racial (किसी समुचित प्रजाति पर भद्दा इशारा ) और discriminatory (भेद -भाव पूर्ण ) न हो ।
यौन और यौन क्रिया से सम्बंधित अपशब्दों को Sexual Abuse कहते हैं । पुरुषों में यह ज्यादा अशिष्ट नहीं माने जाते। मगर किसी महिला की उपस्थिति में इनका प्रयोग बहोत अशिष्ट माना जाता है । आधुनिक समय में अपशब्द महिलाएं भी अधिक प्रयोग करने लग गयी है । ऐसे में अपशब्द का अर्ध स्वरुप , जैसे "Sh... ", या कोई प्रासंगिक परिवर्तित स्वरुप (जैसे "जंगल का इकलौता पेड़ " ) प्रचलन में आता है।
धार्मिक गुरुओं , इश्वर , इत्यादि के सन्दर्भ में अपशब्दों का प्रयोग (profanity ) पूर्णतः वर्जित होता है ।
यहाँ अपशब्द के विचार में थोडा विस्तृत हो कर समझाना आवश्यक है। अपशब्द का प्रयोग , और ईशनिंदा (Blasphemy ) दो अलग-अलग शब्द विचार हैं । अपशब्द जहाँ वर्जित है , ईशनिंदा का प्रसंग ऐतिहासिक दृष्टि से ऐसा देखा जाता है-- जब विवेकपूर्ण , तर्क संगत विचार जो समाज में स्वीकृत कर्मकांड धर्म के अनुरूप नहीं पाए गए तब उन्हें "ईशनिंदा " के आरोप दे कर अभिवेचित (सेंसर ) कर दिया गया था । और ऐसे विचार वाले व्यक्तियों को सजा भी दी गयी । आज उन्ही लोगों की जीवन की बलि पर मनुष्यों और वैज्ञानिकों ने इतनी वैज्ञानिक और तकनीकी विकास हासिल किया है । इसलिए , मात्र अपशब्दों का प्रयोग वर्जित है । जो विचार ईशनिंदा जैसे लगते हैं , नए प्रजातान्त्रिक युग में उन पर पाबंदी नहीं लगी है । आज मनुष्यों को सभी प्रकार के विचार रखने की 'अभिव्यक्ति की स्वतंत्रता' उपलब्ध है । यानी, अगर किसी के विचार किसी के धार्मिक भावनाओं के अनुसार न हो , तब उस विचारों पर 'ईशनिंदा' का आरोप लगाना स्वीकृत नहीं किया गया है ।
जैसे - "सूर्य धरती की परिक्रमा करता है" । इस धार्मिक विचार के विरूद्ध कॉपरनिकस के विचार की "धरती सूर्य की परिक्रमा करती है ", उस युग में एक "ईशनिंदा" माने गए थे ।
जो विचार सामाजिक समझ के अनुरूप नहीं होते उन्हें heresy (विधर्म) कहा जाता है । ईशनिंदा की ही भांति , विधर्म विचारों को भी सेंसर करना स्वीकृत नहीं होता । वह मात्र एक मत-विरोधी विचार है , विरुद्ध-विचार है । विज्ञान के इतिहास में ऐसा अक्सर हुआ है की नए क्रांतिकारी विचार आरम्भ में Heresy के रूप में देखें गए है ।
फ्रासिसी युवती 'जोन ऑफ़ अर्क ' के द्वारा अंग्रेजी सेना का परास्त होना अपने युग में एक विधर्म माना गया था , क्योंकि तब यह माना जाता था की इश्वर खुद अंग्रेजों के साथ ही युद्ध करते है । यानि अंग्रेजी सेना को परास्त करना स्वयं इश्वर को परास्त करने जैसा था , और यह कृत्य सिर्फ शैतान ही करना चाहेगा । इसलिए "जोन ऑफ अर्क " को शैतान का प्रतिनिधि मान कर फ्रांसिसियों ने ही (क्योंकि फ़्रांसीसी भी धर्म से उसी इश्वर के उपासक थे ) आग में जिन्दा जला दिया गया था (धार्मिक और कूटनीति -राजनैतिक अन्य कारणों से भी )।
Censorship habits in Indian Culture
There is a very subtle kind of censorship which we the Indians practise through the title of 'Indian Culture'. This censorship is on some matter; matter which is something neither derogatory, nor abusive, nor sexually offensive, might not be offending to the religion per se, nor a threat to the establishment of community, society and a nation. It is about acceptance of the 'Power that be', a submission to that Realpolitik powers which govern our day today actions, and which don't let our lives change the way we want.
We don't describe this power in our words and speeches, but we do complain when this power is offended. It is a secretive power the threads of are sown in us by our Education System when the education inculcates in us a Compliance attitude, instead of the cultivation of a consciousness. We raise the alarm of 'feelings hurt' when the threads of this power existing in us in the form of our beliefs, meet the force of reason. We are emotional people , born and brought up each in our own make-believe world. When the situation comes to discover the Reason so to settle the disputes between two different sets of beliefs of two people, the forces of Reason 'hurt the feelings' of either one's belief or maybe of both. We censor away that reason, beat it with our taunts and sarcasm, boycott it, orchestrat it, fade it out in our cultural logical fallacies, we do everything in our capacity to destroy the voice of Reason. Religious beliefs often give us the most convenient tool to hush that voice. Religious Beliefs -that's how, the history records, voices of Reason have been silenced by acts of emotions, the feelings. That's what we called the Heresy and the Blasphemy. India still practises it in its culture, though our British-copied constitution has outlawed the Heresy and the Blasphemy.
It is this which is the cause of our unequal justice, our social chaos. We are united people, not by uniformity of our beliefs and opinions but by our vested interests, commercial gains through our Movie Stars and our Cricket Stars.
We uphold that everyone has a right to his beliefs and opinion. But actually we misapply this axiom, only to destroy the discovery of Reason, the rise of a true unity amongst us. Just when the reason forces on us to accept the Validity of certain belief, we disintegrate away calling that 'everyone has a right to his opinions and beliefs'. We reject the reason and rationalism coming with it.!
And then we fill up the vacuum of binding adhesive for our National Integration by introducing the elements of vested interests - the cricket and the movie stars.
We don't describe this power in our words and speeches, but we do complain when this power is offended. It is a secretive power the threads of are sown in us by our Education System when the education inculcates in us a Compliance attitude, instead of the cultivation of a consciousness. We raise the alarm of 'feelings hurt' when the threads of this power existing in us in the form of our beliefs, meet the force of reason. We are emotional people , born and brought up each in our own make-believe world. When the situation comes to discover the Reason so to settle the disputes between two different sets of beliefs of two people, the forces of Reason 'hurt the feelings' of either one's belief or maybe of both. We censor away that reason, beat it with our taunts and sarcasm, boycott it, orchestrat it, fade it out in our cultural logical fallacies, we do everything in our capacity to destroy the voice of Reason. Religious beliefs often give us the most convenient tool to hush that voice. Religious Beliefs -that's how, the history records, voices of Reason have been silenced by acts of emotions, the feelings. That's what we called the Heresy and the Blasphemy. India still practises it in its culture, though our British-copied constitution has outlawed the Heresy and the Blasphemy.
It is this which is the cause of our unequal justice, our social chaos. We are united people, not by uniformity of our beliefs and opinions but by our vested interests, commercial gains through our Movie Stars and our Cricket Stars.
We uphold that everyone has a right to his beliefs and opinion. But actually we misapply this axiom, only to destroy the discovery of Reason, the rise of a true unity amongst us. Just when the reason forces on us to accept the Validity of certain belief, we disintegrate away calling that 'everyone has a right to his opinions and beliefs'. We reject the reason and rationalism coming with it.!
And then we fill up the vacuum of binding adhesive for our National Integration by introducing the elements of vested interests - the cricket and the movie stars.
पारदर्शिता, गोपनीयता और व्यक्तिगत
पारदर्शिता (Transparency ), गोपनीयता (/गुप्तता) (Secrecy ) और व्यक्तिगत (/ एकंकता ) (privacy ), तीन अलग-अलग शब्द विचार हैं । विधि -विधान में इनकी कोई निश्चित परिभाषा नहीं दी गयी है , मगर इनको तीन अलग अलग विचार के रूप में ज़रूर स्वीकृत करा गया है । किसी कृत्य में कौन सा विचार लागू होता है , यह तय करना मुश्किल कार्य माना गया है । इसलिए अतीत के उदहारण पर निर्भर होना सबसे सुरक्षित तर्क माना जाता है ।
अंतर्राष्ट्रीय मानदंडो से चले तो यह माना गया है की हर कार्य जो जन व्यवस्था से सम्बन्ध रखता है , वह पारदर्शिता में होना है । यह सभी के संज्ञान में होगा , सभी के साक्ष्य में होगा ।
मगर राष्ट्रीय सुरक्षा से सम्बंधित कार्यों को गोपनीयता के दायरे में रखने की छूट दी गयी है । ख्याल यह रखना है की गोपनीयता के यह संसाधन दुरूपयोग न हों , पारदर्शिता से सम्बंधित कार्यों को जन -संज्ञान से छिपाने के लिए ।
गुप्तता व्यक्तिगत कार्यों के लिए दी जाती है ।
एक छोटा उदहारण ले ।
पहने गए कपड़ों से सम्बंधित जानकारी गुप्तता के दाएरे में आती है । कपडे क्या है और उनसे शरीर छिपाया जा रहा है , यह सभी को मालूम है । मगर यह गुप्तता एक मनोवैज्ञानिक आवश्यकता है, इसलिए यह जनता की जानकारी में दी जाती ।
जेब में रखे पैसे गोपनीयता में रहते हैं । इसकी जानकारी कुछ ख़ास , चुनिन्दा लोगों को ज़रूर होती है । यह जनता में नहीं दी जाती , और व्यक्तिगत होने के मौलिक अधिकार में नहीं आती क्योंकि आय-कर और भ्रस्टाचार-सतर्कता विभाग इत्यादि न्यायलय आदेश के माध्यम से आप से यह जानकारी वसूल कर सकते हैं ।
परस्पर रिश्ते में हुए कार्यक्रम पारदर्शिता में करे जाते है , जिससे सभी को साक्ष्य बनाया जा सके ।
अंतर्राष्ट्रीय मानदंडो से चले तो यह माना गया है की हर कार्य जो जन व्यवस्था से सम्बन्ध रखता है , वह पारदर्शिता में होना है । यह सभी के संज्ञान में होगा , सभी के साक्ष्य में होगा ।
मगर राष्ट्रीय सुरक्षा से सम्बंधित कार्यों को गोपनीयता के दायरे में रखने की छूट दी गयी है । ख्याल यह रखना है की गोपनीयता के यह संसाधन दुरूपयोग न हों , पारदर्शिता से सम्बंधित कार्यों को जन -संज्ञान से छिपाने के लिए ।
गुप्तता व्यक्तिगत कार्यों के लिए दी जाती है ।
एक छोटा उदहारण ले ।
पहने गए कपड़ों से सम्बंधित जानकारी गुप्तता के दाएरे में आती है । कपडे क्या है और उनसे शरीर छिपाया जा रहा है , यह सभी को मालूम है । मगर यह गुप्तता एक मनोवैज्ञानिक आवश्यकता है, इसलिए यह जनता की जानकारी में दी जाती ।
जेब में रखे पैसे गोपनीयता में रहते हैं । इसकी जानकारी कुछ ख़ास , चुनिन्दा लोगों को ज़रूर होती है । यह जनता में नहीं दी जाती , और व्यक्तिगत होने के मौलिक अधिकार में नहीं आती क्योंकि आय-कर और भ्रस्टाचार-सतर्कता विभाग इत्यादि न्यायलय आदेश के माध्यम से आप से यह जानकारी वसूल कर सकते हैं ।
परस्पर रिश्ते में हुए कार्यक्रम पारदर्शिता में करे जाते है , जिससे सभी को साक्ष्य बनाया जा सके ।
Semantics and the mental aptitude in the matters of law
It is in accordance with the flow of logic, the principles of natural justice and in all the democractic laws that the one who is presenting a claim has also to bear the burden to prove that claim.
But there is a catch in this. Catch is that in our day today discourse, by a semantic turn of the statement- the language and the grammar- a 'claim' can be made to appear like a mere doubt, a suspicion or even simpler - a trivial cross-examination.
The effect of this 'twisting' by usage of the Linguistic is that the 'burden of proof' appears shifted , away from the one who maybe challenging an evidence while appearing to be merely a doubting Thomas, or a cross-examining lawyer.
In the field of Journalism, the news-men apply this effect of converting what may be an solemn legally valid evidence, into a 'claim' or an 'accusation', by presenting that news matter in the form of a doubt, or a suspicion. This, they can do under the cover of another valid debate of 'being Neutral OR being objective in the delivery of the news information to general public'.
Other times, this action of semantic change can happen because of what can be phenomentally described as the 'lack of mental aptitude in the matters of law'.
Here are some examples of the semantic turns which can be given to certain 'fact' to make that fact appear as what they sound like. To an otherwise simple known truth and a fact that 'Rajesh was the father of Twinkle', one can respond back to Twinkle as
''Who told you, Twinkle, that Rajesh is your father?'' ( a doubt)
''Twinkle is trying to prove that Rajesh is her father''. (an accusation)
''Twinkle is claiming that Rajesh is her father''. (a cross examination)
''Twinkle is accusing Rajesh to be her father''. (an accusation)
''What is the proof that the birth certificate of BMC correctly mentions about Rajesh to be Twinkle's father?'' (an apparent cross-examination)
''I don't accept the fact that Twinkle was daughter of Rajesh because I don't read Bollywood news'' (Denial, hiding with it the 'claim' being made that Rajesh was not Twinkle's father)
''I don't know !'' (a retreat into ignorance, implicitly making the doubt, and thereof , the claim that 'Rajesh is not Twinkle's father')
Infact , there can be infinite artistic examples and works we humans can do with our Language skills to make great semantic changes in the otherwise plain truth and a fact.
In news reading, this fundamental understanding of the issue of Logic is most essential to be able to make sense of the news. To make a sense, we need to know what is truth , what is a suggestion, what is false, and all other logical checks.
Read about a very current news matter, ''Pakistani soldiers kill five indian jawans at the border''.
The reactions which followed from the politicians and the news-men reflect to us not just our ignorances, but also a 'lack of mental aptitude in the matters of law'. The Ignorances can, however, be defended under the possibilities such as- none of us were at the border to witness all that incident which is being reported; or that many of the readers do not belong to the Defence forces to know the technicality as to who is truthful and who is not.
Among all the pandemonium of whether 'they were Pakistani Soldiers' (Claim A), or 'they were some people dressed in Pakistani soldier uniform' (Claim -B ), as a common man newsreader, the point to be noted was that there was no denial *from anyone*, (and most certainly from any relevant authority, such as Minister of Defense, or the Army Chief) about the Uniform of Pakistani Army being donned by the people who did the killing. Hence the legal technicality will roll itself such a way as to force upon as to accept that they were Pakistani soldiers, no matter the core truth, if ever revealed, establishes to be otherwise. This is because the standard truth we all are trained to accept is that only the Soldiers will wear the uniform of the forces they belong to. If we grant acceptance to Claim-B, the burden of proof of the hidden claim this statement bears , that 'they were not Pakistani Soldiers' (Claim Sub-B), will come by us only. Since we do not keep service roll of Pakistani Soldiers, or otherwise, how are we going to bear this 'burden of proof' to prove the claim (Claim Sub-B) . So , Claim -A is our only way out; while we would present to the world the statement of Claim-A, we would have exhorted the Pakistani Govt to deny or accept the truth of this statement. This exhortation will be necessary to proceed on the vast ranges of Dialogue.
It quiet surprises me that Politics is able to mould the course of natural justice in our country, which it does so because the citizens do not have the mental aptitude in the matters of law. Infact, it is this core thing, which is what we have otherwise described as 'ignorance', 'the religious people of India', 'lacking in the scientific temper', etc.
But there is a catch in this. Catch is that in our day today discourse, by a semantic turn of the statement- the language and the grammar- a 'claim' can be made to appear like a mere doubt, a suspicion or even simpler - a trivial cross-examination.
The effect of this 'twisting' by usage of the Linguistic is that the 'burden of proof' appears shifted , away from the one who maybe challenging an evidence while appearing to be merely a doubting Thomas, or a cross-examining lawyer.
In the field of Journalism, the news-men apply this effect of converting what may be an solemn legally valid evidence, into a 'claim' or an 'accusation', by presenting that news matter in the form of a doubt, or a suspicion. This, they can do under the cover of another valid debate of 'being Neutral OR being objective in the delivery of the news information to general public'.
Other times, this action of semantic change can happen because of what can be phenomentally described as the 'lack of mental aptitude in the matters of law'.
Here are some examples of the semantic turns which can be given to certain 'fact' to make that fact appear as what they sound like. To an otherwise simple known truth and a fact that 'Rajesh was the father of Twinkle', one can respond back to Twinkle as
''Who told you, Twinkle, that Rajesh is your father?'' ( a doubt)
''Twinkle is trying to prove that Rajesh is her father''. (an accusation)
''Twinkle is claiming that Rajesh is her father''. (a cross examination)
''Twinkle is accusing Rajesh to be her father''. (an accusation)
''What is the proof that the birth certificate of BMC correctly mentions about Rajesh to be Twinkle's father?'' (an apparent cross-examination)
''I don't accept the fact that Twinkle was daughter of Rajesh because I don't read Bollywood news'' (Denial, hiding with it the 'claim' being made that Rajesh was not Twinkle's father)
''I don't know !'' (a retreat into ignorance, implicitly making the doubt, and thereof , the claim that 'Rajesh is not Twinkle's father')
Infact , there can be infinite artistic examples and works we humans can do with our Language skills to make great semantic changes in the otherwise plain truth and a fact.
In news reading, this fundamental understanding of the issue of Logic is most essential to be able to make sense of the news. To make a sense, we need to know what is truth , what is a suggestion, what is false, and all other logical checks.
Read about a very current news matter, ''Pakistani soldiers kill five indian jawans at the border''.
The reactions which followed from the politicians and the news-men reflect to us not just our ignorances, but also a 'lack of mental aptitude in the matters of law'. The Ignorances can, however, be defended under the possibilities such as- none of us were at the border to witness all that incident which is being reported; or that many of the readers do not belong to the Defence forces to know the technicality as to who is truthful and who is not.
Among all the pandemonium of whether 'they were Pakistani Soldiers' (Claim A), or 'they were some people dressed in Pakistani soldier uniform' (Claim -B ), as a common man newsreader, the point to be noted was that there was no denial *from anyone*, (and most certainly from any relevant authority, such as Minister of Defense, or the Army Chief) about the Uniform of Pakistani Army being donned by the people who did the killing. Hence the legal technicality will roll itself such a way as to force upon as to accept that they were Pakistani soldiers, no matter the core truth, if ever revealed, establishes to be otherwise. This is because the standard truth we all are trained to accept is that only the Soldiers will wear the uniform of the forces they belong to. If we grant acceptance to Claim-B, the burden of proof of the hidden claim this statement bears , that 'they were not Pakistani Soldiers' (Claim Sub-B), will come by us only. Since we do not keep service roll of Pakistani Soldiers, or otherwise, how are we going to bear this 'burden of proof' to prove the claim (Claim Sub-B) . So , Claim -A is our only way out; while we would present to the world the statement of Claim-A, we would have exhorted the Pakistani Govt to deny or accept the truth of this statement. This exhortation will be necessary to proceed on the vast ranges of Dialogue.
It quiet surprises me that Politics is able to mould the course of natural justice in our country, which it does so because the citizens do not have the mental aptitude in the matters of law. Infact, it is this core thing, which is what we have otherwise described as 'ignorance', 'the religious people of India', 'lacking in the scientific temper', etc.
भाषा और सहज संज्ञान की मानसिक क्षमता
यह सभ्यता और भाषा ज्ञान से कहीं अधिक मानसिक क्षमताओं का विषय है की यदि कोई व्यक्ति इस प्रकार की अभिव्यक्ति रखता है तब समस्या क्या है । कई सारी बौद्धिक विषमताएं भाषा और उसके अनुचित प्रयोग से ही प्रत्यक्ष होती हैं । साधारण तौर पर कुछ अस्पष्ट अभिव्यति , सामाजिक तौर पर अस्वीकार्य अभिव्यक्ति इत्यादि को अनदेखा कर दिया जाता है । मगर राजनीति और राजपालिका के कार्य में यह एक विकट असक्षमता हो सकती है । निति निर्माण, अथवा जन संचालन के कार्य में यह बहोत बाधा , अथवा विपरीत कार्य भी करवा सकती है ।
अभी हाल के दिनों में दिए गए कुछ बयानों में 'भाषा और सहज संज्ञान' (language and cognitive inability) की विषमताओं के कुछ उधाहरण मिले ।
"गरीबी मात्र एक मानसिक स्तिथि है । "
"सैनिक तो सेना में जान देने ही जाता है । "
"मुझे अफ़सोस है की मैंने उसके पति के कहने पर उसका तबादला किया । "
"गरीबी मात्र एक मानसिक स्तिथि है । "
"सैनिक तो सेना में जान देने ही जाता है । "
"मुझे अफ़सोस है की मैंने उसके पति के कहने पर उसका तबादला किया । "
our 'collective stupidity' in the house of 'collective wisdom'
What exactly are we fighting up against? We have called it , first, the illiteracy, then ignorance, then lack of education, then lack of knowledge about the Common Law.
But the truth is that the problem is much more in the core. It is the lack of mental aptitude (aka Stupidity). We feel it, yet we are not able to know it. Our world, and our governments are working astonishingly mistaken in this regard. They are introducing more laws, in a deep thought, only to fight away what is truely 'the lack of mental aptitude in the matters of law'( aka Stupidity).
Our laws are simply gaining on the weight, a kind of belly fat, whereas the health of our society is continuously deteriorating. The laws are not working because the implementations are not rigorous. Infact , they are often finding meanings and interpretations so twisted and contrary to their purposes, that they are effectly being made to work just opposite to the cause. The Complaint Books in the public offices have become a one more step to take us AWAY from the Justice, and grievance redressal, instead of bringing us closer to it.! Infact, the very existence of the Complaint Books has created the logic for the higher tables to beat the Designated System of operations, only to claim rescue from the fact that, ''do as one feel like, if anyone is affected by your action, let him put a complain in the Complaint Book. Then We shall automatically come to know that we are not complying with the Designated System''. The Complaint Books are being used as a complete replacements to the Designated Systems instead of complimenting away what the systems could not have otherwise fulfilled. We are living in a world of stupidity.
Our 'collective Stupidity' is so much apparent in our conduct that it almost hides itself away as our Confidence in our selves and our believes. It is that political incorrectness which we cannot speak to each other, we hesitate and therefore we fail to discover it to be there in ourselves. It pervades as a NPD, our ignoramity, and our incompetence.
But the truth is that the problem is much more in the core. It is the lack of mental aptitude (aka Stupidity). We feel it, yet we are not able to know it. Our world, and our governments are working astonishingly mistaken in this regard. They are introducing more laws, in a deep thought, only to fight away what is truely 'the lack of mental aptitude in the matters of law'( aka Stupidity).
Our laws are simply gaining on the weight, a kind of belly fat, whereas the health of our society is continuously deteriorating. The laws are not working because the implementations are not rigorous. Infact , they are often finding meanings and interpretations so twisted and contrary to their purposes, that they are effectly being made to work just opposite to the cause. The Complaint Books in the public offices have become a one more step to take us AWAY from the Justice, and grievance redressal, instead of bringing us closer to it.! Infact, the very existence of the Complaint Books has created the logic for the higher tables to beat the Designated System of operations, only to claim rescue from the fact that, ''do as one feel like, if anyone is affected by your action, let him put a complain in the Complaint Book. Then We shall automatically come to know that we are not complying with the Designated System''. The Complaint Books are being used as a complete replacements to the Designated Systems instead of complimenting away what the systems could not have otherwise fulfilled. We are living in a world of stupidity.
Our 'collective Stupidity' is so much apparent in our conduct that it almost hides itself away as our Confidence in our selves and our believes. It is that political incorrectness which we cannot speak to each other, we hesitate and therefore we fail to discover it to be there in ourselves. It pervades as a NPD, our ignoramity, and our incompetence.
The limitations of your gratitude to your MNC for giving you an employment
There is an intrinsic connection between the theme of Independence, Freedom and Economic Liberty. It is here that the reasoning of why your argument that ''Let's be thankful to our company, our MNC, for giving us the employment which is so essential to our survival'', finds its limitation. It is here that the fight begins for saving an Employment from turning into slavery. The fundamental premise laid down in the Constitution of India, even expressed in the Preamble to the Constitution, promises to 'secure to all its citizens' the ''Justice : economic, social and political'', and ''equality of status and opportunity''.
All employments are considered to be economic activities. So, the country and its government promises and guarantees in some sorts, to you, your means of survival, although it may or may not not be a highly prosperous one. This is done to ensure your economic freedom so to be able to fight for your rights from your employers, eventually to stand up for your country. It is in these lines of the Preamble that the reasoning resides why Service Bonds are considered illegal against the considerations of having 'provided the employment'. Your employment maybe your survival in your insulated views, but which anyway has been protected by the Government. You need not owe your survival to anyone else further. Your employment is your choice, not your ultimate means of survival. If you cannot understand the implications of the above lines of the Preamble, you are only being an economic Slave, and you are probably running the Slavery Agency of some MNC. You are possibly involved in activity which maybe be called anti-national.
All employments are considered to be economic activities. So, the country and its government promises and guarantees in some sorts, to you, your means of survival, although it may or may not not be a highly prosperous one. This is done to ensure your economic freedom so to be able to fight for your rights from your employers, eventually to stand up for your country. It is in these lines of the Preamble that the reasoning resides why Service Bonds are considered illegal against the considerations of having 'provided the employment'. Your employment maybe your survival in your insulated views, but which anyway has been protected by the Government. You need not owe your survival to anyone else further. Your employment is your choice, not your ultimate means of survival. If you cannot understand the implications of the above lines of the Preamble, you are only being an economic Slave, and you are probably running the Slavery Agency of some MNC. You are possibly involved in activity which maybe be called anti-national.
the notation of 'refuse to sign'
I think it is important to discuss at some point how the notation of
'refuse to sign' works in document and law. Law recognises that It is
possible that people may start abusing the otherwise acceptable
notation of 'refuse to accept/sign' to fulfil their own sinister
motives. The validity of 'refuse to accept' is acceptable only as a
timebeing, until some proven method to make communication with the
person is documented. Infact this notation, 'refuse to accept' has a
direct bearing on Mode of Communication. Sometimes, it maybe that we
are demanding of someone to signature or accept the document which
that person , by his own company/national law is not authorised to
accept. Hence, 'refusal to sign' will come in favor of the person who
is refusing to sign that paper. It maybe that the paper is not legally
understood by the person who is being given that paper. Then , too ,
the 'refusal to sign' will stand with the person who is refusing to do
it. In such case, the paper to signatured is re-directed via a
recognised mode of Communication, such as an email, a courier, or
postal registry, or fax, to an authorised person, the point of
contact, as agreed in the contract, or as recognised by some local
law.
In a ship board OLB log entry, 'refusal to accept' might never be seen in your entire life time. What is 'refuse to accept/sign' is some paper, maybe the sealed envelope, which is a valid event to record in the OLB. The complaint against a person is definitely not required to be signatured by that person himself. And to this case, one cannot say, '' 'A' has 'refused to sign' ''. (please apply standard cognitive skills to know the difference).
If a paper communicated to a company through a recognised mode of Communication, and in good acceptable language, is 'refused to sign', the court may proceed to settle the issue 'ex parte', saying that the other party is hiding from the law. In fact ,before doing so, the court will summon that person through a public notice published in all the recognised news papers, and through national postal system, to establish a contact.
People should avoid using 'refused to accept/sign' casually to their own selfish interpretations.
In a ship board OLB log entry, 'refusal to accept' might never be seen in your entire life time. What is 'refuse to accept/sign' is some paper, maybe the sealed envelope, which is a valid event to record in the OLB. The complaint against a person is definitely not required to be signatured by that person himself. And to this case, one cannot say, '' 'A' has 'refused to sign' ''. (please apply standard cognitive skills to know the difference).
If a paper communicated to a company through a recognised mode of Communication, and in good acceptable language, is 'refused to sign', the court may proceed to settle the issue 'ex parte', saying that the other party is hiding from the law. In fact ,before doing so, the court will summon that person through a public notice published in all the recognised news papers, and through national postal system, to establish a contact.
People should avoid using 'refused to accept/sign' casually to their own selfish interpretations.
handling the physical violence on ships
(reference from a Facebook discussion )
the coercion is still happening, as what many of us would have protested out. However, the '8 witness issue' can be proceeded in a court case. That is why I say that 'many' witnesses will be required, meaning to say not just one, two ,three, ''a select chosen few'',.... but many, perhaps the whole of ship's crew. Infact , it is possible to challenge the witness of the entire ship crew too, if the lawyers start examining as to what actions did the master take after obtaining the witness signature of ''his chosen 8 crew'', or even the entire crew. master must involve the Shipping Master now, instead of acting all be himself - the victim, the investigator and the judge . The case which I am following, mentioned here in the JOBSHIPS forum, I guess it is still easy to catch on the master to be at fault, only because he has not done certain actions in accordance with the logical procedures. In general, if the Master has signature of all the crew as witness, he should inform everyone and MUST land that person since that person is ''provenly'' a threat to the ship, master and the crew. Absence of this action will trigger a reverse action against the master himself. In the case which @Kunal mentions Since nobody has taken the matter to the authorities, the message which has gone to the people is that ''it 's the Master's way, all the way''.
__________________________________________________________________________
One more thing I would like to mention is that , in my opinion, a case of molestation, physical violence, or 'manhandling', in the absence of an evidence to the contrary, the Hierarchical Justice might follow . That is, the one who is on the junior rank would have to suffer against the senior, if the claim from a senior rank person is that the junior actually 'molested' or 'tried to molest'. In my view, any case of molestation must meet a conclusion, since violence MUST essentially be curbed on board, and that evidencing often times is a very big challenge. There are enough legal support made available to the crew to protect the infringements of their rights, but ship's hierarchy works only on the basis of discipline and obedience. If that is put to question via the claim of a senior rank person claiming to have suffered molestation by a junior, if there is no evidence to the contrary such as a proof of senior having molested the junior, or that the physical built of the senior invites a challenge to claim of suffering molestation from a junior, the Hierarchical Justice should become an agreed way. that is, give punishment to whosoever is junior among those who were involved in the physical dispute.
__________________________________________________________________________
One more thing I would like to mention is that , in my opinion, a case of molestation, physical violence, or 'manhandling', in the absence of an evidence to the contrary, the Hierarchical Justice might follow . That is, the one who is on the junior rank would have to suffer against the senior, if the claim from a senior rank person is that the junior actually 'molested' or 'tried to molest'. In my view, any case of molestation must meet a conclusion, since violence MUST essentially be curbed on board, and that evidencing often times is a very big challenge. There are enough legal support made available to the crew to protect the infringements of their rights, but ship's hierarchy works only on the basis of discipline and obedience. If that is put to question via the claim of a senior rank person claiming to have suffered molestation by a junior, if there is no evidence to the contrary such as a proof of senior having molested the junior, or that the physical built of the senior invites a challenge to claim of suffering molestation from a junior, the Hierarchical Justice should become an agreed way. that is, give punishment to whosoever is junior among those who were involved in the physical dispute.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)