THE AGE OF REASON

Yes and it's not very easy to interpret dreams Dreams come not because you have suppressed an emotion.  I mean, they do But there is always a portion in your dream which got automatically suppressed because you never had the language to express it.  You did not want to suppress it but you never got a chance to express it, so, unconsciously it got suppressed. Example: You will not dream of peeing if you have suppressed your pee forcefully knowing that you need to pee. But you will get that dream, when you are submerged in a work you like and your body automatically suppresses it without you knowing about it that it is suppressed.  In a nutshell, dreams are not the result of active suppression of feelings.  [ in fact, active suppression of feelings only leads to bad mental health issues]  But, the latent suppression of feelings.

 Again, A dialectical statement where I have used Hegelian dialectics to make a contradictory fact of life. What do I mean by this? It is pretty simple really. The statement is very self-evident. Many often people who are Atheist say this that If a child is not given any religious instruction in the childhood, he will reject all religions when he turns 18. I disagree with the statement. Here are all my assertions. And like my habit, I will try to state all my assertions in a sermonic fashion and then if I felt like writing more, give a logic to justify my claims.  1. What do I mean by a true religious education? A true religious education should teach the disciple a vision of positivist, rationalist and most importantly hopeful sight. It could begin from a fixed religious text, a guru and a fixed set of rituals, but it should after a point, transcend beyond these categorical thinking to include all possibilities and even the ultimate hypothesis should be rejected, i.e. Accept...

 GWF Hegal, the state philosopher, the philosopher of idealism, the philosopher of Absolute Idea, the Philosopher, who idea of state rationality gives rise to a different set of ethics and is a basis to all hitherto materialisms coming after him. And still, we are going to talk about his ultimate contribution to mankind and philosophy, his Dialectics.  Why Dialectics is my favorite of all kinds of philosophies? It is not dialectical materialism although I call myself a Marxist. It is not any spiritual thought but a very mute tool of argument, Hegelian Dialectics. Why Dialectics? Dialectics is not just a way of argument. It is a way to see the world working and progressing. How does a river flow? By means of Dialectics I claim. How does we grow from childhood to adults? How does political systems work? Dialectics, I claim. That too, Hegelian one.  What is Special about Hegelian dialectics? It is not just a series of Thesis, Anti-thesis and Synthesis. It is a series of cont...

What is the biggest huddle in the demolition of Patriarchal system and making a feminine world order? I claim a big assertion, " Women have a stake in Patriarchy and hence, No-true heartedly fight against the masculine world order could have been started". Women have compromised even in their biggest fight against Masculine world order . Women have failed women . They are reform based. They lack vision of revolution. They lack revolutionary consciousness. All this might sound bizarre and means nothing if I cannot prove this. But, let me state all my assertions. Women try to achieve masculinity and a Masculine freedom hence the claim to power by women is intrinsically masculine . They are bound to fail. Men always had boons of patriarchy and women were oppressed but even within women, The claim to masculine power has always been there. A mother-in-law and Daughter in law dynamic. Where does a mother-in-law derive power in the family setup of patriarchy. It is, indeed, a masc...

Let's go back to 1915. A leader to be and a Messiah of South Africa, The Maverick Barrister, later to be known as, Gandhi ji and that time, Mohandas K. Gandhi. Although he was not that big in 1915. Before him is a strong competition and a sort of legacy in the form of Tilak, Gokhale and other people. But within 10 years, what makes this individual a sort of a mahatma. I believe it was a claim to power through Moral Conscience. Morality was his ultimate claim to power. His arguments rely on Morality. Let's analyze this.  When we say Morality, it is for me nothing but a stance to a goodness, a claim that this is good, and this should be done. This starts a logical and human level ideological struggle to what will eventually be called "right". Whenever a new leader comes up with his version of morality, he challenges the older order of right vs wrong, and he wants everyone to agree to him. There is nothing universal about morality although it might appear that way. Empat...

 Dips of depression leaves you no choice but to not be able to write anything. Three days passed by, and I did not write anything. But here I am, again to write something. Today I am thinking of writing about biographies. The reader of a biography thinks he knows the person better now. But, thinking about it, I do not think this is true at all. In an earlier blog, I created a concept of how a word travels from its etymology to become just a mute symbol with, history ascribes on it a meaning. I think, this happens to a person when he dies. The complex search of meaning that drives the person to do what he does for the whole life. He changes world views, in response to dilemmas of life. This is often seen as contradictions in the personalities of people apparent to the reader reading about them. But these contradictions appear over the period of time and sometime simultaneously coexists within the person. A person like me, A swift Machiavellian, cunning piece of a person, am already ...

 It is very unusual for me to start writing blogs like diary entries. About 12 hours in a day, when I study, I get numerous ideas that I find worth writing, but the moment when I started writing it today, I am feeling a lack. Let this be reminder blog for me to write down my thoughts here so that I may expand it later at night.  THANKS 

Anyone with a slight progressive or center to left thought today is labelled in India as a liberal. People with bourgeois upbringing and background, especially those who are not well read but want to be portrayed as educated or bourgeois people who were malnutritional enough to not be able to grow a pair of balls against their fellow rich or even their own self are a broad category called liberal.  A liberal today is not a supporter of laissez-faire economy or pure scientific optimist, but a sceptic who does not know anything, hence does not like anything. The fallacy of being a liberal in India is that a wide mass of population that we call Middle class is without a thinking mind and that leaves them an easy prey for the fundamentalist Hindu Identity. Not to mention, it is the very background of this unaware liberalism on which such fundamentalist ideas can take their stance.  This specter of an ignorant liberal is very common in university campuses in form of faculties, Stud...