ON LOVE, MARRIAGE, RELIGIOSITY AND FRIENDSHIPS

-







Let us bring down assertions about love, marriage, religiosity and friendships. 

About love, it is not not friendship and not not lust. A Hegelian negation of negation. Love, hence, has to always be in sublime state to survive longer. It has always been a doubtful state whether it is different from lust or not, friendship or not. It always has to be in a non-conformist state. Any love which claims to be always secure and conformist, is a life insurance. 

Speaking about life insurance, Sex insurance is Marriage. Marriage is the stupidest institution I know. 

Religiosity is like love. Any religiosity, theism, which does not doubt itself is bound to be a flawed faith system. Any religion which does not guide his gods and develop new ways to understand the truth, the eternal (Literally the meaning of Sanatan is always true and new at the same time). 

Friendships should always be a fellow-traveler relationship. What is so special about any friendship? Precisely nothing. A set of coincidences that made two people close in walk of life. Who cares if it survives. But it should not be a non-conformist thing. It is such a simple stupid thing, that any philosophical speculation in this regard is flawed, just accept the premise that some friendships work, and some do not. You cannot do anything about it. One thing you can do is to not attempt to save it. 



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

THANK YOU!

-
Image
Journalling will be continued and so will Foucault reading. But I just wanted to share something very personal with you.  You know, Once upon a time, there was a kid who came to a small town in Patratu, leaving his parents behind because their parents were struggling with their own lives and relationships, to a Bijli Board given D-type quarter (House), of two of his Grandparents, Dadaji and Dadima. For a whole year, he was confused where he has come since, he did not know Hindi, only English and Tamil, may be a little Kannada.  He entered a school which was super-Hindi school. For a lot of time, He was a confused kid who did not understand what is going on.  It took at least one year for him to learn basic Hindi to be able to comprehend what was going on? Of course, he was never a brilliant student. Forget brilliant, He was not even mediocre when he used to study in LKG in Bangalore.  Now, cut to, when I see me, this little kid, who has no idea whatsoever, to me, mem...
Read more

EVERYWHERE, EVERYTHING ALL AT ONCE

-
I wrote it after a sweet experience of is-ness after a Bhajan. Life, as it is, seems quite incomprehensible to us. Too much of everything. Too much of things, too much of people, too much of emotions and too much of reason. The best description of life, as it is, should be Everywhere, everything, all at once. Things exist, and from those things arise man which can comprehend itself and its is-ness.  Is-ness is a quality of the man. The capability to be able to acknowledge how existing feels like, it is a unique feature of the man. Stones cannot describe is-ness. From is-ness, a need for meaning arises. A dire need to formulate why we are able to comprehend so much.  From meanings, arise a need of articulation and from that arises language. Language worships meanings through words. Words create, in turn, their own symbolic or otherwise meanings. These meanings have a world of their own. One meaning that arose due to is-ness, another meaning which was the cause of language and t...
Read more

LET'S READ FOUCAULT: CHAPTER 1 (CHOMSKY-FOUCAULT DEBATE

-
Image
Michael Foucault, in my opinion, is the most influential thinker of 20th Century. No cap. I think the extent to which he has inspired literary theory, Philosophy, Sociology and Contemporary thought in general, it is immeasurable. I mean, everyone thinks he is not Foucauldian until I tell them what actually Foucauldian is, and then they realize that most of their actions in their lives is Post-modern and hence Foucauldian.  Here, in a couple of chapters, we will try to understand Foucault and his thoughts. In no way, it is meant to create an analysis of his work or trying to interpret his work. It is just an informative blog., the way I understand him, I would like to present so as to consolidate my knowledge. Next in the series might be Marx, Zizek, Lacan, whatever.  My beginning to understand him began when I watched this debate happened on a Dutch Television show, where these two Great thinkers, Noam Chomsky and Michael Foucault, appeared. At that time, and it was some 4-5 y...
Read more