God save this country...

so here comes another bouncer from the IndiaAgainstCorruption..the PM of India, Manmohan Singh , has also done what the culture of India is accused of harbouring, promoting and cultivating all the time..the big C--CORRUPTION.

How much has the Vedic Civilization fallen in the pits about its own moral lesson which it other takes pride in, of disseminatingto the world..the Bhagwad Geeta's eternal lesson of Dharma.

The Dharma was born in India, and killed, too, by the Indians.

Marketplace of Ideas: Free speech and expression

Notes from Wikipedia on 'marketplace of ideas' :

The "marketplace of ideas" is a rationale for freedom of expression based on an analogy to the economic concept of a free market. The "marketplace of ideas" belief holds that the truth or the best policy arises out of the competition of widely various ideas in free, transparent public discourse, an important part of liberal democracy.The concept also has roots in John Milton's argument for freedom of expression. Milton argued that the individual is capable of using reason and distinguishing right from wrong, good from bad. But in order to be able to exercise this reason correctly, the individual must have unlimited access to the ideas of his fellow men in "a free and open encounter." In Milton's writings can be found the idea that when people argue against each other the better argument will prevail.

A mafia in every field ...that is India

Recently I heard about a forum which has named itself - "India Against Corruption in Literature". :-P. It made me chuckle as to how there is 'corruption' in every field. Or, we are just generalising the phenomenon of Corruption?  The forum, although, was about protesting against the lobbyst, the 'powerful mafia', in the Janapeeth Awards committee. 
In my analysis of why there is a 'powerful Mafia' in every field in India, it is not because of presence of money, as, there is money in every developed nation too, but because we have defective idea of social justice. Rather we do not have a common idea of Justice. We do not make a philosophical and scientific query into what is right and what is wrong, in each of our Decision-making and judging. We judge the right and wrong of an issue by voting. Voting require support from people. To help this "support" problem, we like to be cultured and grown-up in the environment of "Boss is right'.  "Boss" become the "lobbyist"- leader. The powerful lobbyist thus have a means, by swinging of the vote-bank, to change our rights and wrongs, and thereof our social justice. The rich and powerful get different justice and the poor and weak have different justice. The lobbyist in each field are the Mafia of that field, the rich and powerful people. Social scientist say that we Indians do not believe in a common destiny for all of us. If 'A' is hit, we think 'thank god I am safe'. We don't relate how we too can get hurt tomorrow if we don't treat the cause.

We require thinktanks to come to life and do a non-partisan research of the rights and wrongs so that right justice may happen. That will set stage for elimination of corruption...from literature too..

Generalisation-- A tool for politics of love and hate

                 Television debates are nowadays often running away into low-intelligence whenever any issue of a generalized public perception is coming up. The debating factions globule into two bigger chunks , one trying to assert why the generalized perception of the issue has to be taken based on that one single incident,; and the other big globule trying to protest the generalization of the observation that all people belonging to the group are not like that. 
 The philosophical knowledge which I feel has remained elusive with both the factions is about the human need for a Generalistion. Neither of the two factions honour  and identify generalization as a human need, to take up the rules for a valid generalization and then respond to each other as to what perception should be finally held valid by the viewers. In the entire drama, the force of the main topic is lost to be wasted away into the Generalisation validation debate.

Generalisation , as I have examined earlier, is the breeding ground for Politics-- the division of vote. In its other stage of development, the Generalisation involves categorisation of people into group based on some general observation about the entire group. What the group division does is to invoke a the emotions for either loving the group or hating the group, judging on what the observation has been about the group. This is powerful stroke which can cause people to lose their reason and do the judgement in a highly emotional state. Emotions are a very strange commodity; they defy gravity and logic.  They create a force of attraction and replusion both at the same time. Public's emotions largely act in this manner. They cause people to polarise. (It is a different context to talk of emotions as the fountain of all human intellectualism which the controlled, well-balanced mixture of logic and emotions do.)
The groups formed by the categorisation behave incoherently. Nobody thinks of examining the generalisation; everybody acts up to either accept it fully or to reject it. "How you can all muslims are terrorist", "All pakistanis are not terrorist", "all bhaiyas are not illiterate, uneducated hooligans"-- these are few examples of how the hate of generalistion has caused the valid observation to be rejected in its entirety.  The Sardar jokes, and the mullu-working-in-"Gelf" are some neutral generalisation which have found good acceptance by the people through jokes and public humor. And there "rich people are smart and intelligent", "Delhi-ites are people of higher learning", "biharis are good at academic knowledge", or "the Bengalis are hi intellect people", kind of generalisation which have found public acceptance without much of critical examination of the truth in them. The picture painted by loobyiest have helped create the public's General impression about the entire group by using a few top examples.
The emotional state created by the Generalisation causes people to become emotional. Reason is lost, now. What more does a habitual politician need !?

Metaphysics of Generalisation -- How the Politics breeds and involves up the people

Generalization of an Observation is a very natural instinct of man. It is an instinctive habit perhaps because it is connected with the survival techniques out in the wilds. The moment they see the birds sitting on loft trees fly away with a pandemonium of fear, the timid animals down below immediately generalize the observation with presence of a danger which has been experienced and trained in them through hunting episodes by a lion. This is instinctive , very closely related with the need for safety by every living organism.
 But a philosopher or either a crook, both, might raise an argument on the birds-flying-away event isolating it with the past experience, and ask, "how can you say that the birds flew away because there is a lion. Maybe the birds flew because the flock leader decided to return home." The uncertainity in the co-relation of birds flying off, to the presence of a lion creates a natural climate for the occurring of politics in the issue, a vote-division situation generated by the immeasurability of abstract things such as beauty of a piece of art. The art-form over here being- the accuracy of prudence knowledge on the presence of a lion,-- there may be, there may be not. Some might even suggest to the man to wait back before jumping to any generalized conclusion before fully analysing an observation. But the need for prompt action in the positive-side presence of a lion enjoins upon the man a make a decision, a quick decision because the execution of his safety action, which more likely is about fleeing away, has to be initiated as per that decision.
But once a generalization instinct becomes a habit for critical analysis of all observations and thereof the decision-making, it is in itself capable of playing a politics by raising a false alarm. Perhaps all that is needed is to raise a safety-alarm on a issue by remotely co-relating the issue with some lapse of the past date. There will have a call for decision-making, which in course will involve a vote-division to manage the uncertainties of future prediction involved in the issue--whether the lapse co-related with the issue will happen again or whether it will not.
On a side note, one can clearly noticed that the angle of uncertainty, the Uncertainty Factor , is a must factor for occurring of Politics-- Politics over here means academic field of collective decision-making on issues which are subject to heavy opinion-making. Indeed, the subjects of Arts, such as the beauty of a painting, or estimation of a future event based on the current rate, or prudential knowledge are the most common Art-forms for growth of Politics. Fear factor is another common art-form to force people into decision-making; this kind of Politics is nowadays termed a the Politics of Fear.
Often times, in an attempt to check the instinct of Generalisation, people tend to feel repulsive towards every act of generalisation they see. This however forces on them to switch back to the higher skill of decision-making which only the Man species have developed exclusively-- the skill of Informed decision making, in contrast to the instinctive decision-making which the evolutionary inferior species make use of.
In this scenario, people like to raise questions about the Bases of Information for Generalizing an Observation - the logic of how a generalising should be held valid. The logic could be the frequency of recurrence of the content-observation--a statistical (meta-)'observation' in itself.
The alarm raising point then becomes the next angle of vote-division, a farm field of Politics. The frequency of observation may, or may not, be suited for raising the alarm. For example, an occurance of mere 4 cases of Swine Flu in a locality, say, Pune, is enough mark for raising the Alarm for spread of Swing Flu in the region of Pune. But occurance of four deaths by suicide cannot be an alarm point for raising Alarm for Psychopathic Watch on the Citizens. However,  suicide causality of , say, 40 people in 3 months in Haryana, is a justifiable ground for raising Psychopathic watch alarm on the people of Haryana.
The significant characterstics of an act of generalisation is that it soaks up a larger number of people in a single act of Generalisation. For example, all the people living in Pune will be put on watch to prevent Swine Flu, and all the people of Harayana will be put on the watch for psychopathic symptoms. A habitual practicing politician cannot ask for a better gift from God than an event of Generalistion  where larger mass may be involved up in the vote-division on an issue. Thus, if a community is subjected to a Generalisation , it is most convenient breeding ground for involving up that community to vote in favour or against that issue. The other counterpoint community, if any, will also get involved up automatically in the vote-division.
The purpose of generalization however does not stop at the idea of decision-making in the instinctive mode of brain. In the holy aspect, even the Informed Decision Making makes use of Generalization for some purposes. Generalisation, by its nature of being the most natural way of critical analysis, is the method for testing a theory given by any person. The wider-applicability of theory is one of the most natural validity-test. The questioning by the masses about the frequency of observation of an event resulting into formation of a theory are an essential method of testing it. Therefore, a newly made observation is put for Generalisation through the explanation routes given in a theory. A generalization, thus, is also a scientific process for natural test and validity.
This need for generalisation process makes the act of generalisation disguised, raising another episode of vote-division of whether the Generalisation is for creating a political vote muster-point , or , for the purpose of testing a theory. Like, as seen in the case of Birds flying off and the presence of a lion, the genuine safety needs related with an event become the Theory for putting the observation in the Generalised form.
This is how a theorist, a sort of philosopher, becomes eclipsed by a habitual politician, a crook.

What is Critical Thinking and how it involves Generalisation of Observations?
Read more at : http://unilearning.uow.edu.au/critical/1a.html

"Boss is right"- is an anti-nation-hood belief and culture

The axiom of "Boss is right" is not just personally repulsive, it is also an anti-nation-hood belief in a Democractic society.
You see, when the criteria of right-ness shifts away from the ethics of it being right, to the position of the speaker, the justice gets fouled. Thus, what is right and what is wrong is no more objectively decided, but by the influence of who is speaking, how many people support him. Thus if a political party leader takes a stand on an issue , differing from the stand of another political party leader , the eventual idea prevailing and governing the life and destiny of the entire social group, the nation, is no more the justice thing, but the count of fellow-ship of each of the two leaders, whose each fellow-man has been brought up and cultured with the idea of 'Boss is always right'. It is no wonder that we, therefore, have a dynastic political system, whose leaders are born from the progeny, not on the justice-based stand on issues. More issues will rise and more breakdowns will happen resulting in more leaders and more political dynasties. Such a society is likely to eventually crumble, or scrambled over and failed by a more strong society, - stronger either by terms of numbers of fellow-ship, or, stronger in its ideas of justice.

Featured Post

नौकरशाही की चारित्रिक पहचान क्या होती है?

भले ही आप उन्हें सूट ,टाई और चमकते बूटों  में देख कर चंकचौध हो जाते हो, और उनकी प्रवेश परीक्षा की कठिनता के चलते आप पहले से ही उनके प्रति नत...

Other posts