Sunday, August 26, 2007


QM: Qiestioning me, JM:Justifying me.

QM:Why perfection when mediocrity suffices the survival?

JM:That’s because only survival is not the aim of life- that’s what makes humans different from animals.

QM:So what is the aim of life?

JM:Every time we set an aim (short term or long term), we end up failing to achieve it or achieving it. In the first case we keep trying it (if that is really an aim set by us, and we desperately need it). In the second case, we again try to find some “new” aim of life and keep trying for it. This process keeps rotating through out the life. Hence at any time either we are tying to find an aim or trying to accomplish an aim. In either case we have not achieved the aim. So I think, aim of life is a more abstract term, more like a state of mind rather than the physical attainment of anything as such.

QM:So what is the state of mind called “aim of life“?

JM:Well here it is all evident the self satisfaction and happiness are the things each one of us need. So let’s assume that happiness is the mental state that is the aim of life.

QM:Can we achieve this abstract state of mind - aim of life - called happiness?
JM:Our state of mind keeps changing with our life activities. When we win an award or become topper of the class, we feel happy and jubilant, morose when we fail in our commitments. Why do we feel that way? That’s because our motivation of any action is recognition and acceptance. So recognition is something that we seek from people around us. Failure in fulfillment of the commitments, leads to the lowering of recognition which reprises into “saddening” of the mental state, and we move away from the aim of life. On the contrary recognition in the society gives us feeling of happiness. Everything seems to be OK. But there is something which is not right here.

QM:So does the happiness (aim of life), depends on the people around us?

JM:It seems that the answer is yes. But I think answer is big NO.
It can never happen that our happiness depends on the bunch of people around us. Actually there is basic problem in the theory. The problem is recognition. One should not need any recognition and acceptance for his happiness. The enjoyment of actions should be so overwhelming that results become immaterial. So if the object is action, not the result, then one can actually be happy without having to do anything with the people around him. Enjoyment of actions will be perennial source of happiness.

To enjoy the work, it is important that one makes choices about undertaking work in a more conscious manner. One should do things which are actually his own commitments based on his likes and dislikes, not the obligations of somebody’s expectations.

QM:But if the result is immaterial what will be motivation of the action?

JM:Motivation of actions will be the perfection, the satisfaction of the standards set by the individual himself. Perfection of individual endeavor-the best possible way to do a thing, where the “best” is defined again by the individual. Perfection, they say cannot be achieved, but this should not be the reason for even not striving for it.

If not perfect, be perfectionist.

So we come to where we started from- the perfection. Well, conclusion is not bad: Aim of life is “happiness”, mode of achievement is “joy of actions” and motivation is “perfection”.

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Patchwork of Co-Survival

This blog may sound like another trite article on individualism among the thousands of entries on the internet, but it hardly matters to me what it sounds like. The object of this blog has is to tell people about my ideas, irrespective of any extant theory which somebody may try to associate it to. This blog is a selfish act of putting up my ideas as a pure non-fiction hard truth and has no concern for the people who read them.

We have developed a whole society around us and the this society teaches us the rules to live in it. To help each other, to do charity for the people around us and blah-blah... are the key concepts on which the whole thing is working -its like the weak people should get what they need. So called "weakness" of the man is the biggest mistake man has ever made. How can a man be weak when he actually wants to be strong? ya he can be weak because the society around him gives him opportunity to be weak.

This whole thing is concept given by the mediocre people in the society, those who don't have any faith in their own integrity rather have more belief on what people are already doing. People who don't know how to make their own path-the tough way doing things, rather they believe in following the other people - The Crowd. Yes the same crowd around us all which doesn't have any fixed principles, rather a crude set of instructions that defies the basic instinct of the man - the freedom, the strength. The so called "social-morals" which change at every turn of life. A patchwork of co-survival, a reason to be weak and dependent on others.

Dependence - the "solution" of all problems, "peaceful coexistence" - in which man looses his identity. What matters now is how people think about him, how is he more good to the society and how well he makes interaction with the people around him. The ego and the self esteem, the primary ids of the man are lost. The intensity within the man himself is lost because, the things like ego and self esteem are no good to society of dependent people as they cannot survive without these "social-morals " - a reason to b weak.

Its been long in the search of the aim of life or, more precisely, purpose of the life and now it seems that its getting more and more distinct that more or less life is for ones own-self, for the ones own happiness and for ones own actions that give him feeling of accomplishment.

The ultimate truth of life is the self- there has to be an "i" in "happiness".