bhasad...or ramblings as usual....

fear is cool...fear is unstoppable..we fear, for we can't do otherwise.....pressure, anger too, are nothing but forms of fear...the word 'fearless' ought to be a one worded paradox if reason and evolution are to be believed. why do i equate fear with anger??? why do i say it is a paradox? o yes!! how would you explain anger?..in fact let's take this piecemeal...

so...what is anger? an instinct that tells us things are not what they ought to be according to US!!

okay!

so?

well, to begin with, the situation entails different feelings in different humans, doesn't it? to the weak, it causes- desperation. to the adapting, it causes- compromise (with a sigh, though), and to the mighty-anger.

anger, hence, is a virtue of the mighty. a thought perhaps too akin to that of our national poet(read Dr. Ramdhari Singh Dinkar).

having said that, does getting angry mean that one is mighty?

NO!! anger is a an intuit. it is a REaction. which means that there ought to be actions first. and hence, anger is NOT even the domain of the mighty. it is an open reaction, akin to both the mighty, as well as the lesser mortals.

so what do we categorise anger with? in fact, CAN anger in itself be a display of strength OR weakness?

from what we have set out as premises, clearly the answer is "NO".

so anger is a 'virtue' of the weak as well as the strong. however, the reactions to this intuit are indeed circumstantial. and call for a greater inspection than what has hitherto been discussed.

case 1- if anger indeed is a public property, how shall the 'weak' react?

case 2- if anger indeed is a public property, how shall the 'not so weak' react?

case 3- if anger indeed is a public property, how shall the 'mighty' react?

(forgive me for my three 'generalised' categories)

case1- they cannot react and shall conform to the established. this has, and will remain the basic mode of evolution. Darwin has written enough about it already. and when the weak begin to show their traits, i.e. when the weak decide to give vent to their anger, there ARE TWO POSSIBLE CASES AGAIN. either their voices WILL be heard or they WON'T. if their voices are NOT heard, they remain the so called 'weak'. and if their voices ARE heard, mankind witnesses events like the French revolution and the Indian struggle for independence. cases that imply that their categorisation as 'weak' in the first place does not hold. so in either case, case 1 is null and void. for in the first case they CANNOT react and hence DO NOT matter. and in the second case, when they DO matter, they are no longer entitled to be called 'weak'.

case 2- the 'not so weak' have been the 'adaptive' epitomes of mankind. thereby depriving humans of ANY extremities that it could have achieved. these are the so called 'bourgeois'- the class that was born to serve. i do not say this because of any biases. you just take the pages of history and they shall bear witness to this hypothesis. this breed knows only one thing- compliance. the greatest apple polishers, and in fact the greatest 'well-known' were born in this category. they started with 'borrowed mindsets', continued with 'plagiarised principles' and finished with 'hackneyed hold-it-on's'. parasites, that lived and perished as parasites. contd...

my albatross...

relationships are like fire...you need to keep stoking them...one small nap and the fire turns to cinders...the cinders DEMAND a breath..as if oxygen were THEIR right..not the creator's...it's nauseating to keep stoking the fire...worst of all, the fire forgets..and forgets at a speed faster than that of the proverbial hare....heck! even the hare stopped to rest...

humans have forever shown a tendency to feel pampered...and you know what, the pamperers NEED to rest at times for heaven's sake!!! sillence is a right!! It's a birthright!! but no..one ought to speak, one must in fact... how else woulld the fire keep burning...but wait a moment...what if the weather changes? what if the creator of the fire does NOT need warmth anymore? would it be ethical to stub out the fire? wouldn't the fire have the right to resist? you bet it would- IF it had a conscience...the creator would have an obligation to heed its conscience..but hang on...if it were that the created fulfilled its obligation, clung patiently to the cinders when the creator slept, went tender when the flames became ferocious, soothed the senses when the weather changed...wouldn't it be THEN that the fire HAD a conscience??? if at all times, it kept just its one trait alive-fire- would it then have a conscience? NO..it would remain a creation then..an unearthly being of a an unearthly dimension, devoid of any earthly bound significances..and as such, devoid of any moral or ethical (earthly definitions both) peripheral significances. but alas!!!!!

things change...but to compare the change or to label it, one must have the bases ready. for without the bases, change itself is meaningless. the intellectual uncouth, unfortunately, do not realise this simple dictum.....

fight your own battles, and people assume you don't have any...heck!! if they have their own publicised ones in the meantime, they even blame you......

so brothers and sisters, if you want to have a so called 'healthy' image in the society, please shout out your problems, even if you know they are going to fall on ears that are going to, through their mouths in turn, shout a lot of meaningless help by BEING PRESENT...letting the fire realise that they are there to stoke it..baah!!

i once told myself that i'll have to fight it out in my own way.  believe me, iwas so proud to have had the realisation that for at least the next ten years i kept boasting about it...and then....well i knew that the realisation was supposed to have made me react EXACTLY the opposite way!!! i was hated, despised, and even ostracised for my boasts fort his entire period. now i dont talk about my problems..and suddenly people have started liking me.... :) ...grand....

so it doesn't matter what you feel. people, even your friends, are interested in hearing what they are interested in hearing. tell them a story that would make them feel that they should help, and that's all they want. Napoleon had learnt it at 23. he was wise. he had a mission. he could be ruthless, he could afford to be ruthless. he had fed his 'friends' with what they wanted to be fed with. i do not have that luxury...i became ruthless with my servings instead...i deprived my friends from their so called 'right' to help me...that's my blasphemy...that's my 'cross' to bear...