Search This Blog

Wednesday, October 7, 2015

Definitions and debates -too much of them over actions

Do we always need definitions and debates for everything in every situation?

1.     Very nice madam I agree with some of your observations. Of course as a linguist I insist on definitions and unless defined clearly we may not have clarity about what we are addressing. By nature I like to assimilate whatever little I read, observe, listen and learn and like to share with anyone when given an opportunity to do so. Mostly I do not initiate discussions because unfortunately nowadays everything can lead to a controversy ensued by an unending concomitant factors like debates, protests, rallies, demands , arguments [ which makes me remember very often one of my favorite author’s work POINT COUNTER POINT –by Huxley]

2.     Defining is a definite step and a must when there is confusion, either intentional or unintentional inaction but not in crisis or while addressing a calamity. Very often this step tends to become a stop. Besides at times, in certain issues when the subject matter, especially in specific contexts demand actions more than definitions. For example when a thirsty man knocks at the door we do not start to find out the definition of either thirst or water or a thirsty soul but we prioritize giving water. That is almost the situation of poverty[ I mean lack of basic material needs] a crisis of which all of us are aware and are also equally aware what must be done to change the situation at least gradually , marginally if not adequately or fully.

3.     Utopias always obstruct the view of the obvious.

4.     Results are nearer to reality than conjectures, hypotheses, presumptions etc. So economic development improves the condition of poor is a time tested result.

5.     Semantics of any word is again to be applied or understood with regard to contextual relevance. I am giving certain links in order not to unnecessarily repeat them.

6.     I was extremely pleased when MODI said at UN ‘first we must define what ‘terrorism’ is? If we cannot define how can we fight it?”

7.     All words especially abstract ones acquire too many connotations
and the onus is on the user to use appropriate sieves and filter.

8.     In many cases I do not want to name any professional but because of  playing on semantics and interpreting words justice is delayed and lot of time,money and energy is wasted.

9.     Most unfortunate spread of this trend is happening through mass opinion molders through media.

10.   Everything has its own dharma [for people who may not be comfortable with this terminology] internal dynamics, inevitable structure, inherent patterns etc based on certain inherent characteristics/attributes and acting according to situational or contextual relevance. Unfortunately our understanding of them is limited.

11.   Similarly there are certain universal principles one of which is all our actions fall within these three categories what we want to do, what we can do and what we are destined to do. At different times and different situations one or more of these will predominate.

12.   But at no cost must at least we stop attempting to do what we can do as social creatures.

13.   We are fortunately living in an age well equipped with various advantages like data, technology, information dissemination at great speed etc and we must use these to attempt to provide maximum happiness to maximum number.

18.   I would like to be led by  compassion filled action rather than crores of theories

19.   And ensure to maintain a sense of balance and magnanimity to acknowledge any good work that anyone does

20.  Ultimately just a week back I tweeted the following to the well known writer Pritish Nandy for his tweet

"Our national weaknesses: - deifying or denying; showing unloving criticism & uncritical love and emotionalizing everything”.

Debates and reactions do not get things done they just spill and spit more ideas, words and emotions, some of which are good, useful and entertaining sometimes but not always.

No comments: