Well, you could say I was totally jobless at 4.30 am in Thanjavur railway station waiting for someone who was supposed to arrive at 7. So for two hours or so this morning I didn't know what to do with myself...Amidst the stares (its actually more pronounced in Tamil Nadu, that is a proven fact now), I decided to be the Devil's advocate for everything I wouldve died defending otherwise...yes, I know there are better ways to kill time...Anyways, after musing for a while, I more or less concluded the following...Apart from factual/ existential debates, everything else we opine on comes under one of these 2 categories :
1. Whether something ought to be/ have been done and in this/ that way.
2. Who ought to do it/ not do it.
Really, I couldn't find a third...I somehow see a distinction between black-white, on-off, true-false etc and the categories above...I feel it is a subset of the on-off but a super-set of the spirit of the actual debates. Please let me know if you have any that does not fit in...Try it, pick a topic and see. Moreover, all questions more or less agree with any one side of the should be/ should not be controlled frame also. But I haven't thought this one through though...2 hours was not enough you see :)
If you are wondering why this exercise, well...this may sound vague, but I have always wondered (in the biggest possible scheme of things) if everything is same or not, in the sense of belonging to some kind of unifying equation at different levels...I am not really able to articulate what I mean to say coherently, so I will leave it for now....
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment