Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Yes and No, uncertainty and a discussion

It all started with an innocuous yet a very deep Tweet. Suddenly some doors opened, some people (sjcakes, URM1, probabilism, KdProQuo) peeped in and started having a wonderful (and rather long) conversation that happened in a short time. No one knew where it was going to lead...

sjcakes: yes is the beginning of knowledge (tho I've heard "no" may be the beginning of wisdom).
KdProQuo: 'No' is the beginning of freedom.
sjcakes: depending on the question/desire, it can also be yes.
probabilism: perhaps it may be unjust to even walk on the path assessing righteousness of either of the words.
sjcakes: wisdom and knowledge are not righteousness - the are result and use to whatever end they're made.
URM1: Yes, is not necessarily always servile. No might mean the end of possibilities.
probabilism: A Yes may very well be close to the clear conscience. A No might imply a new chapter.
KdProQuo: No is more certain than a Yes?
URM1: How? Why? As @probabilism points out, a judgment is unfair. The operative word in this case should be 'situation'
---
probabilism: certainty is a fact. calling out Yes or a No, one may be able to see the facts in retrospect.
URM1: Certainty is perception, belief. Quite different from fact, I'd say.
sjcakes: certainty is a perspective.
probabilism: certainty cannot be a perspective if one prioritizes relativity of life as secondary.
sjcakes: certainties can change. Review your life and see.
---
probabilism: but I do see a point in what @KdProQuo has said. we dwell in greys & find comfort. perhaps black & white are needed.
KdProQuo: But Yes and No both can exist in either Black or White.
sjcakes: and their meanings spam a gamut of grays as well as colors.
sjcakes: darlings, the entire menagerie needs the full spectrum, the entire rainbow hues and shades too!
URM1: We pick colours as it suits us. A 'yes', a 'No' and a 'Maybe' are all decided on opportunity/convenience
KdProQuo: Or habit or comfort.
probabilism: indeed. so why not drive that partial willingness to cull out b&w | habit oriented comfort is perhaps lack of will.
sjcakes: more simply: drive out habit and kill it for the blood sucking life destroyer that it is
---
URM1: So yes and no, good and bad, light and dark, two sides of the same coin, etc. and life goes on
sjcakes: two sides but there's also an edge - is the edge a third side? it always gets overlooked
probabilism: I think edge is the side that you can choose. perhaps often imbibed by b&w.
KdProQuo: this third side is what makes dissolves the blackness in black and adds the white and vice versa.
sjcakes: it is the INFINITE line enclosing black & white, bounding their edges & exploding infinite colored possibility
probabilism: exactly. that's why one could look beyond normalcy of relativity & visualize an absolute.
KdProQuo: Brother, I am scared of absolutes. They dissolve the intensity of grays that soothe and explain so much.
probabilism: no need. absolute is the other side. not the evil side.
sjcakes: so you absolutely want to deny the existence of absolutes out of fear??
KdProQuo: Yes the fear of losing freedom. The fear of subjecting to absolutes decided by a very subjective audience.
probabilism: Freedom is earned, thus not lost. audience changes over time but freedom is constant.
sjcakes: freedom can be lost. Earning doesn't preclude losing.
probabilism: the intensity of earning freedom is far too superior to the act of losing it. thus the sheer & clear winner.
URM1: Are you sure freedom is constant? I am not. And yes, @sjcakes, the edge/grey is the third side.
probabilism: it definitely is. like i said we stop at grey & forget what we can actually put to use.
sjcakes: tempted to site horrific cases to the contrary but too tired.
KdProQuo: reminds of "every win is not a victory and every victory is not a win."
sjcakes: PLAY THE GAME BUT DO NOT FOR A MOMENT MISTAKE IT FOR WHAT IS REAL.
URM1: Why must one try to be either? It isn't human. We need and use both.
URM1: The best we are allowed to have is a life of moral compromises in lieu of physical peace/comfort.
probabilism: moral compromises, eh. doesn't sound comforting considering this discussion.
probabilism: may be i said it wrong but i agree that both are needed.rather we need to use them.we simply seem to stop at grey.
URM1: Yes, we seem to stop at grey because grey is easy - makes no difficult demands on our conscience.
probabilism: and i have experienced it first hand - if you decide to get out of grey & ask for more, you are hated!
URM1: So suddenly it becomes about the judgement of others, rather than voice of the self? But I won't object.
sjcakes: which highlights the issue us confusing self w others. Needing others approval/conforming vs knowing/living u
probabilism: @URM1 yes. i would have loved it, had you objected it nonetheless :)
URM1: No, I understand how society plays us, and that to be able to lead peaceful lives we must alter our yeses and nos.
sjcakes: we forget it us a game and play it with our real person instead of PLAYING IT.
probabilism: as socially developed animals,perhaps we can make a choice & not let society outplay us. its not individualism am talking.
URM1: Sure we can. But do we? The ideal affirmations and negations hardly ever happen.
probabilism: yes yes. but that is not good enough reason to not enough try it.
URM1: Definitely. Some idealists are always needed to give this world hope. You pick your yes, I'll pick mine.
KdProQuo: That reply just made me smile. I agree. Moral compromises are required and are highly malleable.
probabilism: and I'll stand by your side to back you up. idealists fail because they stand up but never stand by.
---
KdProQuo: Every grey has a black and white. Situations decide the intensity of either.
probabilism: and they equate in the end. my question is, why not equate it to start with.
URM1: But the question is does relativity ever take a backseat? Who can claim to be logical/emotional at all times?
sjcakes: I can CLAIM to be BOTH at all times.
probabilism: no one can claim so. but one must try to. this is exactly where bond b/w logic & belief comes in.
probabilism: but then if perception rises from my information or absence of it, where would belief stand? a hunch of logic?
sjcakes: (grinning) More things are perspective than even perspective wants to admit
KdProQuo: belief and logic rarely go hand in hand. belief is more instinctive. logical belief is science, yeah?
sjcakes: logic and belief. Depends.
probabilism: @KdProQuo i completely disagree with it.logic & belief are not different.to be honest, spending time with them tells you more
URM1: Sure they are opposing forces. But that does not stop us from choosing according to convenience.
probabilism: yup. and we can stop it. change the direction with belief. and proceed with logic.
URM1: But from time to time life makes us all select a black or a white, painful as it is. And we let 1 win - head or heart
sjcakes: pick red instead. Or green. Society will bitch and whinge. But after a moment will forget. But you won't.
probabilism: yes. ironically, if you make a habit out of it the pain subsides :)
sjcakes: the pain doesn't subside. You just get better at justifying your ignoring it
probabilism: you may be right about the ignoring part of it.

...No one still would probably know where it led. Apart from this blog post.

2 comments:

Urmi Chanda Vaz said...

This might well be the most interesting Twitter conversation I've ever had. Thanks for compiling it. It is a memory I will cherish!

christinapedia said...

thoroughly enjoyable, i admit it... can only imagine if we'd done it in person where it might have led (tho there'd be no transcript to refer to)