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."
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 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.


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)