Politically irreverent

Can we know everything? Even stochastically speaking? Should we know everything there is to know?

Is it always valid to make a general inference or to induce a hypothesis on the basis of a set of particular instantiations? Isn’t there, sometimes, a behind-the-back-of-the-mind coloring or pre-organization of the instances to fit the hypothesis?

The world, the natural world, may be governed by rationality, proven laws of nature. But human beings populating the world are not always, need not be, rational.

How we look upon inanimate nature, natural objects and other human beings widely vary not just among these categories but is a function of time and contexts. Objectivity may be an approximation.

Can we move out of the straightjacket of the paradigms, beliefs we have come to accept? Or the myths we hold dear. Or the faith we adhere to.

There may not be solutions to all problems. No closure, not always. Why should there be? It may not always be possible to connect all the dots nor is there a cosmic justification for all the tears or every joyous moment.

Do we constantly need to connect with others and communicate? Where is the space, the cadence, between two or more entities ostensibly socially connected and morally beholden to each other?

Does our brain always need to remain busy, talkative, immersed among myriad signals?

Win an argument and lose a friend OR lose a wining hand to salvage a sinking soul?

How not to be always correct or right?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s