I asked.
It was a behtareen insaan/ a refined person.... (when it is a male, we call the post 'chairman', but when it a lady, we had-to make it as 'chairperson', as if a male is no more a 'person' when chaired!)..
Anyway, here I call it a 'person', because I do intend it to be 'personal' (be it about 'that' person, or others!)
What I did further was, to add, “please hold your answer for a while... till you 'observe' what happens within, 'due' to the question, (assuming, that the mind now decides to look at it afresh!).
It is risky to ask an anger prone-person, “Sir/Madam, what is anger?” (the immediate 'second-track' within might 'also' be, something like “Now... now, now.. are you trying to prod(incite, jab..)?... are you trying to 'teach'?... get lost!!!” And this person would even demonstrate a little visibly, even in-between that plastic-smile (like that 'reading-between-lines')...
An emotionally unstable person too would feel 'prodded' by such a question (what is emotion?)... the immediate impulse is, 'Hey, is he trying to provoke/invoke my instability?'... (at least, with an 'anger-predominent one' we know, the texture of lava that would pour out of the volcano called 'anger'... but with emotional instability...? it is just 'anybody's guess'!)
By now, we would have felt the 'original question' to have subdued a little.... The mind has got busy with how questions which are quite 'impersonal' in its own exclusivity, but how we... try to make it too-personal, often! (that is what a mind is!)... anyway...
Now I ask, when we read/listen-to this question (what is emotion?), “are we not trying to look within?” .. Here we do not even try to find out the 'address' of 'where exactly—within?'... the 'looking is instantaneous'.. ... (and then what ever happens within is a world in itself, unique to each of us... so no point comparing even!)...
question-ably yours,
psn (18th December, 2014)
It was a behtareen insaan/ a refined person.... (when it is a male, we call the post 'chairman', but when it a lady, we had-to make it as 'chairperson', as if a male is no more a 'person' when chaired!)..
Anyway, here I call it a 'person', because I do intend it to be 'personal' (be it about 'that' person, or others!)
What I did further was, to add, “please hold your answer for a while... till you 'observe' what happens within, 'due' to the question, (assuming, that the mind now decides to look at it afresh!).
It is risky to ask an anger prone-person, “Sir/Madam, what is anger?” (the immediate 'second-track' within might 'also' be, something like “Now... now, now.. are you trying to prod(incite, jab..)?... are you trying to 'teach'?... get lost!!!” And this person would even demonstrate a little visibly, even in-between that plastic-smile (like that 'reading-between-lines')...
An emotionally unstable person too would feel 'prodded' by such a question (what is emotion?)... the immediate impulse is, 'Hey, is he trying to provoke/invoke my instability?'... (at least, with an 'anger-predominent one' we know, the texture of lava that would pour out of the volcano called 'anger'... but with emotional instability...? it is just 'anybody's guess'!)
By now, we would have felt the 'original question' to have subdued a little.... The mind has got busy with how questions which are quite 'impersonal' in its own exclusivity, but how we... try to make it too-personal, often! (that is what a mind is!)... anyway...
Now I ask, when we read/listen-to this question (what is emotion?), “are we not trying to look within?” .. Here we do not even try to find out the 'address' of 'where exactly—within?'... the 'looking is instantaneous'.. ... (and then what ever happens within is a world in itself, unique to each of us... so no point comparing even!)...
question-ably yours,
psn (18th December, 2014)
1 comment:
Quite a few of us, when we are not 'that-good'...
about
definition of definition,
or
expressing what we know,
or
knowing how best the other is going to grasp our articulation, (also if our linguistic skills in the language known to the other is not really compatible),
etc...
we often end up into 'describing' ... instead of defining...!!!
(what is an Egg?... And we start saying, something like: 'it is not exactly-white, but also-white, it is not round, but a little round too.. not too hard, but hard {hard-boiled-eggs!!!}, ' and go on... thus, but never really 'getting at' what an egg is all about?... It seems somebody like 'Mulla Nasruddin' tried with "all the creatures that have ears pushed inside, lay eggs!")...
So, doesn't matter, if we are not in 'conformity' with 'too-technical' or perfect format/structure of a definition... It is good enough, to know, when 'exactly' we become 'too-emotional' (as a compromise, for accuracy in defining!... Now, that calls for a 'defining-moment'?
Dunno!
psn
Post a Comment