LIFE AS I SEE IT: THE WAY THINGS ARE AND OUGHTTA BE

THE WAY THINGS ARE AND OUGHT TO BE IN LIFE
------------------------------------------

1. Please note my lavish use of "SOME", "MANY","MOST".., all of which
implies "NOT ALL" ; keep this in mind IF/WHEN imputing a stereotypical
characterization to my observations. Please also pay attention to words
capitalized for emphasis.

2. Any reference to "Should" is to be understood in the optative sense and not
in the imperative sense i.e as "strongly prefer/desire" and NOT as an intent
of enforcement by coercion (Even if I had the power to do so :) and any
refernce to "do/don't" is to be understood as an earnest request.

3. Be careful with the precise meaning of words and statements. Words are used
with precise meaning in mind. Where precise meaning is needed it is explained
or defined clearly. Note that:

i) making an affirmative statement does not necesasarily imply that
the converse of the statement is also true and vice versa.

ii) Be aware of the distinctions between the modal terms "May/will/must",
"possible/necessary", "does/necessarily", "has to/can" etc.

4. I would prefer an impersonal feedback from you in the form "I disagree
with you on A3, B7, C8.. (preferably pinpointing specific words and
sentences or lines if applicable) etc BECAUSE .. (your points to justify your
disagreement)" instead of a highly personal one like "Because of what
you say in A3, B7, C8 etc YOU must be ... (biased, racist, cynical,
angry/bitter/misanthrope what have you).

5. I have not yet read the books by Emily Post or Amy Vanderbilt. All my
do/don'ts, shall/shan'ts, is/oughttabe etc are results of reflections based on
my insistence on logic,consistency and fairness. If any of my writings coincide
with theirs it will be purely coincidental, although I doubt that it would.

This essay is divided into 6 sections namely:

1. Section-A: The Way It Ought to Be (Suggested do's and don'ts)
2. Section-B: Unfortunate (The way it not oughttabe)
3. Section-C: Examples (Some actual) of Sophistry,Contradictions,Hypocrisies etc
4. Section-D: Hmm.. (Acts and Words that raise questions in mind)
5. Section-E: Notes To Myself and My Observations & Quotes (The way I see it)
6. Section-F: My Views On..(various ethical, social, political issues)
7. Addenda: Misc topics not classified into separate sections yet

ONE LINE DESCRIPTION OF THE ARTICLES IN THIS ESSAY:

THE WAY IT OUGHT TO BE

A1. Dont expect others to do for you what they dont expect you to do for them.
A2. Dont expect others to do for you what you dont do for them.
A3. Doing favours and fulfilling obligations etc.
A4. Ending a friendship not because of "not doing for" but because of "doing TO"
A5. Avoiding borrowing money and living prudently.
A6. Not attacking physically in response to verbal atack
A7. Being fair if getting even is a must.
A8. Ground rules of debate/argument
A9. Countering a criticism with criticism, not with anger
A10. Passing a judgement on someone based on "something"
A11. Explaining the ressons for advice, criticisms etc.
A12. Staying away from high risk activities.
A13. Recognizing the shades in things. Grey areas etc.
A14. Judging/Understanding others based on their perspective
A15. Wanting to sincerely make someone happy.
A16. Not basing any decision/action on another's non-obligatory statement.
A17. The requirements of a genuine truth seeker.
A18. Vicarious blaming of nations for its past wrongdoing.
A19. Unilateral promise vs. confidentiality.
A20. Benefit of the Doubt.
A21. Don't say "Trust me, Love me, respect me" etc, instead..
A22. Everyone should work hard vs. working proportionate with expectation.
A23. Private advice vs. public preaching.
A24. Definition of absolute wrong
A25. Definition of personal matters
A26. Legitimacy of Yes/No question
A27. Rules Regarding Infidelity, Jealousy, Love Triangle Etc
A28. Ground Rules for Initiating a relationship:
A29. OK to be inconsistent if it only affects oneself but not if it affects others

===B=== UNFORTUNATE: (The way it not oughttabe)

B1. Both reason1 and reason2 possible, but some always pick the one that suits them.
B2. (i)Attributing a motive behind a yes/no question and not answering yes/no
(ii) B suspecting A's lack of trust in B due to A's suggestion of alternatives
B3. A doesn't hear B's whole staement and passes jugement without verifying the whole
B4. A explanatory statement by A is viewed at as blaming/whining
B5. A declarative (IS) statement is interpreted as an imperativeone (Thou shall)
B6. C accuses A of siding with B if A defends B against a lie, B=religion/race ..
B7. Putting words in one's mouth, thoughts in one's mind..
B8. Making convenient reasoning, contradictory statements or stands on an issue..
B9. Claiming one's rights or pointing other's mistake provoking an adverse reaction.
B10. Debunking the hyped up myth of an idea provoking a "So whats wrong with.."
B11. A Asking B about an information about C and B replying "I din't ask C" etc
B12. Fussing about an indirect but unambiguous reply to a question
B13. Refusal/Unwillingness to provide information/helpful tips/opinions
B14. A offers B something regularly without the asking still says B wants it.

SECTION-C. Examples (Some Actual) of Sophistry/contradictions/hyocricies,
wrong conclusions etc

C1. Feeling glad that something missed was cancelled.
C2. A concludes B is religious just because B doesn't eat something forbidden in religion.
C3. A making a wrong conclusion about B's taste in a dinner table.
C4. B replies sarcastically when asked by A to verify if copied some info corerectly etc.
C5. A giving B a website address and B not copying it correctly
C6. A telling B he is lucky for choosing major 'A' for study, staying single etc
C7. (Sophistry): (a)no true unbiased/unselfish person/absolute right(wrong) etc
C8. B claiming credit for A's changing his mind about somemthing
C9. Analyzing "Logic not applicable to human emotions, Not all explainable by logic.."
C10. A" says: 2+2=4 since 4+4=8, B" says: NO you are wrong, 3+3=6 since 4+4=8
C11. B accuses A of whining when A explains reason for inability to do something
C12. Lack in trust viewed as lack in sincerity, but need not necessarily be so.
C13. Being fussy about cleanliness (picking up coins from floor) yet handling coin/bills

SECTION-D. Hmm.. & Some Quotes (Mine)

D1. No matter WHEN you talk to a friend who are into business they will often say-..
D2. Fretting about huge losss and taxes.
D3. 'Stingy' vs. frugal
D4. How come it is acceptable to argue/debate on TV or ask personal questions to..
D5. attributing to others indiscriminately the limitations/flaws that one suffer from
D6. How come showing curiousity/asking personal questions etc are regarded as wrong..
D7. "opinion is like a nose,everyone has one" yet one is labelled as opinionated..
D8. Just an opinion provokes: "You have no right to impose..", demand for apology
D9. Irritability and anger due to hunger
D10. Million things to be right for debt repayment & one thing wrong for borrowing
D11. wrongful acts being rewarded due to its impact
D12. correcting factual content characterized as rude and reflecting bitterness
D13. Not heeding to a request despite repeated attempts
D14. Idea that rational/logical people cannot be passionate/appreciative of humour etc
D15. "I don't remember doing/saying (something).." is another way of saying..
D16. "I didn't have time..(to do something etc)" really means..
D17. Unwritten rule: establishment/majority can never be politically correct.
D18. Superiority Complex needs inferiority complex for its sustenance...
D19. Solitude is like a horror story. I like it but am also afraid of it.
D20. Common Characteristics of Religious Fanatics and Radical Leftists:
D21. confidence is glorified, yet confidence in a view judged "strong"/lacking humility
D22. Why 5+(-5) = 0 preferred over 0+0 = 0 in real life?

SECTION-E. NOTES TO MYSELF AND MY OBSERVATIONS:

E1. Double Standard of apologists of religion.
E2. To most, expensive=good and vice versa.
E3. Music/Art/Food appreciation for most people is a
result of external factors
E4. Only relationship that is natural is...
E5. Iinstinctive impulse in most males to commit violence..
E6. inherent tendency in SOME women in getting satisfaction/pleasure..
E7. Doing the right thing due to Fear/Sense of Duty/Religion etc, not from heart
E8. inherent tendency in some to misquote/mispresent/distort..
E9. A biased person considers truly neutral persons as biased if..
E10. common assumption that there cannot exist a truly unbiased, objective person.
E11. culture and tradition of a society develops over a length of time..
E12. universal human attributes like selfishness/greed etc cannot be sole monopoly..
E13. Gang mentality, Organized destruction/mayhem...
E14. most choosing Opinion1 or Opinion2 but not neither
E15. valid advice rejected without examining its worth because of it's origin
E16. people labelling others as either "conservative" and "liberal"..
E17. Popular myth about the superiority of a race/nation over others ..
E18. assertion of unequal capability/skill between people or races being
labelled racist..
E19. dishonesty/cheating encouraged/approved by individuals and organized groups..
E20. A defensive action against the offender is viewed as an offense by the offender
E21. (Cause and Effect): natural cause vs. artificial/contrived one..
E22. Advice to finish up left over food in a plate against one's wishes is misguided ..
E23 Display of anger/temper is an indication of the POTENTIAL for committing a violence..
E24. No documented/authoritative record of any miracle.
E25. Sometimes a cause is regarded as "wrong" by the sheer effect it produces but..
E26. When "A" worries about something,"B" says to "A": Stop worrying, whatever..BUT
E27. Mere acquisition of factual knowledge(information) doesn't mean intelligence..
E28. important step in self improvement.. true for a nation/race..
E29. HOW VS. WHAT:
E30. Tolerance means granting equal rights, not priviledges.
E31. Showing humility against humility?
E32. meaning of "You bring out the worst in me"
E33."emergent" properties in various aspects of life/nature
E34. Some Deep Thoughts/Unanswered questions
E35. "Don't preach what you don't practice yourself" not always true.
E36. Conservationism vs stinginess

SECTION-F. MY VIEWS ON:

F1. EQUALITY OF SEXES:
F2. ABORTION(RIGHTS):
F3. SCIENCE, OBJECTIVITY & POSTMODERNISM
F4. BIRTHDAYS:
F5. GIFTS:
F6. NATURE VS. NURTURE DEBATE:
F7. DESTINY/FATE VS. FREE WILL/CHOICE:
F8. BELIEF IN GOD,INDIVIDUAL RELIGIONS & SPIRITUAL THINKING:
F9. BELIEF IN SUPERNATURAL/OCCULT/PARANORMAL PHENOMENA
VS. NON-BELIEF IN RELIGION...
F10. CURIOUSITY:
F11. LOOK VS. INNER BEAUTY IN CHOOSING A MATE
F12. FRIENDSHIP AND TRUE LOVE:
F13-15 below are in the context of India/Pakistan/BD):
F13. COMMUNALISM/FANATICISM etc:
F14. THE PERCEIVED "STINGINESS" OF W. BENGALIS BY BDESHIS:
F15. PURE (SHUDDHO) BANGLA VS. DIALECTS OF BANGLA:

Check the archive of my mails to various folks
in response to their critique of my aticles and to various e-forums reflecting my views.

(Before exiting make sure you read the last "IS/OUGHTTABE" and
EPILOG at the end)

7===ADDENDA===
7===add===
7===temp===

<>[cultural]: You point out the mistake in the view or action of someone close
on an issue in a polite and good humored manner. He yells back at you for
that. You continue to make your points and justify your position. But he/she
keeps yelling back at you louder and louder. To anyone appearing in the scene
at this stage it may look like you have picked a fight on him/her and he/she is
is in the defensive.

<>[cultural] When the host asks a guest how was a given item, he/she should
take note of some important considerations:

1. Liking of a specific food/item is a highly subjective matter. The same
food/item may appeal to A but not to B.

2. A given food item/item may be cooked with many different recipes. For A who
likes that given food/item, he/she may like some recipes more than others,
and may not like some recipe of that food/item at all. whereas B who doesn't
like that food/item will dislike any recipe.

3. So it only makes sense to ask A how he/she liked the recipe. Even then the
answer is bound to be subjective and should not be taken by the host(cook)
as a verdict on the quality of his/her cooking or recipe.

4. It makes no sense to ask B about his/her opinion on the recipe because he/she
does not like that specific food/item, so recipe is irrelevant and his/her honest
answer should be "I donp;t like that particular item, so i cannot judge the quality
of the recipe" and the host should also appeciate such logical answer.

<> when someone insistes on a truth or fair principle the
response is that such insistence must be due to influence
of some certain person. The fallacy here is that in stating
a fact or a just principle it is totally irrelevant whether
its due to someone's influence or not. Also saying that its
due to influence by others does not make it true. More likely
it reflects the fact that the responder does not like
hearing that truth.

<>
When one talks out loud and the other speaks normally most tend to think
that the yeller is right and yellee is wrong, paying no attention to the
actual words of either.

Responding to someone's remarks/question with a loud angry tone
may mislead others present to believe he must have said something
utterly wrong, which may not necessarily the case.

<> Unpleasant fairness. Some cannot accept it. If fairness demands
that one returns a huge some of money to someone else then they
try hard to make the fairness appear as unfairness in order not
to return it. It is a common instinct for most to treat all
their possesion as genuinely theirs.
<>

For many If (this is true) then (do this)
it means "do that" (unconditionally)
ignoring the possibility that "doing that"
may be feasible/fair/justified if is
conditional on "this being true"

<> Some examples of hypocrisy

1) Insisting on pragmatism over princople in one instance and
insisting on priniciples in another.

<> Some weird nature: When you try to give detail instruction
on how to operate an object(electronic gadget,software etc) some people
feel offended and refuse to hear you out, but the same people will
later complain to you that the thing doesn't work!

<> Some Problem qith the statement:
a) God helps those who help themselves
b) You can control your destiny
c)

<>One way to say "I don't want you to have it" is to say "You wouldn't
want/like it"

<>
Repeating entire sentence/para even when was requested to repeat the
last part only.

<>
Dinner Table Ettiquette:

For host:

1. Do not put food items on guests's plate. Let them pick what they
like and how much they want. Just bring it closer to them so they
can reach it and just verbally introduce the items which are
specialty ones.

2. Normally people take items in sequence according to their individual
preference. Do not ask a guest why they sre not taking a specific item
when they aren't finished yet with the dinner. They probably would
get to it later according to their preferred sequence. NEVER tell
them they should have item "B" instead of item "A" as utem "A" is
better/very good etc. If you don't intend the guest to eat an item
don't even bother to serve it on the table.

3. Do not ask the guest if they would like to have an item that is not
on the table already. They will most likely refuse to be polite. Just
have all available items on the table.

4. If an item needs replenishment,but is not quite finished yet,replenish
the dish on the table, do not take the dish away from the table in the
kitchen to replenish it.

5. Do not remove an item from the table,assuming guests are done with it
to make more room on the table for other items. If there are too many
items to fit on one table then place some of them on another smaller
table/shelf and make it a semi buffet system so guests can pick up
those items themselves and still sit at the main dining table to eat.

6. Move items around on the table so everyone gets a chance to take each
item.

7. Make sure there are spoons on each dish. No dish should be missing any
spoon/ladle etc.

8. Keep several bone plates spread over the table.

9. Keep napkins handy for guests who may need them.

10. Last but not the least, do not just talk about the food items throughout
the entire dinner, talk about other things too, guests may be interested
to talk about othere things too, not just the food on the table.

For Guests:

1. Do not take too much quantity/too many pieces of an item the very first
time, so that food is not wasted(in case you take more than you really
can eat) and also to ensure that others also get a fair share of that
item. As a general guide for example, if there are 10 pieces of an item
and 5 people, then do not take more than two pieces. Towards the end if
there are still some pieces left, you can take one more, but only after
asking if anyone else would like to have it.

2. Do not make noises of any kind while eating, that includes, burping,
slurping, blowing your noses etc. Do not take such a big morsel that
you have trouble speaking.

3. If an item is finished and has not been replenished by the host, do
not ask if there is more.

4. Once you are done with an item pass it towards the center or to the
next person.

<> One way to own other people's money without having to carry the
baggage of being seen as stealing their money is to borrow their
money with the promise, but not the actual intention of repaying
it.

<> One way to earn the reputation of being generous is to borrow money
from one and spend it on others. By borrowing a big chunk from ONE
person they can spread the borrowed money on MANY people. So while
those many people will view him as generous the lender will only view
him as a loan defaulter. After all being a loan defaulter (to one
or few person) does not affect his repuatation of being generous
to many others who may not know about the borrowing of the money
spent on them!

<>(Cultural): Sometimes A says that B likes to eat "X" and buys/prepares
"X" but in fact consumes/enjoys "X" him/herself more than A and
when infact A never had specifically mentioned that he craves for
"X" in any special way (he may like it just like many other items).
B also says to others that he/she has to get "X" regularly as A
cannot do without it etc. (Again the fact is that A never implied
that nor is it true that A cannot do without it).

<> A asks a question to B. B answers. A passes a comment on hearing
B's answer that has nothing to do with the question he asked.

<> One way to tell someone "Its none of your business" when they ask
a personal question is to give them a false answer.

<> Regardless of what is publicly stated or professed, society/people
actually value people who can offer goods/services (directly or
indirectly), not those who are honest or with superior intellect.
By the way services may include entertainment, social status etc.
So at the end of the day society rewards a unscrupulous productive
person rather than an honest or intellectually inclined person with
little or no output.

<>
Often we hear contradictory comments like (1) Consult with many people before
taking a decision on a major issue (call the major issue "A" or (2) Decide on
your own on a major issue like "A", don't seek advice from too many people.

Which course (1 or 2 above) is more reasonable/acceptable? Let us call the
issue of deciding between (1) and (2) issue "B" (i.e issue "B" is the issue
of deciding whether to choose courtse (1) or course (2) before taking a
decision on issue "A"). My rule of thumb is whichever course you take to
decide on issue "B" is the course you should take for deciding on issue "A"
In case choosing a course between (1) and (2) on issue "B" becomes an issue
to you (call it issue "C"), and so on, then eventually you will come to a
point where you can decide which course to choose. Choose that course for
issue "A".

<>Contradictions in Life/Religion: Charity is encouraged but accepting
favour is not. One fuels the other.

==>(C.D) Sometimes A asks B a question about which option out of several is
preferred by B, but a particular answer is expected by A, which he/she
makes quite clear when B chooses an option not expected by A.

==> To many showing temper is "ok but not/preferable to" arguing (even with correct logic)

=>(My Quotes) The only difference between famous writers (could be poets/novelists/
essayists..) and many (but certainly NOT ALL) is that the fingers of the
those non-writers happen to be lazy

=> Rewarding someone should not be interpreted by anyone as
punishing another (specially the one interpreting it as such).

=> Sometimes when we say "I don't believe it" after hearing
some remarks from a friend, he/she may become confrontational
and react by saying "So you think I am lying" etc. But often
we express such disbeliuef almost instantly and instinctively,
not after careful thought and concluding that he was lying.
So it is premature to react and be confrontational whenever
someone expresses such disbelief.

=> (Cultural): Interesting observation about parents while talking
about their child to other parents: When partent A (mother or
father) talks about some interesting fact about their child parent
B immediately responds by mentioning some interesting fact about
their own child and vice versa. It seems that each parent uses the
other parent's comments about their child as a goad/prompt for
making their own observation about their own child. The end result
is that neither parent listened to or enjoyed the facts about the
other child and and the entire conversation was really pointless.
(exceptions do exit but I am only citing the non-exceptions).
Another case is when one parent gushes about his/her child's
acts/behaviours unilaterally, not caring to wait for the reaction
of the other parent (showing interest or sense of enjoyment in
hearing them) before continuing on with more. Most of the acts
are common with most children and thus may not capture the attention
ofmany parents.

=>Feeling of Hatred vs. Justice:

The following involves no hatred:

1. A Judge hands out death sentence with no hatred for the convicted.
2. A man shoots a tiger in self defense when attacked by it.
3. An inferior product is dumped and a good one is purchased. No hatred
is harbored towards the inferior article.
4. Cows are butchered in a commercial slaughterhouse for its meat.
No hatred is shown for the cows by the employees/owner of the
slaughterhouse in such killing, not that an individual employee/owner
cannot be violent in person.

In any relationship:

1. One should be completely free as individual i.e they should feel/act
in the way they are naturally and not change for the other, without
at the same time infringing or imposing on the other.

2. One should not look up on the other constantly for fulfilment of
their needs. Be that need be material or otherwise. Need based
relationship rests on a shaky ground.

Under "Dispassionate seeker of truth" or "Unbiased cannot exist":

If there is a quarrel between two friends or conflict of two nations (Both of
which you happen to be feel loyal to) ideally try to mediate and resolve the
dispute. If you can't, then use your "OBJECTIVE/UNBIASED" analysis. If one side
seems to be right and the other wrong, then side with the right (IF you HAVE
to side with one or the other) ELSE do nothing (If not sure which side is
right/wrong conclusively).

Homosexuality:

Lumping the issue of female and male homsexulaity into one issue is improper.
It should be treated as separate issue. Male homosexulaity cannot be a concern
of females and vice versa. So a male or a female need be an activist for both
issues but only for specific to their category. i.e instead of one activist
group for both there should be separate for each category (If there has to be
such an activist group at all, which is debatable anyway). A woman may be
opposed to male homosexuality but not to (or indifferent) to female
homosexuality and vice versa. Having one activist group doesn't take into
consideration this particular viewpoint.

When a women wants her prospective mate to be "Ambitious" (quite common) it
indicates her material expectation from the prospective mate.

KEY WORDS & PHRASES: evocative, critical thinking, philosophers &
astrophysicists qualify for unbiasedness.

UNDER BENEFIT OF DOUBT:

We don't grant it when:

1. Someone is very meticulous about clearing debt to the last penny and we
frown upon it. We assume that the same person may fuss about not being
repaid to the last penny by others also. Whereas it could just as well be
that the same person only does so when repaying others to be absolutely
clear in their own conscience but doesn't really care much about others
doing the same towards him/her. So its an unfair assumption.

Under Hmm..

1. Why is it that you spill liquid on you only when wearing a new shirt?
2. Why trip over some object only when wearing new shoes and ruining it ?
3. Why bump onto an object which seem to aim at your sore which is just healing ?
4. When standing in a long line with several counters, you are hoping that
you don't get the counter with the clerk you wish to avoid but end up
getting the very same one anyway.

5. If biological difference is used to explain female superiority over male
in certain traits it is not labelled as sexist/male chauvinist but if it
is used to explain inferiority in certain traits then women ar quick to
label it as sexist/male chauvinist

6. Religious people often make trivial prayers for personal needs on the hope
that they will be fulfilled by God. How justified is that hope when prayers
for saving the life of millions of children and innocent victims went
unheeded.

MY VIEWS ON GOD:
---------------

Every human being, rational or otherwise do have an inherent "instinct" that
causes a sense of wonder at the mystery of the unknown. The mystery behind
the creation of life and and universe. Since both life and universe seem so
orderly and meaningful and since humans cannot recreate them so ther must be
a designer behind them, a Grand designer. Thats how the concept of God came
about. The nature of this instinct is however very different between them.
For example this instinct immediately leads a non-scientific mind to a strong
belief in the concept of a personal God of the religion and puts a closure to
that sense of wonder. He/she has such an unquestioning absolute faith in God
and religious doctrine that narrates the creation of lief and universe by
such a personal God that there is no need to wonder any further. He then
goes about building myths around that faith. He associates human attributes
to that God, albeit in a magnified scale. The God is supremely compassionate,
supremely powerful, supremely knowldgeable, supremely... So God is endowed
with attributes that are common to a human, but only of a lofty magnitude.
He then devises a way to please the supreme God and invents prayer, worship
etc. He then finds some solace in the face of the fear of death in the hope
that there will be a day of resurrection, when he will reagin his lost life.
etc. Now for a rational mind like me, I still have the genetic instinct of
some unknown mystery behind the complexity of life and the universe. But
whereas a non-critical person of blind belief in religion sees the amazing
complexity of human body or any life form as unexplainable and uncreatable
by human hence had to invent God to explain it away, for me the mystery that
is not explainable is not the complexity of life, which is very well explained
by natural laws of evolution (based ultimately on the fundamental laws of
Physics), but the laws of Physics itself. Why are there laws of Physics that
is behind the creation of the universe and life? To me the laws of physics
is not a construct of human mind alone shaped by culture. The fact that
so many sharp minds from disparate culture are converging on the subtle
ideas of string theories of universe and matter tell me that there is
indeed some hideen reality independent of our consciousness behind all
these. This very realization itself is the other form of the instinct
distinct fromm that of the non-rationlsistss that I refered to earlier.
So how to formulate this form of instinct? For me, it has to be a provisional
one, with several alternate possibilities, phrased in a non-precise way as
it is after all an instinct thats rooted in our inability to comprehend.

===A====THE WAY IT OUGHTTA BE: (Ground Rules For Streamlining Life)

A1. Don't expect others to do for you what they don't expect you to do for them.

A2. Don't expect others to do for you what you don't do for them.
( Make sure you understand the difference between 1 & 2 )

(In A1 & A2 above "expect" is used in the sense "believing that one is obligated to..
or should.." etc. Wishing, on the other hand is acceptable as wishing does not
have the connotation of morally binding or obligtory etc.)

A3. i)If you offer to help/do a favor to someone and he/she accepts your offer but
didn't ask for it then you should not expect anything in return and you should
not consider them obligated to you. If you do a favour to someone on request then
you are justified in requesting and expecting a favour from him/her if you need
to at some other time but the favour should not involve much more sacrifice
from him/her than that involved in your act of favour to them. See B14 also.

ii) Before asking for help or favour from "A" on any specific task or matter be sure
to try all other available avenues (Not all may be known to you) to accomplish
the task or settle the matter that require less resources than required by A. When
asking A for such help if A asks, "Did you try avenue 1 (or 2, 3 etc) ?", don't
rush to an impulsive or emotional remark like "I don't need your help, forget it"
etc. First as mentioned before not all avenues may be known to you. Depending
on that there may be two scenarios:

1. You did try all avenues mentioned by A. Then respond to A saying "Yes, I
did try all those avenues" and wait for A's response. If A replies "Ok then I
will try to help you". You would have unfairly judged A in this case had you
jumped to the premature emotional remark as above. On the other hand if A
still finds excuse to refuse to help you may be justified to make such an
emotional statement although it hardly makes any difference in such case.

2. One or more of the avenues suggested by A were unknown to you. Then try those
avenues before asking A if they don't require much resources. In case those
avenues require significant resources whereas it requires A very little
resource then it is highly recommended that A offers to help you, even if
A is not obligated to do it.

A4. Never END a friendship because of what they didn't do "FOR" you, instead learn
to expect less out of friendship with them. Ending a friendship because of what they
did "TO" you on the other hand is justifiable. Never do something "TO" someone
because they didn't do something "FOR" you.

If you asked a favor from someone and if he/she is willing to do part of the favour
or to do it in a way different from that you would prefer, give him/her the credit
still instead of resenting him/her and taking an all or nothing attitude and
withdrawing your request altogether. Even a partial or an alternate mode of help is
worthy of appreciation and gratitude and certainly not resentment.

Never try to harm anyone just because they didn't help,love or trust you. Lets say
you asked a favor from someone. He/she was unable to oblige that particular favour
due to personal reasons. If later some day they ask you a different favor then dont
refuse them the favor just to get even but apply your own objective criterion to
decide whether you can help them or not. Keep in mind they were unable to help
you earlier not because they were getting even with you but because of their
objective reasons and they may have obliged with a different favour, so to be fair
you should also apply your own objective criterion (Not biased by their inabilty to
oblige you) to decide whether to help them or not.

The bottomline is: never hold a grudge against someone and don't do something TO
them for what they didn't do FOR you. The way to look at this is: Inanimate objects like
chair, rocks etc doesn't do anything for us but do we get angry or feel hatred for it?
Same way if a person is not useful for you (But not harmful either) then view that
person as an inanimate object and be neutral at the worst. Remember it is our
EXPECTATION (caused by our KNOWING the fact that a human has the CAPABILITY
to do something for us) which is behind this grudging feeling when the expectation is
not met. But "A" cannot be penalized (A grudging feeling invariably results in a harmful
act) for "B"'s expectation since the expectation is totally "B"'s own creation in the
mind, not due to an active act of "A". Often "B" feels frustrated or bitter when "A" is
not consistent in keeping in touch or changes his/her mind about something (but not
breaking commitments made explicitly). This frustration, bitterness of "B" is also
due to undue expectations of "B" from "A". In principle "B"'s life should not be
contingent on "A"s behaving in a certain way but based solely on "B"'s own priorities
and activities that "B" has choice and control over. One can say, Oh, human are not
machines, we have emotions etc. and we cannot act so logically. But then society (of
humans) also teach us not to steal, not to lie, not to cheat, not to be greedy etc,
not to misjudge others etc etc, even though these acts are also due to human emotions.
We can be logical and yet not be like machines or computers. The difference between
a computer and a logical person lies in the fact that a computer will arrive at a
logical conclusion (like true/false etc) based on objective facts, so will a logical
person, but a logical human will also put a value judgement to the conclusion which a
computer will not. For example based on all objective evidence a logical human or a
computer may both conclude that "A" made an false statement intentionally. The
human may go a step further and characterize "A" as an immoral person. Anyway
we end up suffering due the negative consequences of all irrational emotions. One has
to separate positive and harmless emotions from the negative ones and once an emotion
is identified as negative or potentially harmful one should try to shake them off.

A5. Avoid the habit of borrowing money from individuals. Instead lower your expenses
by the amount you intended to borrow. Never borrow money from a friend for business. A
business inevitably involves risk and you are in effect exposing your friend to the
risk in case of your unintended default, rather than yourself. Never borrow money
from someone to pay off your debt to others. This creates a vicious circle. The only
scenario when borrowing is acceptable is for example when you do have the money but
you forgot your wallet and you need to buy something immediately.

A6. Never attack someone physically in response to a verbal attack. no matter
how bad the words can be. Mere words are harmless until backed up by an action. Respond
verbally to a verbal offense.

A7. If you have to get even with someone at least be fair. Dont cause greater
harm to them than they did to you. (See A6 above also). There is some room for greyness
here. Argument can be made that since one initiated a wrongdoing first so a revenge with
a greater harm is justifiable as a deterrent to the wrongdoer. But even then there
should be an upper limit to the degree of harm done as a revenge to be decided case
by case basis.

A8. (Debate/Argument): Never show your temper or raise your voice or make personal
attack when differing with someone on an issue. In an argument as long as each one is
making a point you should respond to their point with your own points and take turns. A
response by A should be precisely to the point against the argument being made by B
and not a statement of A's views, conclusions etc. Never walk out on someone and end
the debate unilaterally in the middle. The argument should only end if one person
loses temper and shows hostility or there is a disagreement on factual data which
cannot be verified. In that case agree to disagree amiably and wait until the
information is available. When it is available whoever was wrong should cheerfully
admit that. In a debate between "A" and "B" if "A" disputes a statement made by "B",
"B" should not rush to a judgement that "A" is not willing to listen to "B", "A" is
only providing a reaction to whatever "B" has said so far, but is willing to continue
to listen to "B" and may provide further response to "B"'s further points. It is OK to
interject comments or criticisms in the middle of a debate as long one allows the other
to continue on after this and does not shut him/her up totally and walks out of the
debate unilaterally. It is common to see "B" making irate comments like "Well if you
don't want to listen or don't let me finish then we better stop this conversation..",
which may be an unfair judgement of "A"'s intention. An immediate reaction by "A" to
"B"'s statement does not imply "A" s reluctance to hear the remaininmg statements of
"B". An argument with respect and composure helps to understand each other and gain
insight into issues and is desirable. A reluctance to engage in a debate or argumnet
is indicative of a defeatist attitude whereby one deprives themselves and others the
opportunity to a better understanding and insight in issues and knowing the truth. A
debate or argument should not be looked upon as a quarrel or an exercise solely to win
and prove someone inferior. A quarrel results from a personal acrimony towards
someone accompanied by a verbal attack accusing of wrongdoing or mistake and
eventually culminates into an actual or a threat of display of physical violence and
harmful intent. A debate should have the sole objective of setting the fact straight
and finding the truth. It is interesting to note that quite often if one disagrees
with someone and provides their own reason for disagreeing then that is perceived as
being arrogant and a difficult person to get along with whereas if one just says
he/she disagrees and stops there then they are perceived as one who listens, and a
sensitive person engaging in a debate with respect ! It is also interesting that when
two people debate in writing then there is less bitternes and display of temper
versus when if the debate is verbal even when the words and sentences may be the same
as in a written debate. This indicate a propensity of one or both to view any verbal
argument or statement from the other as a provocation, personal attack etc. This is
unfortunate and one should debate soley on the points being presented and try to
refute the points rather than associating any personal feelings to them irrespective
of the medium of the debate (verbal,written etc). The following hypothetical scenario
may help in setting the right perspective in a debate: In a Psychology, Sociology or
Logic exam a student may be asked the following yes/No question:

Question:

Author "A" in his book "X" says on page 78 that ".......". Do you think the author
is right in his argument here ? ____Yes/No? (20 points).

here an average student will try hard to judge the merit of the author's points
as objectively as one can (20 points are at stake here !) and not even make any
personal judgement of the author (The author is not even known to the student).
The left side of the student's brain will go into work and an objective answer to the
question will be attempted. The moral of this is that a debate with anyone should
also be looked upon in the same spirit. Any argument, point by one has to be judged
in a detached way by the other for an honest debate (It may be hard to do, but
sincerity in trying to KNOW the truth can make it possible. My oughttabe is
obviously applies to those having this sincerity).

Let me summarize the simple ground rules of engaging in a debate:

1. If you express your view on something to someone then it is fair that you also
be prepared to listen to a dissenting view on that by someone. Just as you
expressed the view in the hope that someone will listen to it, by the same
standard you should also listen to a dissenting view since disagreeing with a
view is equivalent to expressing a view and deserves the same hearing right as
the original view. Whoever started the debate by stating his/her view first has
the intellectual obligation to listen to the dissenter's argument until there
is a stalemate due to a disagreement on a data or information or personal taste
(acknowledged by both). If one does not have the patience or time to listen out
the dissenting views then s/he should not even utter a view to someone unsolicited,
or should at least commit to follow up on the debate at a later time to listen to
the dissenting argument. Also don't just pretend to listen where in fact you are
waiting for the other side to finish so you can express your fixed conclusion
or views and not heeding to any points being made by the other side. That shows
a lack of interest in a sincere debate and an obsession to project one's own
views and opinions.

2. Always focus on the content of one's argument or view and criticize and analyze it,
not the person or his/her personality. Ad hominem arguments never make good logic.

3. Be specific when differing with someone's views. Don't just provide your own
conclusion and views in response to that of his/her, instead point out the specific
word or statement you are disagreeing on and the reason for your disagreement
and then put forward your own conclusion and views (Or in the reverse order).

4. Some signs of weakness in a debate :

(a) Repeating an argument. One can rephrase a previous argument if not
understood clearly by the other.
(b) Asking the same question (Which often triggers a repetition of argument from
the other side).
(c) "A" responds with: "Thats the way it IS" in response to "B"'s query "WHY is
it the way it IS?". Try to address the "WHY" if you can, using arguments that
do not require your opponent to place a blind faith in something. If you cannot
provide such an answer then just confess ignorance.
(d) "A" responds with :"It doesn't matter that..", "I don't care if.." etc in
response to an argument by "B". An argument should only be countered with a
counter argument. "It doesn't matter" or "I don't care" etc is hardly an
argument and shows an uncompromising presumption of "B" in the correctness of
his/her argument and a reluctance to judge the merit of "B"'s point or argument.

5. While arguing, don't contradict a premise that has been stated clearly at the
outset by the other debator. An example of the violation of a premise is : if A is
trying to reason to B why abortion is wrong for the case where the pregnancy was
NOT due to rape and B in reply tries to make his/her point in defense of abortion
by citing the plight of a rape victim and negative social consequences she has
to suffer etc.

6. It is important to make your statements precise and unambiguous. In a debate (or
any conversation for that matter) the communication is through verbal statements
and no one is expected to read other's mind (Humans cannot). If your statements
leave any room for ambiguity or doubt about your intent or can be interpreted
in two ways (One interpretation may more accurately reflect the literal phrasing
of the statement than the other) and the opponent chooses the more likely meaning
which may not be intended by you then instead of declaring your opponent "wrong"
clarifiy your own statement and make it unambiguous and precise so it carries
your intended meaning and your opponent can in no way misinterpret it.

7. You should not characterize or accuse a statement by someone else as being biased
with your own biased statement. For example concluding that "A is biased against B
because A is such and such (belongs to a different race than B, etc etc)". This
shows your own bias against A to think that just because A has certain affiliation
A would necessarily be biased against B solely due to that. A biased statement
cannot be used in a debate or argument to allege someone else as being biased. A
statement using only an objective evidence can qualify to characterize other
statements.

Also when an opinion by "A", backed by arguments happen to agree with what
"A" prefers to believe in, that doesn't necessarily make the opinion wrong. So it
is illogical to dismiss it by saying "You are saying it because you like to feel or
believe that way". You should counter "A"'s opinion based on the arguments A is
providing by refuting it with your own objective arguments. Judgemental statements
have no place in a debate.

8. Certain facts and issues are not a matter of views,opinions or evidence etc but are
purely a matter of math and numbers. Any argument or debate on such issues
lacking in numbers and math are pointless and unconscionable. Many educated
people of humanities background who lack in basic math skill are seen to engage
in a debate on such issues providing incorrect conclusions with strong convictions.
One should get his/her third "R" straight before debating on such issues.

9. Keep in mind that examples never establish a general rule, they either break it
or add more credence to it.

9. Finally, It is important to stick to logic when arguing. There is no point engaging
in a debate or argument if unwilling to follow the basic rules of logic. If you are
not comfortable with the basic rules of logic or are interested in learning it for
debate check http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html for basic guidelines.
Logic is for mental self-defense and long term prosperitiy and happiness. Here's
a quote by Ayn Ryand:
"Logic is the art of making non-contradictory identifications of objective reality."

Even in a debate that follows the guideline above there is often an instinctive
impulse to have the last word. This usually results in an effort to split hairs or
repeating a statement or make specious arguments that although logical but is
irrelevant to the point the other party is making (e.g Ignoratio Elenchi Redherring
etc). See article C10 for some examples of common problems seen in a debate.

When losing (by any objective criterion) in a debate, people take either of the
three following positions: (In descending order of commendability)

1. They graciously admit the flaw in their reasoning or the validity of the same in
their opponent's.

2. They realize the flaw in their own argument or the validity of the argument of
their opponent and confess to themselves (in their heart) about the incorrectness
of their arguments but ego prevents them from admitting so in public and they stick
to their position as correct as they do not have the moral strength to withstand
the humiliation of admitting mistake.

3. They are so biased in their reasoning that they are incapable of recognizing any
flaw in their argument or any validity in that of their opponent's. They sincerely
believe their reasoning to be right even when it is wrong by any objective
criterion.

The reason I feel that people in category (2) although insincere, has more
intellectual value than (3) is because the admission within their heart of their
mistake is bound to have some positive implication at some point whereas people
in (3), though are sincere, have no potential of adding any value since they are
ignorant of the truth. One should realize that accepting a defeat in an argument is
not by any means a disgrace, but a virtue. By accepting the merit of the opponent's
argument one is demonstrating his/her ability to comprehend the validity of an
argument which in turn testifies to his/her intellectual capabilty. Besides the
reward of learning the truth through a debate far outweighs the perceived
mortification through defeat in the argument. Another way to look at a defeat in a
debate is that we accept win/lose in a game like chess, card, scrabbles etc in a much
more cheerful manner. Those games do not produce any beneficial byproduct but do
make one a winner and the other a loser. So why view a win/lose in a debate so
differently where at least there is some constructive byproduct from a debate.

As a concluding remark let me emphasiae that a debate arises or should arise only
as a defensive. If nobody ever complained or judged others there would be no
need of debate. But since people do complain (unfairly) or make judgements or
conclusions (incorrectly) that inevitably justifies and leads to a debate. The
debate should be thus only to correct a mistaken conclusion or to set the facts
straight. Not for the sole purpose of humiliating or putting down someone.

See articles B1, C2, C10 for examples of illogical thinking.

A9. If someone criticizes you for your actions, words or opinions and you don't think
the criticism is valid then justify or defend yourself with reasonings & arguments and
counter-criticism but don't show any anger or intolerance specially so if they did
not criticize you in a verbally offensive manner (shouting,cursing etc). While
arguing follow the guidelines in A8 above.
Criticism does not imply intolerance. On the other hand tolerance demands that
one tolerate criticisms. It is important to distinguish the message from the
messenger in a criticism. A valid criticism is useful as it helps to point out flaws
and weaknesses that are usually not seen by us but may be noticed by others and it
is always advisable to know as much of one's weaknesses as possible for self
improvement, soul searching etc. It doesn't matter what motivation does the
criticizer has as far as the usefulness of the criticism is concerned. If someone
reports or writes a critical article or news concerning a important social evil then
crticizing and questioning the motive of the reporter or writer while not disagreeing
with the messaage itself serves only to dilute the importance of the social issue
and and acts as a diversionary tactic. Also if a criticism exposes the criticizer's
attitude towards you then it better be known than kept suppressed. A relationship
based on a false perception of other's attitude is bound to be on shaky grounds.
See also D8 for a related topic.

A10. If you pass judgement or opinion about "someone" based on 'something' then
you must be willing to listen carefully to what they have to say regarding that "someting".
Often judgements are based on superficial subjective perceptions rather than a
careful analysis of all the complex factors and situations. By passing a judgment or
opinion you have obligated yourself to listening to them. If you dont have the time
to listen to them then don't pass judgement or form an opinion. You can mentally
form a TENTATIVE opinion as long as you allow for a possible mistake on your part
and dont let this opinion hold against them in any way in practice.

Also if you express your views or opinion on "some issue" TO someone when he/she
didn't ask your views or opinions on it then it is fair that you should be willing and
prepared to hear dissenting views/opinion on the issue from him/her and calling
him/her argumentative, opinionated etc would be hypocritical of you. So if you don't
want to hear any disgreement from others then you have to stop giving your opinion
as well to be fair and limit the talks to just for example the weather or one's travel
experience etc etc(Any conversation that does not include giving an OPINIION or
VIEWS). See also A20 for a related discussion.

A11. i)When giving advice, suggestion to someone explain how or why is it going
to help him/her by following your advice or suggestion, so that they can decide for
themselves the merit of it, otherwise they may think that it is for your own vested
interest.

Also it is pointless and undesirable to advise or suggest the obvious. For example in
a dinner table "A" suggesting "B" to eat a particular piece of meat (or putting it
on "B"'s plate) because of its size or desired portion (e.g leg, thigh etc) implies
that "A" thinks that "B" is not capable of recognizing big, small or desired portion.
Either that or "A" assumes that "B" will prefer bigger over smaller or a certain portion.
Either way it is unjustified. Advice is only appropriate for the case where the choice
is not obvious or when it requires some prior knowledge and skill to choose the
best (objectively speaking, e.g sweetest fruit etc) from among many.(e.g picking a
sweet watermelon).

Never respond to someone's advice or suggestion by saying "I never asked for your
opinion or advice. Who are you to.." etc. One has the right, by the freedom of speech
to give advice to anyone. One the other hand one also has the right not to listen,
ignore or walk away when such advice is given. Both rights should be respected.

ii)Always provide reasons when disagreeing with or opposing someone on any issue.

A12. Always stay away from greed and high risk activities. Many people get into
complicated situations (which could have been avoided) as they take it for granted
that their friends will come to their rescue. This is not right. One should lead a
defensive life style and stay out of trouble and complicated situation (In most cases
possible), so one doesn't have to rely on others to bail them out and thus not be a
burden or liability to them. An example is impulsively jumping into business involving
risks that one is not capable of cushioning in case of default or failure. Two kinds of
people are qualified to venture into business; (1) Those who by inheritance takes
over a business from their predecessors with all the resources and backup and tricks
of the trade handed over to them. (2) Those who have acquired sufficient funds
through a steady income of a steady job over a period of long time and are able to
set aside enough (depending on the scale of the business venture) for backup in case
of a failed business venture. In all other cases it is irresponsible to oneself and
others who have to come to their rescue. In case of a debacle invariably such an
individual turns to friends or relatives for a bail out on grounds of compassion
or sympathy which makes others appear to be lacking in if unwilling to help
them in such a debacle which they brought onto themselves by their very own
irresponsiblity. In their misery and pleading for compassion the cause (irresponsible
act) which brought about that misery gets lost and they are not held accountable for
it. Instead of expecting a bail out by others downgrade your lifestyle and cut all
expenses and settle for less in life. See A6 for related discussion. Another example
is, when accompanied by a friend one acts more aggressively and takes a more
confrontational stand with others (In a dispute etc) than they would have been had
they been alone. The rule to follow is act as if you didn't have any friend with you.
Don't expect others to undergo what you not want it yourself. Friends can only be
expected to add or reinforce your own efforts and actions.

A13. It is important to recognize the shades in things and not lump everything
into black and white or grade them into either 1 or 10 but to grade them on a slding
scale from 1-10 in increments of at least 0.5. Not all bads are equally bad neither are
all good. For example it is quite common to treat a perpetrator of a crime on the same
footing as one who doesn't fight against the crime (but didn't approve of the
crime either). Another example is when a puritanist condemns a defensive liar (Lying
for the purpose of saving oneself from being hurt by others unfairly) at the same
level as an offensive liar (Lying for the purpose of gaining at the expense
of hurting others). It is often remarked that "Two wrongs don't make a right". But it
is not realized that treating two wrongs as EQUAL in an unqualified way may not be
right either. If a wrong act triggers another wrong act in retaliation, then the
first wrong should bear responsibility for the second wrong and should get the bullet
of the blame gun first. Only AFTER the first wrong has been redressed should the
second wrong be be picked for redress if at all. By the same token if one act of
wrong is permitted and entitled to one group "A" (By society or divine law etc) and not
to the group "B", then a demand by a member of group "B" for an equal right to
the wrong act should not be labelled as a call or advocacy FOR the wrong act. It is
solely for the sake of fairness and logic. On the other hand it may be preferable for
a member of group "B" to demand that the right to committing the wrong act be denied
to "A". That way he/she is not only demanding fairness but also advocating against
a wrong act, killing two birds in one stone. But nevertheless it still has to be
remembered that either way he/she cannot be accused of advocating the wrong act.

Another example would be to criticize someone who doesn't practice what he/she
PREACHES with the same severity as someone who doesn't practice what he/she
ACCUSES others for not practicing. There is a difference. The severity of the criticism
should be less in case of former. For example we all believe and state that its good
to be charitable and contribute to the cause of the needy in society but few of us
actually follow thru it. That deserves some criticism. But if we pick on others and
accuse them of not doing it when we are not doing it ourselves then it is sheer
hypocrisy and definitely qualifies for a bitter criticism. One should also
distinguish between the case when one preaches an act as being noble but doesn't
practice it him/herself vs. the case when one preaches an act as being wrong and
does it him/herself. There is a great difference between the two. The latter is
a genuine case of hypocrisy and deserves a censure, not the former. We all can have
idealistic goals or belief of doing noble things and we may also preach others to try
doing it whenever possible, but we may not always necessarily be able to do it
ourselves due to various constraints. "Not doing something good" is not a bad act
itself. It is sort of a recommended thing. Doing something wrong on the other hand
is definitely a bad act itself specially when it was preached as being wrong by the
doer him/herself.

A14. Judge/Understand/Advise others basing on their values and principles,m
not yours. (But read the important qualifications below):

In this context it is important to point out that values/principles can be
classified in two categories:

a) Universlly considered Good or Bad (By objective criteria or absolute sense.)
b) Neutral/relative. Acceptable to some, unacceptable to others, but cannot
be considered bad or wrong in an absolute sense by any.

It is this second category that is relevant in this maxim.

A15. If you sincerely want to make someone happy then do whatever to make
them happy in their own perception, not by the way YOU THINK should make them or
anyone happy (as is so often the case in buying gifts). If you believe you
love someone selflessly then grant him/her the freedom to decide things
for themselves on matters that concern their life only, while assuring them
of any advice or help you can afford to offer if they ask for it. Ethical
question may arise whether one should help someone who is doing something
wrong. The question then arises whether one should even have unqualified
love for someone who is doing something wrong (ethically or legally). In
such cases great care should be taken in applying discretion whether to
help or not on a case by case basis.

A16. Don't base any decision or action on someone elses non-obligatory statement.
If you do then you are responsible for any side effect not them. Examples: A says to B :
If you do (act2) then I will do (act1). So let me know if you will do act2 then I will
go ahead and do act1". If B answers that B will do act2 and asks A to go ahead with
act1 then B is obligated to do act2 if A does act1. On the other hand if A asks B :
"Will you do act2?" and B answers 'yes' then B is not obligated to do act2 if A does
act1. Also avoid MAKING promises or commitments to others as well as COUNTING on
other's promises or commitments. By promise or commitment I mean a formal or semi-
formal oath binding on oneself to do something, not a statement of compliance to a
request or an intent of doing something. For example if one requests you "Can you
give me a ride to the airport tomorrow?" and you answer "Yes I will", thats not a
promise or a commitment. A commitment is an expression like "I promise I will..."
or "You have my words that I will.." or "I swear I..." etc. It is more appropriate
to use expressions like "I will try to.." etc in response to requests. First of all
in personal human dealings it is the degree of sincere willingness inside the heart
that decides the priority of whether to do something or not for others. In the
absence of a binding clause and and accountabilty it makes no sense to place much
value on the commitment in such an informal personal dealings. It is pretty much left
on the goodwill, sincerity and trust of individuals. Even a positive commitment is
better not to make. If one means to do something from heart then s(he) will try to do
it regardless and a commitment to do it is redundant. If one fails to do it then its
better not to have committed in the first place. So either way its better not to
make any commitment. Only in a formal or business dealings a commitment (e.g a
contract or an agreement) assumes a value since there is binding clause which
obligates one to be accountable and fulfil a commitment e.g a breaking a commitment
to purchase a real-estate is penalized through forfeitur of earnest money etc.

Caveat Emptor should be the catch phrase for most activities based on false
perception of commitment from others that lead one to an undesirable situation.
Before blaming one's misery on others one should assess how much of it was one's own
making. For example it is common to hear the lament "Such and such led me on, but
now I have been ditched" refering to a relationship between a man and a woman. No
one can be "led" on unless one allows oneself to be or builds up an "expectation"
(which is never justified anyway) based on one's subjective perception.

A17. To be a genuine truth seeker you should be no respecter (i.e discriminator)
of persons. You have to be detached from all biased ties and be able to see things
dispassionately from a neutral perspective and be able to put your near and
dear ones on the same level field of logical analysis as any one else.
Unfortunately this may produce an unpleasant side effect of antagonizing them.
But that is the price for the pursuit of truth. Here is a relevant excerpt from
one of Einstein's letters:

"A human being is a part of the whole, called by us "Universe", a part limited
in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as
something separated from the rest- a kind of prison for us, restricting us to
our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our
task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of
compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole nature in its beauty.
Nobody is able to achieve this completely, but the striving for such achievement
is in itself a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security."

Another famous quote from Gautama Buddha:
"Believe nothing, O monks, merely because you have been told it...or because it
is traditional, or because you yourselves have imagined it. Do not believe
what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But
whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be conducive to
the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings-that doctrine believe and
cling to, and take it as your guide."

My Quote: "Emotionalism" is the greatest impediment to the pursuit of the truth.

A18. No Individual,Race or Nation should be morally held responsible for the past
wrongdoings of their ancestors or predecessors. It is unfair to demand APOLOGY from a
nation for wrongdoing of some sections of its past generation. What is appropriate is
rather an ACKNOWLEDGEMENT or ADMISSION by the present generation that such a wrongdoing
was committed in the past by some segment of its past generation and an EXPRESSION
of sympathy for the victims (Posthumously, if applies). If a nation is criticized for
refusing to APOLOGIZE or COMPENSATE the descendents of the victims then that
amounts to treating them (The current generation or person) as the perpetrator of
that wrongdoing. A COMPENSATION is only appropriate by a member of the current
generation who has directly BENEFITTED from such wrongdoing of his/her predecessor
to a descendent of a past victim who has directly SUFFERED due to the wrongdoings
perpetrated on his/her predecessor. Thats the only logical and moral imperative.
On the other hand IF the current generation of the perpetrating nation refuses to
ADMIT or ACKNOWLEDGE the crime committed by SOME sections of their past
generation even after knowing the facts (Through objective sources) then they are in
effect condoning the wrongs of their forefathers and only then they should morally
qualify for a censure. Treating the current generation of a nation as a whole as
perpetrators (By demanding APOLOGY or COMPENSATION from the whole nation)
in effect goes against the human principle of not judging someone by their birth roots.
A crook's son has to be judged by his own action and not by the fact of being born
of a crook's gene.

Don't avenge yourself for wrongs done unto you by inflicting vicarious suffering
on others. It is common to observe the violation of this maxim in life where innocent
members of "A" are victimized by SOME members of "B" for the wrongdoings of
SOME members of "A" on SOME or ALL members of "B"". A revenge if at all is to
be justified has to be targeted on the perpetrators of the initial wrongdoings. The so
called collateral damage that is justified in an organized action by a nation or race to
justify as a means to achieving the goal is often misdirected and not what is
preacehed to be, since it serves to achieve no purpose (as the perpetrators
themselves usually escape the harm) other than to satisfy the vengeful instinct
or as an illusion of a vindication of the wrong. See also D11 and F1 for related
discussions.

A19. A unilateral promise is less obligatory than one made on demand or request.
A secret revealed to someone unconditionally is morally less qualified for
confidentiality than one revealed on the condition for such.

A20. It may sound like a cliche but nevertheless is worth repeating(Since it
is common not to follow it) that "Always give the benefit of the doubt". What
is not cliche is the following explanation of what it means: It is not wrong
to mentally or verbally draw a conclusion which doesn't grant benefit of the
doubt to the person in question as long as one also accepts the possibilty
of an error on their part and not take any action which may hurt the person
as long as the doubt is present. In other words take a defensive stand instead
of an offensive one if you dont grant benefit of the doubt. The action in this
context is of "What you do to them" and NOT "What you dont do for them" type.
More precisely a benefit of the doubt really should mean "NOT PENALIZING"
someone when there is doubt, not necessarily "REWARDING" someone due to the doubt,
which may be unfair. There is a middle ground also between penalty and reward,
known as "DOING NOTHING", many may forget this trivial fact.

It is quite common to see that in the initial stage of a prospective relationship
between a man and a woman, one interprets every word and postures of the other
and in many cases that leads to a decision by one not to pursue further (In many
cases, just one remark or posture by the man may trigger a decision to cut off
any contact by the woman). While there is every possibility of one being wrong in
the judgement but nevertheless deciding whether to proceed with a friendly contact
or not based on first impression is accepted routinely in life since it is of the
second type i.e not deciding to pursuing a relationship is a defensive act (not
doing something(reward) FOR someone) NOT an offensive one (doing something
wrong TO someone). So this is a case of not granting the benefit of doubt but is OK as
no penalty was imposed but rather a reward (figuratively speaking) denied. See A10
and D5 for related discussions.

There can be three levels of credulity in human mind: a)Naive(Gullible),
b)Skeptic(Neutral), and c)Cynic(Negative). Let me define each in detail and sugget
the most desirable level to try to attain. (See also E14 in this context)

a)Naive/Gullible: Ready to believe anything without any evidence or rationale, out
of a bias, blind belief or wishful thinking. Persons of this level can even grant
benefit of the doubt (In the reward sense as discussed above ) even when not
required, which sometimes leads to undesirable consequences for them or others.
These people only know of either "REWARD" or "PENALTY" in a doubt and decide to
choose "REWARD" always in doubt. They don't know of "DO NOTHING/NEUTRAL".

b)Skeptic: Without any evidence or logic they stay in a "do nothing" i.e neutral
mode. This "do nothing" neutral mode is a level most minds cannot recognize and
needs some effort to become at ease with it. If and when the evidence or logic
is available they can shift to positive or negative side whichever is dictated by
the evidence and logic, not by their wishful desires or biases. A skeptic may
form a tentative opinion on some issue for lack of objective evidence but will
readily recognize any exceptions and/or contradictions and change their opinion
accordingly. it is the ability to quickly recognize any exceptions that
differentiates them from cynics (see below).

c)Cynic: These are minds which are permanently programmed or biased, so to speak,
to see or choose only the negative when in doubt. Even when the evidence or logic
suggests positive alternative on anything they will fail to recognize it and continue
to insist on the negative. Of all the possible reasons or motives of another's act or
remark they will pick the worst one to ascribe to the act. Sometimes a cynic who
does an overkill thru overskepticism to a fault. As the existentialist Philosopher
Kierkegaard said" There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't
true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."

I strongly suggest one strive to attain level (b) of credulity.

A21. Never say "Trust me". Instead act in a way that earns trust of others in a
natural way. Same goes for "Love me, respect me" etc. If someone is depressed or down
the most useless thing to do (may be well intentioned and should therefore be
appreciated still) is to make make trite statements like "Cheer Up", "Don't worry, Be
Happy" etc. A person's mental state can hardly be changed by issuing directives like
those. Instead try to do those things for them (may be small) that may comfort them,
or assuring them of any help they may need, or if you know some truth,information or
insight that they may not know which may help to relieve their mental distress then
talk about those.

Happiness is something one cannot DECIDE to obtain. It is a result of an interplay
between an objective reality (external to self) and a subjective perception (internal
to self). There are three ways this interplay can happen: 1) By a conscious act to
change or create the objective reality in a way that leads to an interplay resulting in
happiness, or if unable to do so (As things are not always under one's control and
not all are blessed with luck,ability etc), play tricks with your own mind (self
hypnosis, meditation, or just pure auto brain washing) to change or create the
subjective perception again in a way leading to an interplay resulting in happiness
(It is a sort of self-deception) and the last way is by means of pure luck. The
rational and mature approach to take in life is a REALIZATION or RECONCILIATION
with the fact that not everything one wishes has to come true or that not everything
one wishes to get will be gotten (Expectations should also be proportional to one's
capability as well) and that the meaning of life or the drive to move on in life
should not be tied to the fulfilment of ones all conceivable wishes. In other words
the motto should be to learn not to be unhappy for this or that not being fulfilled
and continue living life as best as one can. Happiness is an optional blessed feeling
to be enjoyed if/when it comes (Through any of the three ways mentioned above).

A22. i)Its not proper to say that "Everyone should work hard". Instead it should
be said "Everyone should try to be self reliant. One should work as much as is necessary
to be self reliant consistent with their standard of life they are comfortable
with. If one chooses to work less and settle for less in life then thats perfectly
OK, and equivalently it is not OK if one chooses to work less and DEMAND or COUNT
ON (i.e putting things at stake) getting more in life. (Wishing more is OK, since
wish is a harmless passive state of mind, like when one wishes to win in a lottery.
But should never count on it).

ii) Its OK (i.e acceptable,not wrong) to lack in certain qualities,skill etc. But
its not OK to expect (wishing is OK) any priviledge or benefit etc or to engage in
any activity that requires those qualities or skills as preconditions.

iii)It is more important to emphasize staying away from committing wrong rather
than committing good. The former should be mandatory whereas the latter should
be recommended. By the same token absence of good qualities in a person should
be preferred over presence of negative qualities.

A23. Some advices and suggestions should be given to oneself or to specific individuals
privately and not preached publicly as morals as they may send the wrong message or
assign priorities to actions in the wrong order if preached. For example "It is
wrong to rape" should be preached vocally as moral but "Don't stay out of house or
don't dress in a certain way" should be advised to the dear one's as a cautionary
measure to avoid being raped but not preached generally as a moral since that shifts
(or dilutes) the blame of the wrong from the rapists to the victims. It should be
clearly understood that not acting defensively against rape can at worst be labelled
as stupidity, NOT immorality, whereas committing rape is certainly "immoral".
Also in the context of relationship it is often preached that a relationship needs
to be "worked" on. That one should put lot of effort and work for a relationship to
work. The implication being that one has to strive to undo someting that is done by
the other which derails the relationship. The "work" refers to the "undoing" part.
That is a misdirected emphasis. The emphasis should be on trying not to do anything
that derails the relationship (which requires little or no "work", just being
sensible). Usually in a relationship one side may often misunderstand the other and
the otherside manages to clear up the misunderstanding through lot of effort. Or one
side may make unreasonable demand or expectation from the other and the other side
may have to try hard to meet the demands and expectations. The "work" in this case
refers to the effort in clearing up the misunderstanding or meeting the expectation
or demands. But that is not where the emphasis should be for a true relationship.
The emphasis (or preaching) should be in trying to understand the other person and
not to demand or expect too much from the other. Simply put, the preventive measures
should be preached rather than the curative measures. The bottom line: Emphasize and
preach "ideals" and suggest "pragmatism".

A24. DEFINITION OF ABSOLUTE WRONG:

A morally wrong acts is either the acts 1 or 2 below:

1. Causing either or both of (a) a direct, intentional and injury to someone's
body (either by inflicting wounds, pains, or applying force on him/her body)
or (b) Direct;y and intentionally depriving them of their assets and
possessions by force or by deceit, WHEN neither (a) or (b) is done in fair
retaliation i.e (a) for (a) and (b) for (b) against the perpetrator, nor
done as a last and immdeiate resort to save one's life AND is done
coercively against the wish of the victim.

2. Lying ABOUT someone, except as a retaliation for the same or to save
someone's life who has not committed any absolute wrong 1 described above.

NOTES ON 1:
The reason for including the WHEN clause is that doing so avoides the
possibility of a circular reasoning where one can justify a wrong by saying
that a wrong was done in response to another wrong, which in turn was in
response to a previous wrong...and so on. Regressing backwards one will
arrive at a point where a wrong was first committed by one that cannot be
unambiguously tracked as a retaliation for any type (i) or (ii) ) act
against the perpetrator. Thats where the absoluteness of the wrong applies
unambiguously. So it follows that an act is not an absolute wrong if it is
an act of fair retaliation, i.e (a) for (a), or (b) for (b) and directed
against the perpetrator not anyone else.

The AND clause rules out the defense that the victim did not resist such
acts, so was willingly allowing such acts to be committed on him/her.
Because resistance is not possible when coercion is enforced through
superiority of might becomes a part of a tradition.

NOTES ON 2:
The lying refered to above means making a false objective propositional
statement (O.P.S.), not a false subjective propositional statement (S.P.S).
A propositional statment is one which carries a true/false or yes/no
implication. An O.P.S is by definition a propositional statement to which
an absolute true/ false attribute can be assigned, whereas S.P.S. is one
where no absolute true/false can be applied to it. The difference between
the two is explained through examples of each below:

O.P.S. :
1. "A" is a male
2. "A" is a college drop out

S.P.S. :
1. I love you (Subjective judgement about myself (i.e. my feeling)
2. I will help you (Subjective sudgement about my ability/resolve)
3. "A" is honest/dishonest

A false O.P.S. is necessarily a deliberate falsehood or at least shows lack
of integrity for not verifying its authenticity (Objective statements can be
verified). A false (judged by A) S.P.S. of B on the other hand may be due
to B's unintended poor judgement of B. It could be deliberate as well (
when A and B both judge it as false). But since there is no way for A to
know whether B's false S.P.S. was intentional or not, so by benefit of the
doubt clause it cannot constitute an absolute wrong.

DSICUSSIONS WITH EXAMPLES:
A subjective wrong (i.e an act which is not absolute moral wrong as defined
in 1 and 2 above) may or may not be legally permissible. On the other hand
an absolute moral wrong is invariably legally prohibited universally. For
example blasphemy is legally allowed in most societies, prohibited in
certain societies. Rape is universally prohibited by law.

All absolute wrong acts can eventually be reduced to the two primitive
wrongs defined above by series of inferences. For example marrying off a
daugter to a man of the parent's choice against her wish in a certain
culture is wrong since ultimately physical coercion will be required to
force her to comply if she persists in refusing to do so. Many acts can be
easily seen to be absolute wrong, for example the act of suicide bombers
killing innocent civilians,

The injury or loss being refered to in (1) is of "Doing TO someone" type,
not "Not doing FOR someone" type (i.e Intended and direct, not unintended
and indirect injury resulting from the act). For example "A may refuse to do
"B" a "favour" as a result of which B may suffer some loss. B cannot accuse
A of wrongdoing since B was expecting a favour from A and A simply refused
to comply, but not necessarily intended any injury to B. Receiving favours
is a privilege, not a right. One should not lead their life based on getting
favours from others and should not stake their life and property on the
assumption of receiving a favour. Also any damage to body or property has to
be a direct and intended result of a tangible action, not an indirect result
of one's thinking in a certain way due to one's belief,faith, expectation
etc. For example if "A" makes a critical remark about "X" where X=faith/
religion/race etc, and members of "X" feel outraged and claim it has hurt
them mentally enough to cause physical and material loss, that would not
make "A"'s critical remark an absolute wrong. Because any damage to any
member of "X" is solely due to his/her conscious "thinking" and any sense
of outrage is of their own making in their mind, not intended by A. In other
words an act cannot be judged absolutely wrong simply because someone
believes it to be wrong. A wrongness of an act should not be based on
people's view or belief about the act. Moreover, the crteria for the
wrongness has to be objective and A PRIORI , not an A POSTERIORI criteria,
like the adverse consequences of one's view or belief about the act and
reacting to it accordingly. Since the belief or views of any member of "X"
is not imposed by "A", so any damaging consequence of that belief or view
about the act of A has to be the resposnsibility of the members of "X" not
of A. This follows from the direct claus in the definition of wrong-1. As
a simple example, if someone stronger than me overpowers me and stabs me
with a knife and I start bleeding, I cannot stop the bleeding by any free
will. But if someone made a critical remark about me, I have the free
will of not to loose control and engage in a destructive act against him or
anyone else or property. With an even stronger free will I can choose not
to be even bothered by such critcism at all.

Another example is when "A" is rejected in love by "B" and the resulting
emotional distress leads to his/her physical or financial damage (In extreme
case may be a suicide). This also will not qualify as absolute wrong by "B"
since this damage is due to "A"'s "expectation" being not fulfilled and "A"'
and "B" did not intend any damage to be done on "A". Any self-damaging act
like suicide by "A" is due to A's free will.

The definitions stated in (1) and (2) emphasize the fact that contrary to
what many insist that there is no absolute right and wrong and that all
wrong and right are inherently relative . There are indeed some absolute
wrongs as stated above. Absolute, since anyone irrespective of background
without exception will feel hurt or offended if the above is perpetrated on
them (Certainly will not wish to be a willing victim of such acts, hence "
wrong").

A strongly held popular view is that rights and wrongs (more so for
wrongs) are cultural (cultural relativism). What is wrong in one culture
need not be wrong for the other, so one should not declare anything in
another's culture wrong by their standard. There is a serious flaw in this
view. First we can label a culture (say A) as a group of "n" people sharing
a common value or trait. (to keep it general I use A and 'n'). Then by that
very same logic a culture cannot or should not call anything wrong that
apply to a specific subculture B of "m" people contained within culture A
( of course "m" is less than "n"). Continuing this process a subculture B
cannot label anything wrong about few group of individuals comprising a
sub-subculture "C" of "B", and so on. Ultimately nobody as an individual can
be wrong at all if we can never judge the wrongness of a group as a whole.
So cultural relativism breaks apart by an reductio ad absurdum fallacy.

A25. It is often a sensitive issue as to what is a personal question and what is not
in a conversation. People are criticized & frowned upon for asking perceived "personal"
questions in one context whereas in other contexts they are not. It is therefore
important to lay a clearly established criterion of what should be considered
personal and what should not. Of course intimacy between people can (doesn't have
to, e.g some info may be considered personal by some no matter how close the
relationship is) gradually erase these boundaries of propriety. But it is
nevertheless desirable to set a criterion as a starter. It should be noted that
this issue is intimately linked with the nature of curiosity in human and hence it
is necessary to read articles D6 and F10 relating to curiosity in order to have a
clear perspective on the issue on personal questions. The following guidelines
for deciding on personal questions are suggested:

Personal Questions are Questions On:

1. Any information that assigns a rank or grade or any hierarchical position
with a potential negative connotation relative to others within some
peer group.

2. Any Info that may potentially expose the one questioned to an undue risk of any
sort (material loss, loss of reputation,credibility,eligibility etc) due to
potential misinterpretation,misjudgement,prejudice or malice of the questioner.

Examples of Personal Questions (Not an exhaustive list): Questions On :

Salary, Bank Info, one's sexual life, health problems (Unless in patient/doctor
case). etc

Examples of NOT personal Questions (Not an exhaustive list): Questions On-

Marital Status (Only married/Unmarried, Divorced should fall under Personal
category. In other words it would not be proper to ask if one is divorced or
not (Except in a correspondence related to matrimonial or dating), and a
divorced person can answer unmarried with moral impunity in response to
marital status query), Job description, Place of birth or ethnic origin. etc.

Finally I must point out that if a question is judged NOT personal by the above
criterion it DOES NOT imply that one is bound to answer it. That is their
individual prerogative. What it implies is that the questioner cannot be deemed
to have crossed bounds of propriety by asking that. In some specific cases a
non-personal question (By the above criterion) may not be advisable to answer. For
example a single woman may not feel safe to answer a question on her marital status
asked by a male she is not familiar with enough.

A26. Often one is asked a hypothetical question and is requested to provide a yes/no
answer. When this yes/no question can be justified, one should give a clear yes/no
answer, and should be allowed to add extra comments to explain the reason for the
yes or no answer, should he/she deem it necessary. However, a yes/no question can
only legitimately asked if either the "yes" or "no" answer can apply without
exception and unambiguously to the person being asked. Some Yes/No questions can
apply to A but not to B because of the very difference between A and B in their
personality, outlook, principles etc. Also the yes/no question should never be loaded
with a damaging presupposition about the one being asked.

A27. Rules Regarding Infidelity, Jealousy, Love Triangle Etc
-------------------------------------------------------

First let me discuss the concept of "JEALOUSY" which is intimately related to this
issue. For most adults this emotion is rooted in a childish instinct where a child
gets upset when it sees another child is also being given an object of desire (toy,
attention,candy etc) that he/she has been getting exclusively so far. Its just the
*knowledge* that another child is also getting an object of desire which he/she
previously thought was his/her exclusive priviledge, which is the cause of his/her
getting upset despite the fact he/she still continues to receive it.

For adults the case in point is when the object of desire is "love/Feeling". Let us
consider separately this issue in the case of: 1. A marital relationship between A & B,
and 2. A non-marital love affair:

1. Let A be a man B his wife, and C another man. (We could have equivalently chosen B
as a man, A his wife and C a woman. My remarks should apply equally well then also).
Now lets say B is a loving wife to A. At some time B starts loving C without A's
knowing about it and A does not notice any change in love towards him from B. So all
is well. Then somehow by turn of events A comes to KNOW about B's affair with C. If
that makes A very upset and causes him to act up then it is no different in nature
than a childish jealousy as mentioned above. Just the knowledge (The love from B
towards A didn't change) caused the anguish in A. It is said that love is not
measurable, so by that logic to love one more person (C) should not necessarily
require a reduction of love towards another(A).

What A should feel or do as a mature person in this situation is just act cool and
mentally entitle himself the moral RIGHT (Whether or not he chooses to exercise the
right is upto him. He doesn't have to) to engage in a similar affair outside the
marriage for fairness' sake. Please note that by advocating for this fairness
in the form of equal rights I am not DEFENDING or ADVOCATING for infidelity. One
must not lose sight of this distinction. Please read the end of first paragraph of A13
for a general clarification if this. This moral right will apply for the rest of the
discussion that follows below. Other than that the relationship should continue as
usual.

On the other hand there may be a totally different scenario where B's love or feeling
weakens for A and grows for C). If this change in B is caused by some negative act
or behaviour of A towards B then A should accept it as having asked for it. If the
change in B was not due to any act of A or any change on A's part then there can be
a genuine and justified feeling of sadness in A. This case can have two subcases
(In each subcase I am suggesting what A should TRY or WISH to do. Whether he can
do what he tries or wishes depends on the cooperation of B). The two subcases are:

a) B doesn't love A as intensely as before but still feels enough to take care of him
in ILLNESS and is otherwise fair and just.

In this case A should live amicably with her like a friend on equal terms.

b) B has no feeling for A or is so deeply involved with C that she completely ignores
A to the extent that she doesn't even know when A is ill or doesn't care to attend
to A when he is ill.

In this case depending on whether or not there is children in the marriage, A
should do the following:

If no children, then seek a divorce. If children, then just live together (for the
sake of the children, until they grow up) with minimal involvement or interaction
with her, and share equally the responsibility of bringing up the minor children.

The real life problem of a marital breakup due to extra marital affair is discussed
under article E21 dealing with correctly identifying cause with an effect, so I will
refer to article E21 instead of repeating it here.

2. Now consider this issue for the case of a non-marital affair between A & B. It is
sometimes observed that a person B (Usually a woman) enters into an affair or talks
to A about an affair or attraction (Actual or fictitious) for C with the explicit
purpose of making A jealous. Now what are the possible end objectives that B is
aiming to achieve? Let me explore all the possible objectives and suggest my
oughttabe for each scenario:

a) If the end objective is to win TRUE love from A, then this technique is a sure
recipe for failure. In fact it is doubtful whether a woman who resorts to this
jealousy technique is at all looking for or FEELS true love, or is in fact after a
selfish desire for a possesive "love" from A instead of a desire for experiencing a
mutually fulfilling true love. Regardless, If A is a sensible person then this will
come across as a crude and tasteless act of B to either show off or boost her ego and
a cheap attempt to induce A to enter into a competition with C in trying to excel in
the display (By her standards) of "love" towards her. Instead of hurting A it might
instead disgust A and reduce A's genuine feeling towards B. In no way this crude
attempt by B can induce A to start loving B TRULY. One will be hard pressed to
believe a sensible person can be turned more romantic and passionate after TRYING
to hurt him through making him jealous!. On the other hand if A is not a man of
right senses and emotional integrity he may be succumb to this technique and fall
into the competition trap in an attempt to win her back from C. But then this will
be entirely due to a possesive instinct of A for B, not due to genuine feeling of
TRUE love. A possesive instinct can never be an element of TRUE love. So either
case the end objective failed. Any artificial method (Like making someone jealous)
is bound to fail in producing a TRUE feeling of love. Not only it will fail it may
on the other hand may annoy A and reduce whatever "feeling of love" A had for B.
What B should "try" instead is be more sincere in her approach towards A and try to
express her feelings towards A more effectively so that there is no room for any
doubt in A's mind about B's feelings for him and also try to find out the possible
reasons, if any for A's not showing enough (In B's perception of course) feeling for
B. Of course if the feelings are not mutual then then its time for B to move on. Any
twisted attempt to create a feeling of love in A would be sheer wasted effort. True
love cannot be generated by manipulating human minds and perceptions.

b) If the end objective is just to hurt A as a retaliation against a similar act of
A (i.e A's affair or attraction towards someone else) then the objective may or may
not succeed. If A is the type who is possesive towards B and is not fair minded
then he MAY get "hurt" (deservingly), although this hurting did not accomplish any
real substantive result for B other than a mental satisfaction (The actual affair,
if any, with C may have). In fact, in some cases this hurt may bring about some
vengeful irrational act from A. On the other hand if A is fair minded and not
possesive type he may understand and accept B's affair or attraction for C. So in
this case the end objective failed and the the objective of hurting A by B was
unnecessary. Another important point B should keep in mind is that if the
motivation of A's previous affair or attraction for someone woman D was not to hurt
B but just due to his genuine attraction or affair for D then her objective should
be not to hurt A either (For fairness sake), but should be to be fair, which can
be achieved through entitling herself the moral RIGHT (and exercise the right, if
she chooses to) to have an affair with C.

c) If the end objective is JUST TO HURT A even though A did not have an affair with
anyone else and loved B (Yes, believe it or not, some people do have this
perverse objective of trying to hurt someone they may "love" even without any
good reason, other than the perverse pleasure of it, I guess that is one
of the freaks of human nature), then the the objective may succeed, but the
"hurt" may be of different nature depending on the type of person A is. If A is
weak and possesive towards B then this hurt may cause considerable harm to A
(Physicallly and emotionally, due to A's own way of thinking, so not due to an
absolute wrong by B. see article A24). If the possesiveness of A is of a morbid
nature that may induce him to act even in a vengeful and irrational way causing
harm to B (Absolute wrong see A24, Unjustified). On the other hand if A is not
weak or possesive towards B then this hurt may weaken whatever feeling A had
for B and may induce him to look for an alternate relationship.

So, it is apparent that in this case the net gain by B (A mental satisfaction)
is far outweighed by possible negative outcome of attempting to make A jealous.
So B is well advised to stay out of such activities that has no real tangible
benefit but has high risk associated with it and try to seek redress from this
perverse instinct through counselling and psychiatric therapy.

The important point for both cases (i) and (ii) is that it is not the ACT of an
affair of B with C but the INTENT of hurting A through TALKING about it to A (B
assumes of course that talking about it will hurt A via jealousy ) which is the
problem. If B had an affair with C and didn't talk about it to A, then that would
not indicate any negative intent of B towards A, just B's intent of seeking
extra satisfaction through the affair. An ill intention can never bring any reward
or produce any beneficial effect at the end of the game.

A28. Ground Rules for Initiating a Relationship:
------------------------------------------

(Between a Guy and a Girl based on the undisputed principle of gender equality and
mutual respect):

1.INTRODUCTION: There should be no rule as to who should take the first initiative.
The initiative can be through a letter, an email, a phone call or a direct
approach in person. Lets say A makes the initiative. Then A should provide his/her
contact info (phone#, address etc depending on the mode of initial contact chosen,
email is automatically known of course) to B if interested in pursuing further.

2.MAINTAINING TOUCH: Once the initial intro is over due to say "A"'s initiative and
B is also interested in pursuing the contact with A then the following should apply:

i.If the intial contact by A was thru email,phone,letter then B should next respond
to A's overture through email,phone,letter etc. This should alternate until the
acquaintance deepens to a comfortable level based on understanding and ease of
communication, then no need of enforcing a mathematical balance of alternating
contacts. However, before that stage is reached there should be a balance of
alternations of communications between them and whoever doesn't reciprocate other's
communication will be deemed to have lost interest in pursuing the contact with the
other, and should not expect to hear from the other in good conscience. Also if A
had provided his/her phone number to B and after several communications B still
doesn't provide the same to A but limits to email or letter only then B will be deemed
to have no serious interest in any relationship with A.

ii.If intial contact was in person by A, and B also felt interested in continuing,
then B should provide his/her contact info to A in reciprocation to A's offering
his/her contact info to B or suggest to meet with A at some specified place and
time. If none of these two alternatives are chosen by B then B will be deemed
to have no interest in pursuing any contact with A.

If any of these ground rules are not followed by anyone then he/she should bear the
moral responsibility for any unintended termination of the communication or contact and
cannot blame the other for a lack of interest or initiative. (That would be a hypocritical
stand).

A29. One can be (although preferably not) irregular or inconsistent etc about
actions, thoughts (e.g life style) that only affect themselves, but should be very
responsible and consistent etc about actions that affect OTHERS. e.g one can be
forgetful about money they lend to others but should be very mindful and alert about
returning money borrowed from others etc.

A30. A's suggestion to B to "do some symbolic act (against B's wish) to show B's
trust in A" is unjustified, whereas B's counter suggestion to A to "not ask B to do that
act if A trusts B" is justified. A's suggestion is inconsistent with and logically
defeats the very notion of trust, that trust should be unconditional, one need not
do something to prove one's trust. So B's counter suggestion is just a reaction to
A's inconsistent suggestion and hence not itself inconsistent with B's trust
in A. Usually this kind of suggestion by A is a ruse to get B to do some favour
for A (If the symbolic act favours AS) in the guise of "trust".

===B=== UNFORTUNATE: (The way it not oughttabe)

B1. If A does something for either reason1 or for BOTH reason1 and reason2, where the
act of A can be explained by either reason1 or reason2. If reason2 seems socially
unacceptable or embarrassing or lowers A's image (by making him/her appear self-refuting
or contradictory etc) then almost invariably many will explain the act of A by ONLY
reason2, not reason1 although the truth maybe that A would have done it for reason1
even if reason2 didn't exist. See C2 for an example of this kind of fallacy. See A20
clause c) for cynic. Also see C10 for a related item.

B2. i)When A asks B a question requesting an information, which could be a simple
"Yes or No", instead of just providing the information, B interprets a motive
behind such a question and provides a reaction to it rather than the information.
Similarly when A asks B a "Why" question, B instead of trying to answer the why
assumes a negative motive behind A's asking why and acts up.

ii)When A suggests an alternative to B or requests for an alternative in case B may
not fulfil his/her promise to do something for A in future, and B interprets this
suggestion or request as indication of A's suspicion of B's motive (e.g willful
breach of a promise, changing his/her mind etc), not taking into account the
possibilty of B's unintentional inability to fulfill the promise due to
unavoidable circumstances that A is factoring in with no negative intention being
necessarily ascribed to B.

B3. A doesn't hear the whole statement by B but only part of it but instead of
asking B to repeat (While being aware of having missed part of B's statement),
A guesses and fills out the the part not heard which may be totally wrong or
opposite to what A intended and portrays B unfairly. Sometimes A picks some
catch words in B's statement and and responds to B's statement by putting those
words together very differently and changing the original statement than A had
made.

B4. Sometimes in response to "A"'s wondering as to why "B" did not do something
B tries to put forward some explanations or reasons for not doing (or inability
to do) it but losing the context B rushes to statements like "Why whine and
complain and make excuses?" not realizing that trying to STATE the causes of
A's inability (which only came in RESPONSE to B's wondering as to why) to do
something does not constitute a complaining or whining by A by any logic.

B5. Sometimes a declarative, explanatory or descriptive statement is misjudged as
an imperative statement, i.e an "IS" statement is misunderstood as a "SHOULD"
statement. (Sometimes labelled as naturalistic fallacy). For example when "A"
tries to explain certain action of "B" in terms of plausible causes (circumstances,
factors etc, while never saying anything to support or justify it), immediately
"C" rushes to an accusatory statement "You cannot justify "A"'s action because
of that" and gets into an uncalled for debate with "A".

B6. If A defends "B" where "B" = person/religion,nation,theory etc against an unfair
criticism of "B" by C then invariably C assumes that A is siding with or believing
in "B" where in fact A is not but just playing devil's advocate and believe in
giving the devil its due because of A's firm belief in the truth, justice and
abhorrance of falsehood, prejudice etc.

B7. Putting words into other's mouth and thoughts into other's minds. Making
subliminal meaning of somebody's remarks or statements which can be wrong and
thus may misrepresent that person, or imagine ulterior motives behind someone's
statements, actions which also could be wrong. See item A20 in this context
for a related discussion.

B8. Making convenient reasoning, contradictory statements or stands on an issue.
Denying a statement made before etc.

B9. Oftentimes just asserting or claiming one's rights even if the right is unambiguous
and undebatable can provoke someone's anger, annoyance etc. Examples: (1) Requesting
a bus passenger to move his/her stuff from the seat next to them so one can be
seated. (2) Pointing out an error in ringing up the price of an item and demanding
a refund for it evokes a nasty look or indignation in the cashier or sales person
instead of a polite apology for the error (Of course I am talking about the case
where the error was indisputable and was not disputed)

B10. Often when one tries to "debunk or trivialize" the perceived "greatness,virtue
or value" of an action, view..etc, one is seen to react by saying "So what is wrong
with (action,view..etc)?" They are obviously not getting the simple point that one
is not necessarily saying that something is WRONG when trying to show or argue that
it is not something as great or essential as one pretends or preaches it to be ("Not
great" does not translate to "WRONG"). There are numerous things we do in life which
are of the nature: "harmless/of not much use/not wrong" etc, but some people tend to
elevate (sometimes unconsciously) some of those "harmless/of not much use/not wrong"
to a sublime level (Essential/Must do/Indispensable/ etc) by their own bias or naivette.

B11.When A asks B if he/she knows certain information about C (for example, Is C
married?) B answers: I never asked C the question, so I don't know. B should
have just said "I don't know" instead of adding the "I never asked" part which
carries an implication that one has to ask to know any information which is
not true as many information (like marital status) is known thru various ways
without asking. Also it carries a negative connotation that A assumes B goes
about asking questions or that A does the same which may not be true at all.

B12.When asking someone a Yes/No type question, one makes a fuss or issue about an
indirect yet unambiguous answer to it. Example: Did you close the door? Ans. "I am
not that irresponsible to leave it open". See B2 in this context.

B13.Refusal or unwillingness to provide information,helpful tips, opinions and
suggestions(even after being assured of non binding nature of such by one seeking
it) or small favours etc that involves no risk or sacrifice of any sort perhaps only
few seconds of someone's time.

B14.i) "A" offers some something ("X") to "B" which "B" didn't ask for but happens
to like and accept. "A" continues to offer "X" to "B" on a regular basis and "B" accepts
it everytime although never asks for it. Later "A" tells "C" : "B" has to have "X",
he/she can't do without it. See A3 also.

ii) A offers a small favour to B gratuitously with the intention of making B feel
obligated to A much more than the small favour to B can justify.

===C===Examples (Some actual) of Sophistry/contradictory/hypocritical remarks

C1. Often when one misses to attend a desired event for whatever reasons they wish
that the event was cancelled somehow so they would not feel bad that they missed it.
Rationally thinking it doesn't matter even if the event was cancelled since either
way the fact remains that he/she would not have attended the event. We are talking
here of events of the type that are one shot thing and cannot be rescheduled if
cancelled.

C2. A asserts his/her non-belief in a religion which prohibits eating pork. A does not
eat most cuisine made with pork because he/she is repelled by the smell, taste or look
of pork. B concludes that A does not eat pork out of A's subconscious belief in
religion and is instinctively following the injunction of religion. B also ignores
A's occasional eating of pepperoni (contains pork) pizza in drawing this conclusion.

C3. "A" and 'B' are eating at a dinner table. there are 4 items on the table. call
them items 1,2,3,4. 'A' first eats item 1. Then eats item 2. While eating 2 ,'B' is
looking at some other direction or talking and not paying attention to what 'A' is
eating. Later 'A' eats item 3 and 4. At the end 'B' says to 'A', how come you didn't
eat item 2, don't you like it? And to think "A" did like item 2 and even mentioned
of this liking at least once in past:) Why cite this as example?. Although harmless
in this incident, it reflects "B"'s lack of observational or judgemental sense and can
be a potential cause of a problem in some serious issue (e.g while serving as a jury)
if the same slackness is present there also.

C4. "A" writes down (by hand) some info on piece of paper and gives it to 'B' to copy
it down. After 'B' copies it 'A' wishes to see what 'B' wrote down just to make sure
that 'B' copied it right. 'B' makes the sarcastic remark "I happen to know how to
read and write". What 'B' failed to realize is, its not that 'A' didn't know about
'B' 's reading or writing ability but that one can always make a mistake while copying
a HANDWRITTEN info. Ability to read and write has nothing to do with making mistakes
while copying. In fact "B" did make mistakes while copying down some info heard from
'D' over phone different times. This had nothing to do with 'B' s being deaf or
something like that, just a possible human error.

C5. "A" gave 'B' a Web site address. 'B' tried to check out that web site and informed
'B' of problems in opening the address and an error report being displayed by the
Browser. 'A' suggested 'B' to make sure that 'B' typed in all the required symbols
(including "~") in the address for the web site. "B" sarcastically responds that it
is dangerous to assume that level of stupidity in people and that 'B' may not be as
internet savvy as 'A' but knows how to access an web site. Again here 'B' failed to
realize that missing out some small ~, /, "." etc is not uncommon even among experts
and is by no means an act of stupidity. (sometimes missing the 'l' in the terminal
html word also results in complaint by the browser. It is again one of those common
human error that experts and novices alike are vulnerable.

C6. a) "A" says to "B": "You are lucky. You are not married, so you don't have to go
through all the hassles of..". "B" made a choice which "A" was equally
entitled to but didn't make. There is no "luck" factor here!

b) A poltical science graduate "A" telling a computer science graduate "B" how lucky
he/she was as he/she would have no problem getting jobs. Again "A" had the same
choice as "B" to select major (computer science) and graduate through hard work
and intellect. B decided, A didn't. Again no luck involved.

c) "A" cals "B" lucky when "B" decides to take an extended vacation without pay by
prioritizing the vacation over other expenses (Sacrificing other comforts by
settling for less money). Again, "A" could also have taken a leave without pay
but chooses not to as other comforts and amentities are too important to sacrifice
any pay. So it was matter of different priority and not luck.

C7. (Sophistry): (a)There can be no true unbiased person as an unbiased person also
believes in his/her own opinion and is "biased" for whatever he/she thinks is
"true". (b). There can be no unselfish person as an unselfish person also gives
up selfishness for his/her own satisfaction and to suit his/her own purpose.
(c) there can be no absolute right or absolute wrong whatsoever. See A24-(a),
A24-(b),E1 and E13 for debunking theses sophistries.

C8. A decides to do something on his/her own, B advises A not to do it but A doesn't
agree with B but coincidentally had to cancel the decision to do it for reasons
other than those of B. B thinks that A was finally convinced by his/her reasons.

C9. Often comments like "Logic cannot be applied to human emotions, Not everything
can be explained by logic", "Logic cannot solve all emotional problems" etc are made.
Let us take some examples to debunk this kind of vague and inappropriate comments.

Lets say A & B are friends. "A" concludes that "B" does not consider "A" as
a good friend by the fact that "B" didn't share some secret with "A" and "A"
is upset by this. Now if "A" was logical then he/she would ask:

1. Is "B" refusing to share the secret with "A" but not with some other
friend "C" of "B" ?

a) If yes then "C" is clearly a better friend of "B" than "A". If
this fact was not known to "A" then it should at worst cause a
DISAPPOINTMENT in "A" since it was due to "A"'s IGNORANCE
of a FACT, not due to an ACT of "B" (Like "B"s betraying of "A"'s
secret to "C" etc, which can justifiably cause "A" to be UPSET). A
disppointment is a milder emotion than being upset and should
not result in an end of friendship but in a realization of the
limits of friendship and a hope for a deeper friendship in future
through sincerity.

b) If no, i.e if "B" didn't share some secret with ANYONE, then it does
not imply that "B" has a better friend than "A", just that it is
in "B"s nature to keep some secrets inside and to share it with
NOBODY. In this case "A" should not even feel disappointed, let alone
upset. In this case "A" should consider this as a fact about "B" that
was unknown to "A" before and factor it in the friendship between
them going forward.

By logically analysing this situation "A" can at least handle this in a
much better way. Logic cannot solve all problems but can certainly improve
one's mental state through better understanding.

Also it is quite common for orthodox believers in religion to declare, "Religion
is beyond the scope of science and logic" and that one should not invoke logic
and science to judge or discuss religious topics. While the same believers would not
waste a minute to quote some discoveries or principles from science and then
use some sort of peculiar "logic" to substantiate or affirm their religious beliefs
based on those scientific principles declaring that religion is supported by the
evidence from science and claim they are being "scientific" even though the "logic"
used itself may be quite far fetched and sheer rigmarole linking two disparate
line of thinking. It is interesting to see that what scientists establish by hard
cerebral work happen to bear a superficial semblance of agreement with religious
beliefs the dogma-holders would tout their beliefs being supported by science, and
claiming copyright to that truth although their beliefs were purely motivated by
wishful desires whereas the truth arrived at by scientists were guided by objective
evidence and cerebral work, although they may have their own wishful desires, but
not guided by it.

C10. Very often the argument between two person boils down to the following
ridiculous form: (Due to "B")

"A" says: 2+2=4 since 4+4=8
"B" says: NO you are wrong, 3+3=6 since 4+4=8

or "A" says: 5 is greater than 3
"B" says: No, 3 is smaller than 5

since both are making valid (or equivalent) final conclusion, the debate becomes
impossible to resolve as "B" is so preoccupied and focussed with the validity his/her
final CONCLUSION that any other conclusion is reflexively rejected and is
bounced off his/her brain.

Another slightly different example is when there are two actions (Actions 1 & 2)that
"A" like to do (or is willing to do, but are mutually exclusive, that is "A" can do
either 1 or 2, not both). Lets say "A" attaches higher priority to action 1. So A
ends up doing action 1 and not action 2. A then says to B: "I couldn't do 2 because
priority of 1 is higher than 2 But "B" retorts:

1. "No, you didn't do 2 because its not your priority" or
2. "No, you didn't do 2 because you don't like to do 2

Here statement 1 is equivalent to what "A" said yet "B" expresses it as a dissent.
Statement 2 is clearly a biased and wrong conclusion. This happens often. See also
B1 for a related item

Another common problem in a debate is when A provides his/her views on an issue
in response to some very specific points made by B. Instead of nailing the words
or lines or specific points of B's statements A just reveals an eagerness to
plug his/her own views on the issue without actually first examining A's points
closely and providing his/her criticism (in support of or disagreement with). In many
cases B's response may not even contradict the points made by A !

C11. When A says to B: "BECAUSE you didn't/couldn't do [something], I couldn't/didn't
do [something else]" and B retorts in reply: "Why are you COMPLAINING that I
didn't/couldn't do[something]"? Here B is missing the point that A was just
EXPLAINING his/her reason for not being able to do..[something] in response to
B's own complaining to A in the first place as to why A couldn't/didn't do
[something]. One should understand that "blaming" (Defined as identifying a human
cause of an effect) doesn't not mean complaining (Defined as accusing someone of a
wrong doing and expressing anger for it).

C12. Often when "A" is reluctant to give a responsibility to "B" (for "A"'s benefit)
B assumes that it is due to lack of "A"'s trust in "B"'s sincerity, honesty, intention
etc. and takes it personally where in fact (As often is the case) "A" is not trusting
the ability, capacity or efficiency etc (which may be due to "B"s limitation beyond
his/her control) of B of carrying out the responsibilty. "B" should learn to
recognize and accept this possibility and not take it personally.

C13. Often one doesn't pick up a coin dropped on the floor as it is in contact
with dirt or dust. The same person has never hesitates to touch coins or bills
in his pocket or wallet that have been touched by people of diverse backgrounds.
Human palms can contain more germs than dust or dirt on the floor/pavement etc.

C14. C (To A) : Why do you think B committed act "X"?
A: Because of reason "Y".
C: Its a shame that you are trying to justify act "X" of B because of Y

When person "A" tries to "EXPLAIN" or UNDERSTAND a possible CAUSE of a
deplorable act or behaviour by "B" (B = individual/community), it never
automatically implies that "A" is sanctioning or condoning that act or
behaviour of "B". Any judgement of "A"'s view on the act or behaviour should
be based on "A"'s other statements, behaviours or acts, not by "A"'s
attempt to "EXPLAIN" the acts of "B". In many books, papers, articles,
lectures, sociologists, psychologists, scientists are puttting forward
their own theories to explain possible causes of social,political
economic ills. There are many explanations by economists of economic
disparitites between social strata and between nations. They are not
necessarily justifying such disparities when trying to explain it etc.

C15. One has to realize that playing devil's advocate is not necessarily
defending the devil. The lawyer who was representing the World Trade center
Bombing suspect was an American Christian White. But that did not make him
a fanatic Muslim terrorst. also.

C16. 1. Suppose "X" is a wrong act (There is no dispute about that)
2. The West criticizes some non-Westerner (nation or individual) "A" for
committing an act "X"
3. A NON-westerner (individual) "B" independently criticizes "A" for
committing act "X"
4. Defenders of "A" immediately jump to accuse "B" of being a western
stooge or lackey, trying to please his/her Western "master" or that
he has succumbed to Western media propaganda.

There are three sides to this fallacy. First, the validity of a
criticism of an act should be judged on the basis of the merit of the
ACT itself, not on the basis of the identity of one who criticizes or
his/her presumed motive(wrong or right) . Even if "B"'s criticism was
influenced by the West, that in itself does not make the critcism invalid,
as long as "X" is agreed to be wrong. Second part of the fallacy is
(This is the typical case) that it does not automatically follow that
since "B" criticizes "X", which the West also criticizes, THERFORE
(And herein lies the fallacy) "B" must be imitating the West or trying to
please it. The perceived motive of "B" behind it's criticism of "X",
is a judgement call by defenders of "A", which is not at all
relevant in judging the validity of a criticism, nor is the motive of
a criticism (even if there is any) relevant in the criticism or defense
of "X". Lastly, the question is, when is a speculation of a "motive"
behind a criticism appropriate? It is appropriate in the case when the
wrongness of the act "X" is in dispute AND only after "A" provides a
convincing objective reason (which implies that the logic and merit of
the reason does not depend on who provides it) to defend "X". In that
case a motive factor may be worth speculating on as further insight.

C17. Often we hear "What is bad to one may be good to another, So one
should not be judgemental". If one looks at the statement carefully
they can easily discern the inherent contradiction in it. The first
part states a FACT OF LIFE. (i.e What is bad to you may be good to
others). It is inconsistent to advise someone not to be judgemental
because of this fact of life, because this fact of life itself is a
result of one being judgmental (judging something as being good to one
and bad to another, that is) in the first place.!

===D==== HMM.. & Some Quotes (Mine)

D1. No matter WHEN you talk to a friend who are into business they will often say-
a) I made a lot of profit in the past
b) At present I am broke or not making profit
c) I am sure I will make lot of profit in future.

D2. Often some people (could be friends) would fret about the huge loss or expenses
they are incurring or have incurred due to paying income taxes and the consequent
hardship they are facing in meeting their other expenses. Any one with mediocre
brain can add 2 and 2 together and figure out the more one is paying income tax
the more they are actually earning after tax. One would rather earn 10 dollars
and pay 2 dollars in tax and be left with 8 dollars than earn 6 dollars and pay
1 dollar in tax and be left with 5 dollars.

D3. "Stingy' is the word used by the greedy to describe a frugal person.
Often those who label others as stingy do so because they didn't spend
enough on them. They don't care to know if that stingy person ever
contributes to a charity or buys valuable articles of interests for
themselves or for someone special. On the other it is not uncommon to see a
spendthrift person being regarded as generous by their beneficiaries. It is
also the case that those spendthrifts are in most cases deeply in debt and
in effect are making others ( individuals other than the beneficiaries and
organizations) pay for their generousness. A truly generous person is one
who is prudent and prioritizes their expenses in a way that doesn' t cause
others to pay for their generous acts towards others. see also

D4. How come it is acceptable to argue or debate on TV or ask personal questions
to a celebrity or interviewee (e.g marital status, age etc with thousand, millions
of viewers watching) whereas the same is discouraged and is considered improper
in real life? How come literary criticisms by critics who ruthlessly dissects
a piece of poem or art etc are OK but its consider rude when you criticize someone's
work in a private or informal conversation?

D5. It is common to see that most people attribute to others indiscriminately the
same limitations and flaws that they themselves suffer from instead of judging each on
their own merit. Its a way of comforting oneself by believing that they are no worse than
others if not better. An example is that a jealous person refuses to believe that
someone else can be free from this character flaw (i.e jealousy). Here jealousy is
defined as the negative reaction caused in a person by the good fortune of another
where that good fortune was not at at the cost of the person feeling jealous. If the
good fortune of "A" is at the cost of "B" then "B" can rightly feel outraged as that
is unjust and that feeling of outrage cannot be defined as jealousy. It is also
common to see many mistakenly equate "absence of evidence" to "evidence of absence"
in regard to personality attributes of others. For example if a person didn't
explicitly display traits of artistic sense, compassion, understanding of an issue
that doesn't indicate any lack of such attributes. It is quite possible that such
attributes are latent and may or maynot be visible depending on situations and who is
their company. For more expressive people thay create those situations themselves and
expose those traits to others indiscrimnately. (If they have them). For example
prolific writers take great pains to write out their thoughts. Others may not choose
to even if they have more insight or understanding than a prolific writer etc. Its
only when an explicit act, word or behaviour which indicates a lack of those attributes
that one can with some justifiability conclude such.
Also some people always invariably try to fit others into preset stereotypes.
They dont accept the fact that some may not fit into their set stereotype. By
believing that others always fit into a narrow scope they possibly derive a smug
feeling they are wise and can make precise judgement about others. See also A10, A20,
and E14 for related discussions.

D6. How come showing curiosity or asking personal questions etc are regarded as
improper and one is frowned at for doing so. Whatever happened to the maxim "Innocent
unless proven guilty", "Give the benefit of the doubt" etc? Afer all, mere asking is not
in itself a harmful "act". One is not necessarily curious out of an intent of doing
harm. This does not in anyway imply that one SHOULD satisfy other's curiosity, but
that one should not automatically attribute all curiousities to a harmful intent.
Of course one has the right to refuse to satisfy other's curiosity and that right
to refuse should be respected as well. See also F10 for related discussion.

D7. How come even though it is commonly agreed that "opinion is like a nose, everyone has
one", when one verbalizes an opinion on something he/she is labelled as opinionated or
judgemental? Those who have an opinion but don't make it public are not opinionated ?

D8. Often when someone passes an opinion or judgement people react with remarks like
"You have no right to impose your ideas and opinions on others or to judge others etc"
This is a total contradiction to their professed belief in freedom of expression and free
speech. Ideas and opinions can never be imposed on anyone by mere verbalization, it can
only be imposed by brute physical force. One has the choice to agree or disagree with
the opinion but to accuse one of IMPOSING their ideas on them is utterly illogical.
Similarly one should realize that making a value judgement of a specific act, word or
statement of A doesn't translate to a blanket judgement of A as a person and a value
judgement can be obviously relative for many such act, word or statement. Moreover such
value judgements are passive in that they are not held against any individual in a
personal way in real matters. So by expressing one's value judgement one is just
verbally expressing his/her own relative view. The person who is criticising such
verbalization possibly holds a different value judgement of such an act or word
(possibly more favourable) etc. For example "A" may hold the view that sending a happy
new year's greeting card to someone is a superficial and shallow act. But that does
not mean that A will judge B to be a superficial or shallow PERSON by the one act of
B's sending a new years greeting card to C. One has to distinguish the message from
the messenger or recipient. See B10 for related article.

On a related note often it is the case that a remark or comment by "A" provokes
widespread negative reaction among many and is followed by a demand to "A"
to apologize and/or withdraw his/her remark. A deeper look at this demand will
make it evident that even if "A" does apologize or withdraw that doesn't in any
way guarantee that "A" will cease to believe in the heart what "A" had remarked
or viewed. It really serves no purpose to ask for an apology other than just
a crude psychological satisfaction derived from witnessing the act of "A" eating
his/her words out of fear of reprisal. No one can change "A"'s opinion by
demanding apology and retraction. The best one can do is to counter "A"'s remark
with a criticism of such using solid argument (If any) and if the argument is
indeed solid there may be hope of "A"'s withdrawing his/her remark willingly
due to being convinced of the solid argument against it and then it would provide
a very noble sense of satisfaction instead of the crude one derived the other way.
The strength of a belief is measured by its ability to withstand criticism or
verbal attack and its weakness by its overreaction in the form of intimidation
and forceful attempt to silence the criticism.

See also A9 for a related item.

D9. (Happens in Indian subcontinent). Often people get irritable and bad tempered
when they are hungry when the more natural reaction to hunger should be stomach
pain, exhaustion and tiredness (as expressed thru reluctance to do things or talk
much) and a strong urge for food expressed through words.

D10. For many people, many a things have to go right for one to pay off a loan,
whereas only one thing has to go wrong to prompt one to borrow.

There are some folks who choose to stay permanently in debt to a number of
people. For example A is in debt to B, C and D initially. After some time A
pays off B (or C/D) by borrowing from E. So now A is in debt to C, D and E.
Later A pays off C (or D/E) by borrowing from F and then is in debt to
D,E and F and so on. This is practically a subtle form of Ponzi scheme where
A manages to preserve some credibility by paying off some periodically but
never paying off all at the same time !

D11. It is ironic that sometimes wrongful acts are rewarded because of the impact
it generates. This is the case when the militant members of a minority
community goes on a rampage or riot venting anger over an issue damamging life
and property of innocent members of other community. The media and/or the
community at large then reacts to the great impact of the mayhem and attribute
the cause to the genuine grievances of that community and tries to appease the
minority community and takes action to redress their grievances. Whereas if a
minority community stayed sober not venting their grievances or venting it in a
civilized way and not damaging the life and property of the innocent public then
they are unlikely to draw any sympathetic response (Lip service at the most).
It is equally ironic that the same people who try to justify the riots and mayhems
as a backlash due to genuine grievances and approve of such path for its
effectiveness in wresting redress also preach that "Two wrongs don't make a
right". The bottom line is that "hurting innocent members to avenge the
wrongdoings of others and wresting a redress by the destruction or mayhem
maybe an effective but morally unjustifiable means of redress. A revenge if at
all to be justified at least has to be directed against the very perpetrators
of the act being avenged. See A18 for a related item. It is also common to
observe people thanking someone for "not doing something wrong". Not doing
something wrong is not a virtue, but a civil and moral duty. Thanks should be
appropriate for an act of good instead. It is reflective of the paranoia and
the fact that we are too used to seeing wrongs being done to us that it seems
like a virtuous act when someone desists from wrongdoing.

D12. Often correcting factual content of someone's statement or assumption or
pointing out any incorrectness in their opinion or assumptions in any matter is
considered to be a result of crankiness, impatience, bad mood, bitterness... This
is very unfair characterization since in many cases the act of pointing out
the incorrectness or mistake may be a totally dispassionate act prompted just by
a desire to keep facts straight and avert a posiible miscommunication or
misunderstanding and not by a personal acrimony for them. Similarly when
someone is reminded of an obligation to be fulfilled he/she reacts angrily
that his/her sincerity is being questioned whereas the reminder may be just due
to anticipating a possible human element of innocent forgetfulness from his/her
part. See A20 for a related discussion.

D13. It seems like for many individuals and offices even after repeated communications to
them updating certain information about oneself (address, personal info, correcting
a mistake about a factual data etc) they still continue to use the previous info as
if they never received the updating request. For some there seems to be a threshold
'n' such that the they only respond to it after 'n' number of this communication is
received. For some individuals it is as if they have this shutter which they
selectively open to let through the information for processing. In some cases it
happens even if the communication is for the the benefit of those to whom this
communication is being sent !.
Sometimes as a result of this experience when one checks with a person being
communicated to making sure that he/she got it they retort saying they are not
stupid not to get in the first time. See C5 and C6 for related discussions on real
life examples.

D14. Often a mistaken idea persists in people that those who are rational/logical
in their thinking cannot be passionate or appreciative of beauty or humour and display
human emotions like fear, love, passion, fantasy, frustrations etc. This idea is
utterly ludicrous. Thinking logical or rational is a way of streamlining our
thoughts and actions and avoid unnecessary problems and misunderstandings that
result from the lack of it. It is of practical significance, intellectual aside,
and has nothing to do with purely "natural" human emotions like love, passion,
aesthetics, imaginations, daydreaming, fear etc. If 'A' points out the inconsistency
between statement 1 and statement 2 (An indication of A's logical mind) what
is their to prevent A from appreciating a piece of artwork, or to hug someone or hold
someone's hand and look into their eyes? See also F9 for a related discussion.

D15. For many people the phrase "I don't remember doing or saying (something).."
is another way of saying "I don't want to admit that I did/say (something).." and the
implication being that one cannot be guilty of a misdeed if THEY cannot "remember"
the misdeed (no matter whether they did it or not and doesn't matter if others
happen to remeber it clearly). Often they are more likely to remember what they want
to remember and is convenient to them, e.g remembering what others owe to them and
not what they owe to others etc.

D16. Often one uses the expression "I didn't have time..(to do something etc)"
to really mean that it was not in their priority list or that they don't
intend to do it etc.

D17. It seems like a valid criticism of a member of a minority group is judged as
politically incorrect and an invalid criticism of a member of a majority
group is accepted as politically correct.

D18. Superiority Complex needs inferiority complex for its sustenance. Inferiority
complex is itself a form of inferiority. A realistic perception of one's
limitations is often mistaken as inferiority complex. It is safer to underestimate
oneself than overestimate if one is incapable of making accurate self-appraisal.

D19. Solitude is like a horror story. I like it but am also afraid of it.

D20. Common Characteristics of Religious Fanatics and Radical Leftists:

1) Both abhor free and intellectual thought and believe in indoctrination.
2) Both are against democracy and would form autocratic governement if they had
their way.

3) Both have very limited liking for art. To fanatics, only religious songs (Hymns
etc) are accepted and to Leftists only revolutionary songs extolling Mao, Castro
etc are accepted, the rest are characterized by both as decadent.

4) Both are turned on by the idea of a "bloody" revolution.
5) Both label the cultured elites (Educated in secular and non-dogmatic education)
as lackeys of the imperialists and enemy of the mass.

6) Both tend to keep long hair and beard and wear distinctive dress.
7) Both condemn the west. To fanatics, west is the great "Satan", enemy of virtuous
people, to leftists, west is the evil empire, the enemy of "common man".

Seems like these common characteristics do give rise to some mutual admiration and
tolerance between these otherwise widely differing species. Thats why we don't see
radical militant leftist organizations ever vowing to fight and destroy militant
fanatic religious organizations like Taliban etc or the other way around, even though
the leftists are avowed disbelievrs in religion and divine revelations and would not
mince words in their criticism against them and the same is true for religious
fanatics who hate the atheistic beliefs of the leftists with all their gut.

D21. Often confidence is glorified (or conversely lack of confidence is looked down
on), but when one expresses a view with conviction (i.e confidence), then it is frowned
upon as a "strong opinion" lacking humility etc.

D22. Why is it that in real life 5+(-5) = 0 is preferred over 0+0 = 0 ? OR
6+(-4) = 2 over 2+0 = 2 ? Let me clarify. A person who has passion for love
or generosity but also with negative impulses of violence or aggression is still
preferred over a person who does not show such intensity in either direction
and considered dull and monotonous. A person who lends a lot and borrows a lot
is preferred over one who does not do either. Most prefer to work hard for
sacrificing all the good things of life at present so that they can enjoy greater
luxury later in life. Few choose to work lesser (so still has time to enjoy
life on a part time basis at present) and settle for lesser luxury at present
or in future. Why is it that more choose the first alternative although it works
to be equivalent mathwise? Is it maybe the general perception that the positive
impulses happen more often than the negative one (two step forward and one step
backward, figuratively speaking) so on the whole a person with both impulses
strong are more creative than a dull and stable person with no strong impulse
either way?. But what is the perception behind working hard for later rewards vs.
working less for steady smaller rewards?

D23. Often remarks like "Logic or reason cannot apply to emotions, love, beauty etc",
"science ruining the beauty and mystery by trying to explain it" etc. This is similar
to answering a question that was never asked. No one ever said that Logic or reason
applies "TO" emotions, beauty etc. Or that logic can help find love or beauty. Science
and logic never claims or requires that. But that does not by any means imply that
logic and reasoning cannot help us to *understand* the origin or love, appreciation
of beauty etc. Trying to understand the origin of emotions in terms of a more basic
underlying natural principle through scientific reasoning does not mean negating
those emotions themselves or claiming that they are the results of the pure
constructs of logic or reason. Then why so many harp on this defensive statement
when no such contra statements are made by scientists? The reason may be rooted
in the inherent fear of the truth. For some the truth may destroy the idealistic
mental forms that their romantic imaginations create and inspire them. A mature
insight into the truth should not interfere with their ideals.

Those who dismiss logic and deny its value are missing the point that logic has
its place. if no dispute or allegations ever arose then logic would indeed be
unncesaary. But the reality is that often one copmes across accusations,
complaints, miscommunications etc all resultiing in sour relationships and
hostility, which could have been averted had one or both sides only used some
basic logic. Many of the misinterpretations of people's remarks, attitude are
due to failing to apply basic logic and consistency in language.

===E=== NOTES TO MYSELF AND MY OBSERVATIONS:

E1. Followers of religion 'A' often expect others to believe interpretation of religion
'A' by scholars dispelling myths about 'A' at the same time refuse to accept or believe
the interpretations of religion 'B' by their scholars dispelling myths about 'B'.
This double standard is quite common.

When a scholar born in religion "A" makes a critical study or research of religion "B"
leading to a contradiction of many claims of religion "B" then invariably all members
of religion "B" dismiss it as biased, motivated and as a propaganda. In fact a person
born in religion "A" could be (1) blind follower of "A",or (2) Not believer of any
religion. People of category (1) is likely to be biased as there will be a motivation
to advance the one he/she believes over the other. But scholar of category (2) has no
vested interest in advancing one over the other and in fact does an equally critical
study of religion "A" as well. A common sophistic argument is that no one is unbiased
as an unbeliever is biased against believers and has vested interest in proving a
believer wrong. The fallacy of this argument lies in the fact that an unbeliever
propounds their disbelief in response (reaction) to believers' insistence that their
belief is correct and their attempt in imposing it on the rest and the believers'
constant preaching efforts and trying to apply their religious beliefs to the society
affecting all. The believers are proactive and are in the offensive. The unbelievers
would not have to resort to the critical study or research had the believers not taken
their belief outside of their private life and tried to thrust it on others. No
critical scholar ever tries to debunk the belief's of Tibettan Monks or the Shaman
priests of Japan. Most skeptics and critical free thinkers direct their time in
refuting the claims and preachings of persuasive members of revealed religions. When
one accuses a member of "A" as biased AGAINST "B" in their critique, by the same token
it is equally valid to remark that a member of "B" is biased IN FAVOUR OF "B" in their
defense. So how can one arrive at the objective truth? One guide line is that it is
less likely for members of whichever group is in stronger position in terms of
standards of living, political or economic status, number etc to be biased as their is
no need to prove their own superiority or inferiority of the other whereas its more
likely for the weaker group to be biased for the complementary reason. The other
possiblity is when a truly objective truth seeker from either "A" and "B" tries
to investigate the truth about both. For such people they would recognize the
negatives in their own group as well as the positives and and also the positives in
the other as well as the negatives in their correct proportions. See also E13 for a
related topic.

The interesting thing is when some member of religion 'A' makes a favourable
comment of religion "B" then that member is never considered to be biased, but
fair by members of religion 'B' and vice versa. So there is an inherent
contradiction and inconsistency. A member of "A" is always considered "biased"
by members of "B" by the very fact that he/she is a member of "A" and will
consequently be biased in favour of "A" (and vice versa), except when he/she
makes a favourable comment towards them. A judgement of biasedness or fairness
based on the favourableness of the comments is certainly not a sound one.

E2. To most people expensive=good and vice versa whereas the exception to this rule
is very common. In fact these people develop the perception of good and bad out of a
bias toward cost of things (Result of succumbing to the urge to show off and win in
the competition thereof and the urge to stay in step with the going fad or style)
rather than by the intrinsic merit or usefulness of it irrespective of its reputation or
being in style. When things are newly introduced they are costly and much in
demand/style and is considered a mark of good taste to posses them, whereas the
same stuff after it outlives its time and becomes cheap and old, ceases to be in
style or demand and is considered uncool to be in possession, even though the inherent
appearance or structure of the stuff hasn't changed. For example a digital watch that
sells for a buck or two nowadays (works as good as the expensive ones) would have
been considered far out, cool, slick etc if seen in say, the early sixties and would
be a matter of prestige to possess one. Now KNOWING that its price has gone down, it
is not cool, slick etc, even though geometrically or structurally it may be still quite
aesthetic. Some item or article may be have been originally expensive because of
some underlying difficulty in procuring or preparing it, not due to an objective
superiority of any attribute. But with time the fact of its being expensive in itself may
generate an aura of superiority and consequent desirability around it, which in turn
perpetuates the costliness of the item irrespective of whether or not the original
difficulty in procuring or preparing exists (possibly to a lesser degree) or not.
Sapphires without any flaws were once treasured. Now that sapphires can be made
synthetically which are chemically identical to the natural ones, natural sapphires
with flaws are admired more as object of art or beauty!. It is almost always true that
when one is offered a free lunch and is given the choice of menu, it is almost
automatic that the most expensive menu is chosen. The fact is that tastiness of food
is a subjective sensation depending on the unique tastebud of individuals and it is
statistically unlikely that an expensive item would appeal to the tastebuds of the
large majority whose tastebuds are diverse as their personalities. The knowledge of
the cost of the menu item and its subsequent Popularity" invariably influences the
"tastebud" of many. See the following article for more related views.

P.S. I wrote the above before reading "The Meme Machine" by Susan Blackmore. But to
my pleasant surorise much of it is vindicated by the meme theory of biology.

E4. The only relationship that is naturally (i.e not by moral and ethical standards
set by a given society or culture, but by the rules of nature) bound by obligation
is that of parents towards their minor children. In all other relationship there
is no inherent obligation or responsibilty to take care of one by the other but
may result from a spontaneous love and affection.

E5. There is an instinctive impulse in most males to commit violence. The violence I
am referring to is beyond that which is rooted in the sociobiological instinct of
territorial aggressions and male dominance in mating rights among animals. Since male
dominance in mating rights and territorial aggression are both in turn rooted in the
instinct for survival of the species which is no longer at stake for human, this
vestigial instinct is not an imperative anymore for humans and the existence of this
instinct is a liability. Most of them are held in check by social and/or
religious inhibitions. Some of them seek socially or reigiously justifiable means like
communist revolution or a crusade to release this impulse. (many innocent human are
massacred in these process). For some who are not at all inhibited by society or
religion they turn out to be outright violent person who would hack someone to death
at the smallest provocations. For the rest majority this impulse keeps smoldering
inside and finds outlet in sports and other physical activities. But the danger is
that these people have the latent potential for violence that has been subdued that
can be let loose by some threshold of provocation (varies depending on each
individual). There is a smaller percentage who either don't possess this instinct
at all or have diffused it through setting themselves totally free internally
(From the unnecessary overheads of social ties, constraints, tradition etc ).
Women, though normally don't have this instinct for violence, there are a few
exceptions (For example the Book "When She Was Bad : Violent Women & the Myth of
Innocence" by Patricia Pearson, a female, explodes the myth that women can
never be violent, check the site http://www.uccs.edu/~cwetheri/GRT/WSWB_quo.html
for quotes from the book), although the nature of the violence for them seems
to be of a less direct in nature and SOME however wouldn't hesitate to
perpetrate violence through a male intermediary. They would sic a male to do
the dirty job on someone else and keep their own hands off violence.

E6. There is an inherent tendency in SOME women in getting satisfaction and pleasure
out of emotionally putting down any male or deflating their ego or telling lies about
them to others to inflate their own ego. All these for no good reason and where
there is no provocation (Unless a woman perceives as provocation the fact that a
male didn't show any romantic interest in her to her satisfaction") of any sort
from those males.

E7. Most people do the right thing out of Fear, Sense of Duty, Religion etc. as
opposed to an intrinsic sense of righteousness, compassion etc. While both are considered
good for society, the latter definitely ranks much higher since their values are
stable and not changeable, whereas the former may change due to their loss of
fear or faith in religion etc.

E8. There exist a class of people who have an inherent tendency to
misquote, mispresent or distort other's remarks or viewpoints sometimes even
without being aware that they are doing so as it comes very naturally in them and
is due to an inherent bias about others and the way they look at things from their
coloured perspective. Later if a dispute and unpleasantness arise because of this
they would deny having misquoted, mispresented or distorted. The denial is not
necessarily because they are lying to protect themselves but may be due to an
egoistic belief that they can never be at fault or that they are unfairly being
picked on. These people, although should be forgiven (They are not committing
any of the absolute wrongs), but are best advised to be avoided by all means.

E9. A biased person considers truly neutral persons as biased if their opinion and
remarks run counter to his/her own beliefs and vested interests but considers
them as neutral only if it goes in their favour.

E10. It is commonly opined that there cannot exist an unbiased person. These people
fail to acknowledge the different levels of intellect possible in human and by assuming
all are biased are treating all of them on the same intellectual level. They dont
realize that there exists a class of people who are born with a skeptical instinct
and are more inclined to use the left hemisphere of the brain rather than being
guided by their heart and wishful impulse and would be more interested in an
unpleasant truth than a pleasant lie or baseless speculation. They posses a level of
intellect which enables them to free themselves from the subjective veil obstructing
the objective truth that lies beyond. True everyone is bombarded with biased
information, ideas, teachings etc from birth but that does not imply that all absorb
or accept them equally. The wide majority are gullible and readily influenced or
impressed by those info and it is firmly ingrained in their mind. Some may require
constant repetition and exposure etc before the influence takes root firmly in their
mind. While for a small minority whose mind is born skeptic and inclined towards
free thinking, no amount of exposure, repetition or brainwashing will influence their
mind as they use some absolute criterion which is not based on the ideas of any
given religion, tradition, culture, ethnicity, nation, family etc but are rooted in
universal values and is derived by a logical and analytical thinking or an instinct
that is very individual but not shaped by any religious and other factors. For some
it may take some time before the free thinking instinct takes firm root and takes
over the ingrained or implanted ideas and thoughts.

Some sophists stress that an unbiased person cannot be truly unbiased as they
are biased by the very fact that they "believe" their own opinions and beliefs.
This is sophistry taken to its extreme. Its like saying that believing in the truth
is also a bias even if the belief is based on logic and evidence! A bias is defined
as a tendency to believe in whatever suits one's wishes and is convenient and not
believing in what is unpleasant and runs counter to one's wishes and hopes even
if it is backed by evidence and logic. History abounds with incidents where men
have staked their lives for the pursuit of the truth where the truth only brought
them dangers and risks and no material gain or reinforced their wishful desires and
hopes. Passion for knowing the truth irrespective of its pleasantness or unpleasantness
is an instinct that comes naturally with people that use their left hemisphere of the
brain. A skeptic doesn't not really have a firm belief but a tentative belief
suggested by the best evidence available and arrived at by analytical reasoning and
thought. They can clearly separate "what one likes to believe is true" vs "what is
true as indicated by the best objective evidence". The history of science is replete
with examples of scientists forced (willingly) by evidence and logic to believe in
scientific truths that ran counter to one's original premise or hypothesis which was
based on unsubstantiated evidence. A case in point is Einstein's original assumption
of a Steady State Universe in absence of any evidence to the contrary and hence
inserted into his Generlal Relativistic equations the "Cosmological Constant" so
as to yield the steady state universe. But when Hubble conclusively demonstrated
the expansion of the Universe Einstein admitted mistake and took out the
Cosmological Constant and thus restored the original equations with no cosmological
constant which yielded the expanding universe. See E1 & E18 for related discussions.

By asserting that all are biased they are in fact admitting that there
exist in principle an unbiased mind. Just like the existence of a disease
implies the absence of it (i.e normal health), darkness the existence of light
etc. By asserting the existence of an opposite (Or complementary) attribute one is
subconsciously recognizing the existence of the original attribute. Another simple
clue is the very existence and use of the word "objective" implies its existence (i.e
objectivity). A word would not have been coined if its meaning did not exist or
could not be conceived!. If something can exist in ideas then it is also possible
to exist in reality (may be not very common). The most convincing argument against
the claim that bias is unavoidable, is the existence of scientific method. Those
who follow the scientific method have accepted results that follow from it even
though the results went against their ingrained bias. Scientific method enforces
lack of bias. Thats why science leads to truths, and when it does, it is not
disputed. What is important to acknowqledge is that bias in the sense of a
desire for certain thing to be true is inevitable, but letting that bias prevent
one from admitting that that is not the truth is not unavoidable

The plausible reasons for their belief
in the nonexistence of unbiased mind are: (1) The suppressed fear of an unbiased
mind debunking their cherished belief (If they admit an unbiased mind exist then they
would not be able to dismiss them as wrong) and the consequent devastating emotional
trauma. (2) By believing all are unbiased they feel at par with all, a secure feeling
of not being more wrong than others or as correct as others etc. See also the last
part of F8 for a related discussion of bias vs. blind faith.

In this context it may be noted that the people that are most likely to be
skeptic and inclined to critical thinking are Theoretical Particle Physicists,
Cosmologists and Philosophers; the reason being that all of them have to be
skeptical and critical which are the essential ingredients needed for an unbiased
mind to achieve in those pursuits with passion and interest. For all other
pursuits one can be good by sheer hard work, tenacity with an average I.Q (Even
Experimental Physics), even they make lack skepticism and objectivity in their personal
behaviour and thoughts. It must be reemphasized that having an opinion does not
autmatically make one biased as long as the opinion is does not contradict any
objective evidence against it and one shifts the opinion if/when objective
evidence, observations and logic points to a different opinion or conclusion. One has
to also guard against a purely coincidental agreement bewteen one's opinion on
something based on objective evidence and logic and their desired view or wish on that
matter. One should not rush to a conclusion of bias in the opinuion in such cases of
coincidences. For a truly unbiased person there would be no systematic pattern of
opinion and desires always agreeing, at times they would conflict. Such conflict is
common among true scientists. See A20 for further discussion on bias, skepticism etc.

E11. A culture or tradition of a society develops over a length of time in that
society's history and originates from a need, necessity, convenience, social security etc
during the formative stage of that society. Over time that culture or tradition becomes
ingrained in the society and persists as a distinguishing feature of that society
even after that need or necessity has disappeared and is followed by later generations
purely as a blind instinct to carry on or conform to whatever passed on to them by
their ancestors. Also social custom and /traditions serve the needs of the society on
an average sense so that the general stability/survival of the society is insured, it
cannot address each and every individual's needs and circumstances and cannot
all be universally applicable (Some may be).

E12. Any of the universal human attributes (Good and bad) like selfishness,greed,
cruelty,kindness,bias,fairness etc cannot be sole monopoly of one nation, race etc., i.e
the presence or absence of these attributes vary from individual to individual
WITHIN any society,race,nation etc and not BETWEEN them. As obvious as it may
seem, perceptions of certain society, race or nation being predominantly endowed with
one or more of theses attributes are very common among individual members of
certain other society, race or nations. These attributes are not aquired, but in the
nature of human being itself, it cannot be blamed or credited to any one group. The
reason a given society or race "A" appears (To a certain other society or race "B") is
rooted in the aquired generic behaviour of members of both "A" and "B" in response
to their own social dynamics (culture or traditions) giving rise to its own sets of
expectations, habits and values. These dynamics of a society evolve in a spontaneous
and natural way over time without the conscious control of any individual member
and is dictated by its unique needs & circumstances to ensure stability, prosperity
and collective survival of "A" or "B" as a whole. So it is possible that certain
habits appropriate to the culture or tradition of "A" may seem to "B" to indicate a lack
of an attribute since that habit is viewd as indicating a lack of that attribute
according to "B"'s tradition or culture. On the other hand there are certain habits that
are universal and are viewed as an indication of (or lack thereof) an attribute in
either "A" or "B". Those habits do exist in both "A" and "B" (Among those individuals
of "A" and "B" who possess or lack in that attribute). The important point I am
making is that even though these values, traditions, culture are society or race
dependent, the universal attributes themsleves are not. Depending on the society,
some of those attributes may not be displayed in certain habits of a tradition or
culture, but it can certainly be displayed routinely in acts between individuals on
a case to case basis. See F14 for an example of this.

E13. Gang mentality, Organized destruction/ & ayhem (Sometimes in the name of
revolution) etc is symptomatic of people who on an individual level are inferior and
limited in capacity or ability to achieve success using mainstream path and thus band
together as a group and resort to display of power out of jealousy against those who
are superior to them as a means of covering this inferiority(complex)

E14. Lets say that there can be two opinions on something: Opinion1 (Call it
forward gear) and Opinion2 (Call it reverse gear) which are based on fact1 and fact2
respectively, that is if one knows fact1 then he/she will be led to opinion1
and similarly for fact2->opinion2. But what if someone does not yet know either
fact1 or fact2? In most cases they still choose to believe in one of the two
opinions whichever suits their own taste and bias. They should in this case
ideally stay truly unopinionated (i.e neutral gear) until they either know
fact1 or fact2.
Similar remark applies to feeling between people. There are quite a few who
just believe in either love or hate between persons. A neutral (indifferent)
level is unrecognized by them. If they stop loving someone for whatever reasons
they turn to hatred towards them. If 'A' stops loving 'B' when 'B' didn't do
any of the absolute wrongs to 'A' then 'A' should at worst be indifferent or neutral
towards 'B'. Sometimes when 'A' indeed stops loving 'B' and becomes indifferent
or neutral towards 'B', 'C' assumes that 'A' hates 'B', because 'C' is one of
those who believes in Love/Hate binary level instead of the three levels.
In this context, one should realize that "not loving" does not necessarily
equate to "hating", or "not helping or trusting" does not necessarily equate to
"hurting". It is sad to see that often this illogical assumptions is made by many.
Sometimes "A" is even prompted to harm "B" because "B" didn't help,love, trust
"A". This is a case where a human being is treated inferior to an inanimate object
like a chair or a rock, both of which don't love, trust, help etc (The fact that they
are not CAPABLE of that is irrelevant to the ultimate impact on "A") but is
nevertheless not targeted for harming! See also A10, A20 and D5 for related topics

E15. Often a valid advice is rejected without even checking out its worth just
because it comes from a person who is not liked or trusted even if the advice
is neutral in nature and does not serve the vested interest of the advice giver
but could have potentially benefitted the the one given to. By the same token
the genuine skill or expertise of a person is also overlooked or unacknowledged
if for any reason that person is disliked (may be for a valid reason). It is
not uncommon to see someone labelling another "stupid, unsmart" etc just
because they showed some flaws in their character or personality. Just because
a person arrogantly boasts of a certain skill does not necerssarily mean its
untrue but that they are lacking the virtue of humility and thus are ranked
below (as a human) a person who posses the same skill but are humble about it.

E16. Many people label others as either "conservative" and "liberal" and attach
specific non-overlapping attributes to each category. For example they
attach the following values, opinions or views to each category:

CONSERVATIVE:
------------
1. Pro-Life (i.e Anti abortion)
2. Pro gun
3. Nature (In Nature/Nurture debate)
4. Racial prejudice
5. Against animal conservation and unconcerned about
cruelty against animals and damage to environment.

LIBERAL
------
1. Pro-choice
2. Against right to possess gun
3. Nurture (In Nature/Nurture debate)
4. Not beieving in family values
5. Too soft on criminals.

It is illogical to assume that one can have only one set of the above and
not a combination thereof. For example one can be pro-gun and pro-choice or
pro-environment and pro-life (this actually makes more sense) etc. There seems
to be a hypocrisy in the nature/nurture position between the two camps. Liberal
camps always maintain that all are born equal and accuse conservatives of favouring
nature over nurture to justify or perpetuate their belief in racial supremacy,
economic disparity etc. But when it comes to homosexuality the liberals adopt
nature position. Also many traits have been established by scientists as being
genetically induced. These scientists may not be conservative at all or can be
liberal. But liberals (Who may not be even scientists) would immediately jump to
oppose the scientific results as being doctored to favour conservative view!
Other examples of hypocrisy are: conservatives being pro-life while at the same
time taking an anti-environmentalist stand (Which ultimately threatens life
through ecological imbalance, like Ozone depletion, a non-"consertvation" of
nature, anathematic to "consertvatism"), and vice versa for a liberal. It is
wrong to label one as "conservative" or "liberal" basing on one factor.

I is a common myth (specially in Indian subcontinent) to equate the word
progressive or intellectual as = socialist/anti-West/secular and equate
conservative/reactionary = capitalist/pro-West/fanatics. This is also very
irrational stereotyping as one can be pro-west or capitalist and still secular
(in fact many are).

E17. Often there is a popular myth about the superiority of a race or nation
over others in various fields based on individual experience (limited) and/or
biases. Examples of areas where this perception of superiority is observed
commonly are :

1. Airlines (specifically pilots)
2. Defence Forces (Army/navy/Airforce)
3. Intellectual level (Science/math/arts etc)

These individuals dont realize that it is impossible to objectively rate
races/nations in these areas unlike competitive areas like sports, etc where
reasonable comparison can be made as contests are constantly held between
nations, races etc and the representative teams are in all likelihood representing
the best of each nation or race. In examples listed above there is hardly any contest
or any ranking done by expert ranking bodies using reliable objective criteria and
is solely due to a personal biased notion resulting from a very narrow isolated
experience. For example I have often come across individuals who state that the
pilots of a certain third world airlines are among the best. The reason? They
availed one (or two) flight some time ago and the flight/landing was smooth. They
failed to realize that there are hundreds of flights (Thousands by large Airlines)
by different pilots in different routes and not all of them maintain the same
standard. I myself had an experience in a differnt flight of the same airlines and
had a very uncomfortable ride. In another incident reported in the news a pilot of
the same airlines hit the jetway when trying to park in Heathrow !
Similarly it is immature to compare the airforce pilots of one country with that
of another since there is no objective test done. (Even in an actual war very little
of the total power is utilized and then there is the inevitable factor of heavy
propaganda and lies about each other's successes/failures making an objective
study impossible. Even if there is a clear winner and loser in the war this may result
from sheer advantage in the quantity of one over the other. A fair comparison can
only be done if "n" number of personnel from one nation using the same weapons are
pitted gainst "n" number of personnel using the same weaponry from the other nation.
Also there are variations in skill within each nation anyway. Then also is the fact
that these personnels are chosen after screening through rigorous standards that are
pretty much same for each nation. These criteria are so stringent that the variation
in skills among the selected ones cannot be that large and so the variation of
skills between say an F-16 pilot of nation 'A' and that of say nation 'B' is of the
same order as variation among the F-16 pilots of the same nation.

A classic example from real life showing how an obsessive bias or hatred can befuddle
the mind of an otherwise academically brilliant and intelligent person follows. I knew
an Indian PhD student in Aeronautical Engineering in the mid 80s who was brilliant
and was a presidential Gold Medalist in India. At that time there was this hot issue
between India and Pakistan on the supply of F-16 aircraft to Pakistan by US. He
once commented in a group "So what ? It doesn't matter if US supplies F-16 to
Pakistan since they can't fly such a sophisticated aircraft."! He failed to realize
that if such was the case then it would not have created so much headache
among the Indian politicians, strategists or defence analysts. They are not bunch
of nitwits not to realize the profound "truth" that he seemed to have realized. I
suppose that if he had instead gone into sociology or psychology and was asked
to write a thesis on race versus inherent capability or skill he would have easily
written contrary to what he had said out of an obsessive bias or hatred. He also
failed to notice that few years ago a Pakistani physicist Abdus Salam won Nobel
prize in physics which required far more sophistication of intellect than flying an
F-16. By the way those who have not yet read item no. B6 under section B should
read it now so they view my points here in the proper perspective. The point is no
matter how many morons you may come across from any nation or race that does
not rule out the existence of smart people in that nation or race. There always
exists a core group of intelligent elite in any race or nation and only few among
those are selected through screening process for high skill occupations like flying
an F-16. It is interesting to see that this obvious fact can be missed by "brilliant"
minds.

E19. It may not be realized by many but its true that dishonesty/cheating (may be
not of bigtime magnitude) is encouraged/approved by individuals and organized groups
routinely in life in the guise of tips/suggestions for success in certain
endeavours. Examples of such will best illustrate the idea. Two examples are:
Ways to succeed in an interview and ways to succeed in a date with the opposite
sex and/or ways to "pick them" up. Often speeches, workshops or seminars are held
to teach people how to make themselves seem to possess certain qualities or
attributes in order to succeed in an interview. The obvious implication is that
these people don't possess those qualities inherently so the need to fool the
interviewers into believing that they have it! (I am not ruling out the genuine
case of some having them but not being able to project them effectively. Thats a
small subset of the total). Similarly if dressing in a certain way reflects
certain quality or attribute inherent in a person then those who don't dress that way
naturally don't possess those qualities or attribute, so teaching them how to dress
properly to attract women (or opposite sex) amounts to making them SEEM to
possess what they really don't. All these are by any logic a cosmetic and subtle
way of cheating. In fact this may account for a percentage of ultimate failed
relationships or lost jobs that seemed to have worked out well in the beginning.

E20. Often when a defender takes a defensive action against the offender, the
offender views that as an offensive action aginst him/her. This happens among individuals
as well as Nations. An example of the latter is the 'war' between US and Iraq. Viewed
solely as an issue between the two (That Iraq attacked Kuwait is an issue between
Iraq & Kuwait) it was US who attacked Iraq first but after that any defensive posture
by Iraq was viewed by US (including public opinion) as aggression.

E21. (Cause and Effect): It is important to identify the natural cause of an effect
and distinguish it from an artificial, contrived one. A natural cause is one which causes
the effect in a natural and direct way i.e not influenced or mediated by the conscious
will or control of human mind resulting from a certain way of thinking, believing or
feeling etc, i.e a natural cause will invariably lead to the effect regardless of what or
how a human think or believe, whereas a contrived cause is a creation of human minds due
to certain way of thinking, believing or feeling etc or to suit one's vested interest.
So a contrived cause will produce the effect for those who think, believe or feel in a
certain way, or have a vested interest, not for everyone without exception. For
example if someone is struck hard with an object, the effect will be a body injury
without exception, irrespective of how the victim believes or thinks. On the other hand
if someone criticizes a religion that may cause the effect of an "outrage" or "hurt" to
many members of that religion, (Not necessarily to EVERY member), prompting them
to commit acts of disruptions and harming the critic. Here the disruptions to public
life and harm done to the critic are caused naturally by the physical acts of the
outraged members, not due to the conscious thought, belief or words of the critic. So
the effects "Disruptions" and "harm to the critic" are caused naturally by the acts
of those outraged members, not by the act of criticism itself. It maybe worthwhile
to note that basically what I am trying to convey here is that an absolute wrong
should not be viewed or justified as an effect of an act which is not an absolute
wrong itself. (See definition of absolute wrong in article A24).

It should be again emphasized that a cause has to be a wilful and conscious act, not
a certain "state of being" or any such passive condition, i.e if A's being or feeling
in a certain way provokes B to commit an act, then B is the natural cause of the act,
not A.

An example is when B divorces C due to an affair with A. Here the breakup of the
marriage between B and C is due to B's act of divorce by conscious decision, even
though this decision may have been provoked by the mutual feeling between A and B
and due to B's finding A attractive. A cannot be responsible for the conscious act
of B.

Another example where a cause is contrived to suit one's vested interest is when say
an event-3 is triggered by another event-2 in a direct and natural way which is not
mediated by human conscious control, and event-2 itself happened as an
indirect, preventable reaction of event-1 by a conscious decision (not in a natural
way) then blaming event-1 as the cause of event-3 is a stretch of imagination and
is a motivated attempt to justify the end objective of hurting a certain party
(individual, nation or idea etc). An example of this is again provided by the US
attack on Iraq :

event-1 : Iraq attacks Kuwait (which itself was caused by factors not concerning US)
| ?
V
event-2 : US frequently bombs Iraq and imposes indefinite sanction against it.
|
V
event-3 : Innocent children and women of Iraq suffer.

It is also important to distinguish correlation from causation. Sometimes one cause
may generate two effects (or more). In such cases the two effects are correlated but
don't cause one another, but are both due to one root cause. Often one mistakenly
(intentionally or due to careless thinking) identifies one of the effects as the
cause of the other.

E22. Often a misguided advice is given to finish up left over food in a plate
against one's wishes on the grounds that it is immoral to waste food as food is the most
essential element to human subsistence and people are starving in this world and
wasting food is equivalent to expressing ingratitude to God. While there can be no
debate as to the inadvisabilty of wasting food and the all that is said about hunger
and etc, the fact is eating food when one is already full or when one does not like
the food is in no way helping the cause of preventing wastage or world hunger. It
simply substitutes the human stomach for a garbage can. The food is equally wasted in
either case. In the case of human stomach there is in addition the unpleasant side
effect of possible disorder due to overeating or simply the unpleasantness of eating
something one doesn't enjoy. Now if the excess food being left over is due to the
unsolicited serving of the food by A to B then A is the one who should be held
responsible for the wastage, not B. If B asked or served him/herself the excess
food then of course B is the one to be held responsible. The only reasonable thing A
can do in this case is rebuke B for being irresponsible and make A feel guilty or
embarrased.

A topic related to above is the issue of the role of individual taste in the
subjective perception of quality of a food item and the consequent urge or need to
eat or not to eat a food item. There can be three simple factors and reasons for a
person to eat a certain food item:

1. It tastes good to the person.
2. It has good nutritive value and is not too distasteful.
3. One is extremely hungry and no other food item is available which satisfies
conditions 1 and 2 above.

There is no good reason to eat a food item if any of the three reasons do not
apply. It is amazing to see people commonly labelling someone as "picky", "fussy",
"hard to please", "rude" etc for not eating a food item offered even when none of the
above three reasons apply to that person.

E23. A display of anger or temper is an indication of the POTENTIAL for committing
a violence, not in itself an act of violence. Thus some may contend that temper is
harmless as long as one is not acting on it. They are ignoring the fact that showing
temper is a red flag that shows the very real potential in that person to commit
violence, even though in a given case it may not have culminated into one. People
who show temper invariably have a threashold which can be broken by enough
provocation (As only perceived by that person, not by any neutral criterion)
triggering that person into committing a violent act. An outbirst of anger or temper
can make others very uncomfortable and so its very insensitive to resort to this
display for trivial reasons like disagreement in an argument and the mere act of
someone placing his/her arguments refuting that of the person showing temper). The
fact that in a given instance an outburst of anger or temper didn't necessarily
culminate into violence doesn't eliminate the latent potential of committing such in
future and that is what causes an uneasy feeling of discomfort in people.So
justifying anger or temper as being natural and human is simply unacceptable. That is
not to say that one has to put up with any wrong. Being annoyed or disturbed etc are
natural reaction which are acceptable. Acting in self defense is also justified.
Temper is not needed in such a defensive action. For example a judge when passing a
verdict on capital punishment does not show any temper. A temper shown when not
being wronged, harmed or attacked physically is in no way justified.

E25. Sometimes a cause is regarded as "wrong" by the sheer effect it produces without
trying to rationalize if the cause justifies the effect. For example if "A" forcibly
disposses "B" of his/her possessions, then the effect (B's defensive act to prevent
the dispossesion) is clearly justified by the cause (the wrong act of robbing someone
of their possessions). No debate here. But what about an individual passing remarks
about a religion or faith which infuriates the radical believers in the faith and
inspire them into committing riots, vandalizing properties etc?. When that happens
the act of making such remarks is labelled wrong and identified as the cause of such
acts of riots etc (By public, government etc) just due to the sheer negative impact,
although the very effect (riots,vandalism,death threats etc) are not justifiable
reactions to such remarks by any norms and standards of a civilized society. A
criticism of such remarks are acceptable, though. Another example is in many
conservative societies it is considered immoral to not to wear veils, scarfs etc by
women. On close examination it can be understood that this custom was forced out of
necessity as the males of those societies do not know how to handle their libido and
can easily lose self control and provoked into embarassing acts by the very sight of
exposed part of female skin and thus resulting in social anarchy. Instead of trying
to change this male psyche through social or cultural engineering (Education, preaching
etc) and inculcating values that enables the males to accept a female dressed in the
same way as the males in a natural way and get accustomed to it through daily
exposure and interaction (As is the case in most Asian and all Far Eastern or Western
countries) those societies chose to shift the buck on the females. See A23 for a
related discussion.

E26. Often when "A" worries about something,"B" is heard telling "A": "Stop
worrying, whatever is done is done, worrying will not help". What "B" does not
realize is that worrying is an EFFECT of a CAUSE. Just as one groans or screams
after a bodily injury causing pain, similarly worry is an effect of a mental
injury causing pain. One does not worry with the purpose of solving or undoing
an event already occurred. That would be ridiculous. It is a natural reaction
(scale varies from individual to individual) which might take a longer time to
heal than a physical injury, and usually lasts longer than a groan or scream.
Instead asking to stop worrying "B" can find better ways to assuage the impact
of the mental injury on "A".

Sometimes a sad feeling can reside in one's heart permanently. Again verbalizing
this sadness is also an effect of a cause and comments like "Don't worry about it.
What is done is done. Don't look back" is meaningless in this case. For example
lets say "A" didn't do anything to eliminate "B"'s suffering of some kind (which
was within "A"'s capability) and "A" develops a sense of regret and genuine
repentance for not having done so only after "B" dies. There is nothing "A" can
do to help get over this feeling of remorse (Because this remorse is solely due to
a fact of past. Nothing can change the facts of past) and it will permanently stay
inside his/her heart. By verbalizing this sense of remorse one is not trying to
eliminate this remorse (As I said it will never go away), but simply letting others
know about it, so an advice to the effect that worrying about past will not help
is misplaced.

See A21 for a related discussion.

E27. Mere acquisition of factual knowledge(information) doesn't necessarily imply a
qualitative improvement of one's intellect rather a quantitative improvement. For
example knowing which country is the champion in certain sports doesnt instantly
make one better intellectually than just before they knew this fact. I am saying
this since it is common to see some people scoffing at others for not knowing
this type of information. On the other hand a passionate interest in gathering
information on certain aspect may indicate the direction of one's interests and
helps one to understand them and possibly appreciate that side of their interest,
not the acquisition of the facts themselves. In this context it should be noted
that there are two ASPECTS of human improvement-

1) Intellectual, moral or spiritual and 2) physical.

We must also distinguish two kinds of FACTS that are relevant here:

(1) Facts which do not contribute to either category above.
(2) Facts which contributes to one or both categories above

The Nobel Laureate Physicist Richard Feynman once remarked that one may learn the
name of a bird in all different languages of the world, but at the end you still
don't anything about the bird.

The name of the champion (country or individual) in a certain sport etc is a FACT
of category (1). The FACT that DNA molecule is a carrier of genetic traits and
the mechanism by which it does so, or the FACT that blue color of sky is due to
Raman Scattering of molecules are FACTs of category (2), since they lead to
ASPECT (1) of human improvement. The FACT that exercise reduces risk of disease
(specially diabetes or heart disease) is a FACT of category (2) since it leads to
ASPECT (2) of human improvement. See B10 in case my view on the FACT of "Name of
a champion in certain sport" is misjudged.

E28. Just as an important step in self improvement on an individual level is to
recognize the flaw and defficiency in one's own self, the same is true for a
nation or race as a whole. So it is acceptable and desirable to identify and recognize
and criticize the negative elements in one's society or nation. This identification
often creates a tone of frustration in the person identifying and criticizing these
negatives, that should not be interpreted as a sadistic gloating over the
inferiority of or intentionally attempting to degrade his/her own nation or society.
This frustating tone actually indicate a sense of helplessness in their or other's
not being able to eliminate these negatives. The reason for my saying this is
that some pretentious nationalists show extreme irritation and react violently
in a verbal way when hearing someone making these criticisms and indiscriminately
label them as traitor or lackeys of foreign cultures etc.

E29. HOW VS. WHAT:

It is often the case, as evident from remarks like "it is not WHAT you do or say but
HOW you do or say it" that many people place more value on the non-permanent part of
an action or word i.e the "MODE" rather than the permamnent part i.e the effect of the
action or the final implication of the word. These naive people would prefer a more
unpleasant action or word if it is highly sugar coated over a less unpleasant one if it
is delivered raw! Sugar coating can be useful if used as a placebo which although
cannot affect the final outcome of an action but can make the transient pain of the
the action appear less intense. For example in a non-anesthetic surgery it may be
helpful to divert the attention of a patient through various entertainment to reduce
the pain during surgery. Here the final permanent outcome (i.e healing through
surgical treatment) is the same with or without the placebo, but the transient pain
of the surgery can certainly be reduced through this distraction. Would one prefer
a painless failed surgery over a painful yet successful surgery? An action or word "A"
whose outcome has no substantial or lasting effect cannot be more important than an
action or word "B" whose outcome has great positive impact just because "A" was
delivered in some superficially appealing manner. This is height of naivette.

E30. Often tolerance is preached in a pretentioius way by affirming or
claiming to believe that all "views", "approaches" to any pursuit are
equally good or valid. This is not the true spirit of tolerance.
Tolerance implies granting equal rights (in terms of giving a fair
hearing to it or public access), despite believing and affirming that not
all such "views","approaches" etc are of equal merit or validity. Tolerance
does not mean granting equal PRIVILEDGES like public funding. So astrology
is never and should be never funded in public schools). There can be
conceivably no criteria which can objectively assign equal ranks to all,
rather objective criteria points to not all being equal. So it would be
hypocritical and disingenuous to claim equal merit or vaidity of all.

E31. Is showing humility against the spirit of humility itself? (Like verbalizing
to someone: "I may be wrong" instead of saying to oneself mentally?). The only
purpose that is served is evoking an admiration. The value comes from FEELING
humility, NOT verbalizing it. Announcing "I may be wrong" does not serve any
purpose, only informs about his feeling to the other.

E32. When "A" makes the observation "You bring out
the worst in me", one needs to examine this statement very
carefully. It can mean two different ways:

1. That "A" reveals or displays a genuine negative side in
reaction to some act or remark of B (justified or fair or
cannot be proven wrong anyway). So this utternace of "A" is a
sort of a confession of A about his/her own flaw in
personlaity or character.

2. That B, by acting or talking in a wrongful way justifiably
provokes or forces A to act in an unpleasant way (which A
normally wouldn't) in response or reaction. In this case A's
utterrances point to B's flaw instead.

One has to carefully judge which case applies objectively.

E33. It is interesting to observe the so called "emergent" properties in various
aspects of life/nature. Emergent properties are those that are visible in aggregate
objects but cease to be visible when the individual components of the aggregate
is observed in isolation. Few examples are (i) A newspaper photo. If you inspect
under a magnifier you will see dots with various intensities of grey but no
indication of the end picture. The dots "conspire" together to produce the end
effect of the picture. (ii) Crowd Personality: When a crowd gathers in a space their
individual personalities add up to project an aggregate effect that can scare the
pants off an individual standing alone on stage in front of them. A crowd can act
in a certain way that any individual of that crowd would not have done acting alone.
The same scared individual standing on stage may even know each member of the crowd
and feel comfortable to deal with each on a one-on-one basis but in may feel very
differently when facing the congregation. (iii) Ant Colony: Each ant acts alone
following certain blind rules without co-ordinating with the other ants. Thousands
of ants following these blind rules add up to an amazing pattern (just like the dots
of a digital photo in a newspaper) that have been simulated by robot ants in
computer simulation. (iv) Corporations or companies, Cities etc also display emergent
properties. When looking at one employee of a company or a resident of a city one
hardly notices any difference from an employee of a different company or a resident
of another city or state etc but the minute change that each individual is forced to
accept and show for each company or city etc adds up to a perceptible and magnified
effect for the entire company or city etc. (v) Of course the ultimate of all emergent
properties is the most mysterious and fascinating thing of nature: LIFE. Billions of
Billions of cells cooperating in a manner that manifests itself in the vital signs of
what we perceive as LIFE of an animal that is hardly detectable in its individual
cells.

E34. (Some Deep Thoughts, Unanswered questions):

1. The greatest mystery of the universe is its very creation and existence (In other
words why didn't nothingness exist instead)

2. Its a mystery what caused the creation of the laws of Physics and to be the
way they are. (The creation of the universe can be explained by the exisitng laws
of Physics, however)

3. How is it that Human species aquired the ability to discover or understand the
very same fundamental laws of the nature (Natural Sciences) that have given
rise to them! (Through evolution, mutation, natural selection etc).

E35. The maxim "Don't preach what you don't practice "yourself"
seems to be popular without exception. Yet there are cases where it does not
hold. For example when a stuntman advises his audience spectators "don't try
this at home". Or for example if it is known that certain food causes a
certain disease, and A provides that information to B even though A consumes
that food, it is still preferable, as that information may be helpful to B
who may benefit from that information. It does not matter to B that A does
not act on that information himself. The fact is that the information is
useful to him. Rather the maxim should be better phrased as "Don't criticize
others for not practicing what you don't yourself".

E36. Conservationism vs. stinginess: Some people confuse conservationism
with stinginess. Examples of conservationism are whne someone prefers to ride on
bus than on cars,

===F=== MY VIEWS:

F1. ON EQUALITY OF SEXES:

It may sound like a cliche but it can never be overmentioned that men and women are
EQUAL. That is they are equal in their capabilties and rights. That is not to say
that men and women are not DIFFERENT. Differences of various sort exist within the
same gender but that doesnt indicate an unequal capabilty or legitimize unequal
rights. The same argument should apply to differences between genders. Women have
been traditionally discriminated against and subjected to male domination or abuse.
There are some instances where women have been given some priviledges over men
mainly as a result of the viwepoint that women are weaker and dependent on men. (e.g
opening the door for them, keeping them away from the traffic side when walking with
them, treating them always in an eat out and not to mention the implied
provider/providee relationship between a husband/wife or boyfriend/girlfriend.).
Animal kingdom can serve as good guide as to the inherent nature of gender equality.
Both male and female hunt for food, only when a female bears a child, the male does
the hunting while the female attends to nurturing the baby. An absolute equality of
sexes should eliminate the special priviledges mentioned before. But unfortunately
SOME women want to have it both ways. That is they want to retain those priviledges
and also claim equal rights. This is rooted in the instinctive perception of women
having been a victim of oppression, domination or injustice by males. So it is assumed
by females as some sort of indemnity towards them to demand extra concessions from
males in every walk of life, in addition to the indisputable equal status. Again one
has to be sensitive to realize that while it is true that a large number of women
have been treated unfairly by many men (More so in the past) that does not justify
indiscriminately causing or forcing every man (who may believe in and respect strict
equality and fairness between genders) in the present to vicariously pay (thru extra
concessions to all women in present) for other men's wrongdoings in the past. Besides
the women in the present who instinctively demand this payback are not the victims
themselves so they don't have any moral claim on the compensation for the injustice
to other women in the past who have suffered. Vicarious suffering and vicarious reward
both are unfair. See A18 and D11 for a related discussion. I believe that the key in
establishing a unisex society (Where gender difference is of no consequence in any
context) is for ALL to think and act androgynically, i.e not associate roles, acts or
emotions etc with specific gender. Things that can be associated with genders and hence
be different are factors like dresses etc since that is more of a cultural nature just
as different races have different costumes but possess the same human characteristics.

F4. ON BIRTHDAY CELEBRATIONS:

I think the present form of celebrating it (through gifts) is an example of one of
many inventions of the business or merchant community of a consumerist society in
their own vested interest of promoting their business. It is the result of industrialization
of society and the evolution of market based economy. It is interesting to note that
in the rural areas of many third world there is no such concept. That does not in any
way indicate that love and affection dont exist between their people. It is quite
evident that the practice of celebrating birthdays in a society has a strong
correlation with the cohesiveness of the family structure of that society. In my
childhood when the society where I grew up family was much more cohesive and only a
minority of the children celebrated birthdays and celebrating birthdays of adults
were unheard of. Today the society has become less cohesive and its common to see
routine celebration of not just children but adults as well. It points to a sense of
insecurity and loneliness and a basic need of getting attention in one's heart since in
a less cohesive society or family this personal attention is inadequate. Nowadays it is a
fad to celebrate birthdays of grown ups and justifying it as means of expressing their
care for the someone. It is pathetic to see adults announcing their imminent birthday
to their friends and colleagues. Birthdays are no special. They are just another day.
It occurs every year (Not one time as a marriage ceremony or actual birthday). The fact
that one was born once on that calendar date in the past does by no stretch of
imagination make the recurrence of that date any special worth CELEBRATING. As adults
one need not pick such a day to express their feeling for another. They can do it on
any other day/days and the feeling should have no less a value (At least to an
adult(i.e mature) brain. Some argue that by celebrating anothers birthday one shows
that they remember and hence they care, no matter how small the gift. In fact it is
easier to remember a particular day by noting it down as a reminder in a diary book
with lists of names and corresponding birthdays. It is no less an act of remembrance
or care to do something for someone on a different day, something which may be more
meaningful to that person, for example "A" may be visiting a used books, record/etc
store and may come across a book/record etc and "remebered" that B always wanted
it but couldn't find it, so got it for B. Some Argue that one need to pick on a day
for an excuse to have fun. That argument can apply to children. They live in a fantasy
world where they like to look forward to special days of gift, merriment and attention.
It is pathetic to see a grown up announcing his/her birthday to their collegues or friends
with the expectation of receiving special attention. The concept that was originally
promoted or invented by vested business quarters has over time become so ingrained
and crept into the core of social psyche that people have become conditioned into
considering it to be something of great value and significance and is almost looked at
as incumbent and an aberration not to observe it. One case of exception is when
someone celebrates another's birthday to be in their good books and creating a
favourable ground for asking a favour. That is a cosmetized form of bribery, which
although is of questionable ethics but at least has some pragmatic rationale behind it.
See also B10 to set the perspective right about my view on birthday. Let me make one
point clear: THERE'S NOTHING WRONG IN CELEBRATING BIRTHDAYS.

If you still don't appreciate my points or refuse to agree then let me try to provide
a simple logic to illustrate my point:

For example I will quote the often heard defense of birthday gifts (or a criticism
of a lack of it, take your pick) like "A small birthday gift means a lot to me, it
shows that you remembered and care" etc.

Lets say for the sake of argument there are five good things or acts that one can do for
another. ("5" that is chosen for argument's sake. Any number greater than 1 would do),
one of which is buying birthday gift which we label as ACT3 (Say)

Now obviously buying birthday gift cannot the best thing one can do for another, one
can always think of something better and label them as ACT4 and ACT5. Lets assign
numerical ranks to the acts or things according to their merit so that ACT1 = 1,
ACT2 = 2, ACT3 = 3, ACT4 = 4, ACT5 = 5. So ACT4 and ACT5 rank higher than ACT3.
(Reminder: ACT3 is "buying birthday gift")

Now lets consider the following 6 possibilities (not all inclusive by any means but
would suffice to prove my point) between person "A" and 6 persons B,C,D,E,F,G and
evaluate their scores relative to A (The higher the score shows more care towards A):

1. B does only ACT1 & ACT2 for A, each twice a year: Score 2+2=4
2. C does only ACT3 (birthday gift) for A: Score = 3
3. D does only ACT4 for A: Score = 4
4. E does only ACT5 for A: Score = 5
5. F does ACT4 and ACT5 for A: Score = 4+5 = 9
6. G does either ACT1 or ACT2 (once) as well as ACT3 for A: Score 1+3=4

So we see that B,D,E,F,G scored higher than C. Of course it is possible to score
lower than C for example doing only one of ACT1 or ACT2 twice, but that does not
matter in in this context as the contention was that only by doing ACT3 one can
show that they remember and care (C in the above example) My contention is that
the same remark should apply equally or more for B,D,E,F & G as well.

F5. ON GIFTS:

Most of what has been said above regarding birthday celebration applies to buying
gifts also (Birthday celebrations invariably involves gifts) i.e, a brainchild of the
vested interests of business or merchant class. That is not to say that this idea was
introduced through a unanimous decision in a planned meeting of the merchant
class. Rather it is a result of evolution of a collective survival instinct of the
merchant community. Every species develop a survival instinct for their preservation.
So it is understandable that the merchant class will develop their own. For every
survival instinct that develops in a species 'A' there develops a complementary
instinct in species 'B' on which 'A' depends for its survival. So the consumer at
large develops this instinctive urge to buy gifts and start to believe in the
nobilty of doing so. They are not consciously aware of this instinctive role they
are playing to cater to the instinct of survival of the merchant class. Its all a
symbiotic relation at this point. My problem is this last mindset of people in
general when comments like "Such and such person is nice as he/she bought a gift
for him/her". This implies in a subliminal way that a person not buying a gift is
not nice or not AS nice, which is a fallacious conclusion to draw. Let me add some
more remarks pertinent to gifts. In many cases it happens that A buys a gift
(which A thinks is a nice or useful thing) for B which B doesnt care much for and puts
it away in a shelf never to be taken off again. The end result is that a thing got
wasted, A thought B is very pleased and that A has fulfilled his/her social duty.
Although "B" very much appreciated "A"'s gesture but thats the only good thing
about the whole thing, the gift itself got wasted although "B" didn't know that
out his/her smug feeling of satisfaction. Gifts can be indeed justified when
the recipients are children or the underprivileged. For adults the only gifts
that can be rationalized is the following. A cares for B and tries to find out
what B likes passionately (which may be a rare item, not necessarily expensive,
can be anything from a food to a rare record) and A tries to get it for B (Not at
specified time of the year, but whenever possible and convenient). Buying a shirt
(Can be found easily in any standard store) for an adult earning $50,000/year on
their birthday is ridiculous. It is also important to realize that the gift of kind
words, enjoyable company, laughter, patient hearing and a host of other acts are
just as precious or more than material gifts. But thay are not deemed as gifts
because they dont serve the vested interests of the business community who
promoted the concept to begin with. Just routinely buying gifts on special days
to perform a social custom or ettiquette is hollow practice. Let me end this topic
by posing the rhetorical question: What is the definition of a gift?

1. A material object BOUGHT for someone to make them happy.

2. A material object ACQUIRED (in any way, not necessarily bought, e.g a
second hand article in good condition and cannot be identified as old
unless one is told and is definitely a desirable item by the recipient)
for someone to make them happy.

3. An act DONE to/for someone to make them happy.

The fact that most people refuse to accept 2 or 3 as gift confirms the theory
that the idea of gift is a product of the vested ideas of the merchant class since
2 & 3 doesn't initiate a merchant transaction and they are not benefitted by this.
See also B10 to set the perspective right about my view on gifts. Let me make one
point clear: THERE'S NOTHING WRONG IN OFFERING GIFTS TO ANYONE.

F10. ON CURIOSITY:

It is a very natural human instinct, all have it inside them. Some verbally exposes
that inner instinct, others consciously restrain that verbalization. The difference
between them lies just in this verbalization, not in that one has it, the other
doesn't. Curiosity if verbalized can be classified as of two types:
(a) Benevolent or Innocent and (b) Malevolent. Innocent curiosity is when the
curious person has no intention of harming the subject or is eager to help. In this
case the information obtained through satisfying this curiosity is not held
against the other person or is not utilzed for his/her own benefit at the cost of
the other person but is either left as it is or is used for the benefit of the other
person with their consent of course. Malevolent curiosity is obviously just what
Benevolent curiosity is not. So when one verbalizes a curiosity he/she should not
be automatically be associated with Malevolent category and judged negatively for
such, but should be given the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand the other
person has the right to defend themselves against a possible malevolent category
and refuse to satisfy the curiosity and the person expressing the curiosity should
in this case respect that stand and understand it. The important point is that one
should NOT assume that anyone verbalizing their curiosity inside (Which we ALL have)
is of Malevolent type. See also D6 for related discussion.

F11. ON LOOK VS. INNER BEAUTY IN CHOOSING A MATE:

Often its common to hear the cliche "Look shouldn't matter, its the inner qualities
or virtues that one should consider". Women overwhelmingly take this view. Men
are split almost evenly. Some do take look or appearance into consideration ALONG
with other factors. Now let us examine it carefully. Often when men pay importance
to looks (besides other factors) they are subjected to criticism by women and also
other men and are attacked by comments like "You are superficial, you ONLY (ignoring
the fact that other factors were taken into considerartion also) go for the look etc
etc. By saying so they are implying that looks matter 0% in their own case. But it
is QUITE COMMON for many women to ask for photographs of men they want to initiate
matrimonial correspondences with. The attraction between men and women are
inherently based on romantic feelings and look is as natural an ingredient as
voice, accent, mannerisms and other natural traits in a person which is essential in
creating the kind of romantic feeling commonly called "chemistry", a vital element
of romance. Here 'Look" has to be taken in much broader sense than just the facial
texture or geometry but the overall impact created through the entire physical
proximity(not the least of which is an eye contact), body movements, gait etc. Also
there is a considerable amount of relativity in this perception of beauty. No less
important is the "touch" factor. Even touching one's hand can create a wide variety
of sensation bewteen men and women. Some touch generate a more intense feeling than
others. For a truly romantic person (male or female) these cannot but be important
factors. On the other hand those who just select a partner based on so called inner
quality it turns out in most cases those inner qualities are the ones that are to
their advantage and help them in a practical way or pampers to their needs most.
Hardly one comes across a women who went for a financially mediocre handsome man
because of his "inner quality" of being logical or analytical and his idealistic
beliefs. On the other hand a very unattractive looking male may be chosen for his
inner quality of "caring" as perceived (By women) through his willingness to pamper
to her needs (however unreasonable they may be) or provide her material happiness
and and always accepting blame on himself and showing possessiveness towards her
and a constant desire to fulfil all her expectations (All these translate into
advantages and benefits for the women). So the "inner quality" approach to men/
women relation is really based on crude practical advantage rather than romanticism
whereas the other approach does have a romantic element in it as in that case
practical considerations do not matter as much. So there is nothing sublime about
ignoring looks and going for "inner qualities" and there is nothing ridiculous about
not ignoring it either. Looks are only unimportant in making friendship as it does
not involve romance.

For those who argue that its unfair to consider "looks" as a factor since "look"
is a god given attribute and one should not hold it against them. The subtle point
they miss is that "inner quality" is also inherently a God given atrribute. The
fact that some one is humorous, energetic, smart, social (all "non-look" attributes)
and others are boring, vegetative, dull, is also a God given inherent quality, so by
considering these so called "inner qualities" as factors they are also being guilty
of the same unfairness.

There is a myth that men fuss over looks only and women only consider goodness of
the heart or personality etc in selecting prospective mates. In MANY cases a woman
outright rejects a prospective man just because they did not satisfy their criterion of a
minimum height etc. How good the man was in their heart did not even matter. In another
case I know of a woman who outright rejects a groom because he is not "fun" enough
or not "humorous" enough etc even though those men may have had a good heart (honest,
educated etc). Some women reject very good hearted men because they don't satisfy their
financial requirements even though those men may be highly educated and intelligent.
They would rather settle for a mediocre doctor, Lawyer or Engineer than for an intellectual
academician because a professor may not afford a luxurious home or a car etc. It is
quite common to observe a woman requring her prospective mate to be "ambitious". Now
why would she want her mate to be ambitious? It is not hard to see that the ambition in
her mate is a means of ensuring her more material benefits as an ambitious person is
more likely to strive for making more money and thus be able to afford more luxury for
her. An honest and good hearted person need not be always "ambitious". It is fairly
common to observe some women saying to an interested male friend "You are a man of very
good heart. But I cannot look on you in a romantic way beyond friendship as my husband.
I am sure you deserve someone nicer than me". Now it does not require too much brain to
figure out that obviously she is looking for something else besides "good heart" in the
man which he doesn't have control over (examples: height, humour level, masculinity etc
) and she doesn't find it and thats her way of putting it euphemistically. If it was
something under his control then she would have tried to influence him to develop that
"something" given that he has such a good heart. So looking for something in a man over
which he has no control is essentially of same character as looking for "beauty" in a
woman over which she has no control. Here beauty is quoted to emphasize that even this
subject to the eye of the beholder. It is not uncommon to see two males completely
differing on their perception of beauty of a woman (Here I meant beauty in the
appearance sense, not in the general sense of internal beauty and so forth). So that
debunks the claim that women just go for "goodness of heart" (As is implied by
asserting the reverse that men just consider look and not the heart). Now on to the
biological & anthropological angle on this whole issue. It is the opinion of most
biologists & anthropologists that all our instincts are rooted in the eternal laws of
biology i.e "natural selection" and "survival and propagation of the species" etc. When
a man is looking for "beauty" in a women he is being guided (subconsciously) by his
genetic code to look for the best mate for HIM to ensure the best odds of a successful
propagation and continued survival of his gene (Probably what he perceives as beauty
actually indicates a biological compatibility dictated by his gene). The same genetic
code is at work when a woman zeroes in on a man in a singles club or bar. The first
impression is also guided by this instinct. Those who have watched John Stossel's 3 part
ABC documentary on "Love, Lust and Marriage" must have learned about all these views of
Biologists, Anthroplogists & Psychologists. In the book called "ORIGINS: Cosmos, Earth and
Mankind" by Hubert Reeves et al leading biologist Yves Coppens has traced the origin of
the emotion "love" to the gradual increase in the gestation period of primitive human
(Australopithecus Afransis) in East Africa, the cradle of hominid evolution 2 millions
years ago. Now these are theories that no one can prove in a conclusive way but have
strong plausibility flavour going in their favour. Even in animal kingdom the females
choose from contending males based on look also (Animals don't care about goodness of
heart do they?). Humans have a lot in common with other animals. This urge in human to
consider factors other than "goodness" of heart is necessarily rooted in the survival
instinct and successful propagation of genes. Besides there are checks and balances at
work. For each women rejected because of looks another man is rejected for reasons
other than "goodness" factor (height, humour level etc). Also there are men who don't
consider "look" factor at all but some very other factors that suit their individual
priorities. Unwillingness to choose someone as one's mate for reasons other than
"goodness of heart" does not imply that "goodness of heart" is being discounted or not
appreciated. Equal opportunity principle does not apply to mate selection. A person
with a good heart will always be treasured by all and will make good friends. So the
moral is that some basic animal instinct is at work in the process of mate selection
that cannot be dismissed as right or wrong in an absolute way and cannot be pinned down
on one gender alone. So is there no higher values for human to be judged by? Certainly.
As much as we are animals we as human have developed the sense of right and wrong (In a
culture-independent sense) which we should abide by. No matter on what basis one
decides to choose their mate they have to be honest and upright all the way consistently
and not indulge in hypocricy. After all, we don't see dishonesty and hypocricy in animal
kingdom. So why we as the superior species should possess it? It is not needed for the
advancement or preservation of human species.

F12. ON FRIENDSHIP AND TRUE LOVE:

A friend IS: (Essential Ingredients)
------------------------------------
1) Someone you enjoy the company of
2) Someone you can trust with your secrets.
3) Someone you can trust with your valuables and assets.
4) Someone you will listen to and discuss your problems at
length and offer good advice if asked for.
5) Someone you can call up at 3:00 am in any emergency
6) Someone you can criticize and argue with and without causing
them to lose temper or become hostile.
7) Someone who cheerfully does small favours without expecting
anything in return.
8) Someone who doesn't ask big favours from you. This doesnt
imply that you cannot do a big favour to a friend if you
choose to.
9) Someone who will be around you when you are ill or at least
enquire about you if they happen to be out of town.

A spouse is a friend (see above) for whom you have mutual romantic attraction and
with whom you are mutually bound legally by a marriage contract and live together
for the purpose of raising children.

An obvious corollary to the above is that a marriage (in the legal contract
sense) is not essential (other than just to conform to established social norms
and standards) if no children are planned by the couple living together.

TRUE LOVE cannot be "created" by following a recipe or completing procedures
1-n for ANY two individuals A and B. It only exists latently between CERTAIN
pair of individuals (Who may not have met yet, or may never meet), and blooms
into action when and if they meet. No recipe or procedure is needed when they
meet. In summary, true love is only meant for certain pairs of individuals and
it can never be artificially generated by randomly picking two individuals and
following steps 1-n. A working relationship (with a perception of love) can
on the other hand be forged between any two (within certain limits of course).
That is the reality most cases.

(Items F13-F15 below apply in the context of Bangladesh/India/Pakistan, so maybe of
interest to only those readers who are from these regions)

F13. ON COMMUNALISM, FANATICISM etc: (In the Context of India/Pakistan/BD):

In this context we can divide people into these categories:

1. Type1(Communal): These are people who believe that members of other religion
are inferior to them, discriminates against them and can, in extreme cases cause
physical harm on them out of sheer hatred for them

2. Type2(Fanatic): These people interpret religion in their own way and engage in
practices or beliefs in the name of religion that goes against knowledge and rational
thinking. For example forcing women to dress in veils, and preventing them to work
outside home, opposing intellectual freedom and calling for death of anyone who
differs with their belief or criticizes them.

3. Type3(Religious): These are people who just believe in religion passively as a kind
of support to give them solace and provide spiritual strength in times of crisis
in this problem ridden world. They follow religion in a personal way and are not
activist or try to enforce their belief on others. They dont apply too much rational
thinking in arriving at their belief rather they just inherit it from their parents
and surrounding and from the culture that thay grew up with. See F8 for a list of
possible reasons for belief in religion . Notice that one can be communal and NOT
fanatic. It is also possible that one can be fanatic but not communal. For example
a fanatic Muslim may be forcing his wife to wear Burkha yet deal with a Hindu on an
equal basis on a day to day basis. I knew one such person who is a fanatic Muslim
but he was very kind to a hindu boy and even helped him out monetarily. Obviously
one can be religious and neither communal and fanatic. Most Bangladeshis fall into
this category. Maybe 90-95%. Since 5-10% of a large population 120 million is still
a large number and since they are extremely vocal and aggressive and the remaining
95% are very passive and noncombatant type it gives the illusion that the 5%
represents the vast majority. The problem is when others in their short sightedness
condemn ALL Bangladeshis for the act of 5% ,then the 95%, instead of condemning the
5% are forced into defending themselves and the entire conflict turns into one
between the 95% and those condemning them and erroneously leads them to believe
that the 95% are condoning the 5% and the cycle goes on.

4. Type4(No label): These are people who are either none of the above or are type3
but are also nationalistic and would not hesitate to criticize Indian policies
and/or acts if those policies or acts happen to be damaging to Bangaldesh's
economy or sovereignty. They may at the same time be advocating close
cultural, social or trade ties between the two countries and have goodwill towards
its people. Unfortunately when they are criticizing India for some of its policies
they are labelled as being type 1 or 2 and anti Indian. It doesnt require a PhD
to understand the simple logic that a criticism based on economic or strategic
considertation does not make one communal or fanatic. Is the critcism of Americans
by Indians or vice versa termed as (Hindu/Christian) communalism by Americans or
Indians? It is also important to realize that if a type 1 or 2 person criticize
India for some reason then it doesn't automatically make the reason invalid. The
fact is that if someone hates India then they can critize India for valid and
invalid reasons both. Its unfair to label a person as communal or fanatic solely
on the basis of criticizm of Indian policies or acts. An example at hand would be the
allegation that Indian military personnel transferred(would rather use this euphemism
instead of loot or plunder) cars,foreign goods and ammunitions to India when they were
in Bangladesh. Although there is no documented evidence but there was widespread
allegations to this effect even by pro-liberation elements which lend some credence
to it. It is rumoured that the then Major Jalil, a valiant freedom fighter and by no
means a communal or fanatic tried to offer resistance when Indian soldiers were
transferring these properties. It is obvious that even if they did what was alleged
they were not doing this under instructions from Indira Gandhi or that Indian people
were cheering them on to do it. One has to look at it from a dispassionate angle.
From the perspective of an Indian soldier they were victors in the land of the
vanquished. They came here solely on a military mission. They didnt feel the same
humane feeling as the ordinary Bengalis in WB who wanted to see their fellow Bengalis
free(Most of these soldiers were not Bengalis anyway). They deemed all these booties
as belonging to Pakistanis and have rightfully earned them as victors. It is the
nature of soldiers to take booties in a defeated land. There is no exception. Same
can be said about any army. So when one makes allegation of these acts by Indian
soldiers they are just accusing THEM (OR just their commanders ) only and It is
unfair to brand someone as anti Indian just for alleging these acts of Indian
soldiers. The other example would be the Farakka problem. Obviously there is a clash
of interest here so a criticism is inevitable and communalism has nothing to do with
it. I hope I have been able to clarify the issue and set the perspective right so
that next time one posts a response to someone he/she would refrain from using the
wrong label if a label has to be used.

F14. ON THE PERCEIVED "STINGINESS" OF W. BENGALIS BY BDESHIS:

(In the context of Bangladesh and West Bengal(India) )

It is generally a common opinion of most Bangladeshis that W. Bengalis are stingy.
A careful analysis of this opinion will reveal that this perception is rooted more
in cultural or historical factors rather than some intrinsic difference. The reason
that most WBis are considered "stingy" is because they dont show the same effusive
interest in treating to dinners or inviting over to their homes, which is more
common in BD (E. Bengal). First of all it should be emphasized that not ALL
W. Bengalis (so called "Ghotis") fit into this mold. After all, if everyone in WB was
stingy then the Bangla word "Kripon (stingy) would lose any meaning for them and
would not have been coined (All Bangla words originated from WB anyway). There do
exist some in WB who can be certainly considered generous and hospitable by even BD
standard. By the same token if everyone in BD was generous then the word "Kripon"
would have become obsolete in BD (Except when referring to WB), but is not the case,
and it is also used quite often in BD in regard to each other. So there do exist some
in BD who are stingy by any standard. What is perceived about W.B. is also true for
most Westerners (American, British) etc., but they are not labelled as stingy etc.
Why? Because they are perceived as belonging to a culture where it is not common to
treat people routinely to dinners or invite them over. Its simply not an elemment
of their culture. The same factor is true to a large extent for WB and should also
be looked upon as such and not labelled "stingy" etc. The reason for the difference
between WB and EB is probably due to several factors: First point is EBs (so called
"Bangals") were historically subjected to more invasions from outside viz, the
Portugese or Burmese pirates, invasions from the West by Pathan/Mughals and lastly
the mistreatment by British that lead to several disastrous famines. Lastly EB. was/is
more vulnerable to natural disasters. All these factors created a sense of
interdependence and a reassurance of a sense of fellow feeling in the symbolic form
of treating to food and inviting over. Since BD and WB are so similar in terms of
Language, Physical features, Food habits etc that it stands out as an aberration to
someone from BD to find someone from WB not sharing in this trait of hospitality
with the same degree and attribute the label "stingy" to them. It is a general
characteristic of regions that are subject to natural/man made hardship give rise
to a more cohesive/interdependent society. See E12 for a more general discussion
of this topic.

F15. ON PURE (SHUDDHO) BANGLA VS. DIALECTS OF BANGLA:
(In the context of Bangladesh(BD) and West Bengal(WB) )

It is common to see most Bangladeshis equate "Pure (Shuddho)" Bangla with so called
Ghoti (West Bengali) Bangla. The fact is Pure bangla is neither East or West but is
the common language agreed over the entire history of greater bengal. When someone
in BD speaks pure bangla with no accent or mispronunciation or local dialect, he/she
is perceived as speaking Ghoti Bangla. This is quite unfortunate. The fact of the
matter is there are various distinct dialects even within West bengal, not just BD
and these dialects of WB are not pure Bangla either but are distorted by unique
accents and pronunciations just as the dialects of BD Bangla. It is very interesting
to note that when someone from BD speaks in Bangla with no regional accent of either
BD or WB, they are assumed to be from BD when talking to WB people and to be from WB
when talking to BD people! (True in my personal experience). The reason for this is
that most WB people do talk with their distinct accent as do most BD people. So if
one speaks in pure Bangla without either accent it will sound unfamiliar to both and
any unfamiliar accent is instinctively judged to be that of BD by WB people and vice
versa. Here accent means the use of certain non-standard words and specific
intonation characteristic of BD/WB. Also many in BD don't realize that the rural
dialect of Bangla doesn't have to be like what they are used to hearing in and
around Dhaka and the adjoining districts. The far flung districts like Chittagong,
Sylhet, Dinajpur, Khulna etc have very different dialects with accents than
heard around Dhaka which is often portrayed with bias in the entertainment media
like TV or Radio. Whereas they should be in principle on the same footing as the rest.
What bothers them is not the fact that the people they are talking to are not
speaking their own dialect(Assuming they know how to speak that) but that they are
not talking in their familiar dialect (sort of Bengali Ebonics) heard and spoken
near Dhaka and adjoining districts. The dialects of different districts of West
Bengals have different accent also. So to label Pure Bangla as "Ghoti" reflects
total ignorance and sensitivity to both BD and WB and its different dialects. So it
is more logical to try to learn and speak the commonly agreed Pure bangla found in
all the writings in rural and urban BD and WB than to stick to specific dialects.
Dialects are only meaningful in conversations among those living in the region of
the dialect in question.

=================== LAST "IS/OUGHTTABE": ===============

Most people after reading maxims which they agree with and praise as piece
of good writing, do not bother to remember and integrate them with their
thoughts, words and actions in their day to day life. (But they ought to).

================================================

EPILOG
------

My responses to some comments on the stuff I have written (Some actual and some
made up as a preemptive to a possible one):

1. Your writings are so negative about others. You seem so cynical.

My response: Well, most of my observations are preceded by "SOME(say 10%)",
"MANY/MOST(say 90%)", so if they seem negative by that logic it must be positive
for the remaining 90% (for the SOME cases) and 10% (for the MOST/MANY cases)".
Those percentages for the entire population is still a large number. So in that
sense I am positive since my observations indirectly imply positive for a large
number of people. I am just focusing on the negative as that may potentially
help in the process of improvement. Focussing on the positive doesn't have such
usefulness except when expressing appreciation on an individual basis.

2. You are not perfect yourself, so why make critical observations of others?

My response: Very correct. But just like a doctor who identifies the symptoms
of diseases and tries to cure it is by no means immune to diseases themselves
I don't have to be perfect to see and make observations on the imperfections or
inconsistencies in people. (Like identifying the symptoms of diseases). While I
believe I am immune to most of the flaws (If at all they are judged to be so)
that have been addressed in my observations I do believe I have other flaws of
my own, which can/should be pointed out by some one else in their own
observations. The point is that it is necessary to focus on negatives also and
not just the positives. Ignoring the negatives won't make them go away or
rectify them.

3. You are making lot of biased conclusions or assumptions about people.

My response: When I say that SOME/MANY people say/do/think(whatever), I am
just stating what I observe them to do/say/think from my experience and
from others' through careful observations. I didn't go one step further and
say SOME/MANY people say/do/think(whatever) AND THEREFORE THEY ARE
(whatever you think I am saying). So your statement that I am making biased
conclusion/assumption about others is in turn possibly a biased conclusion/
assumption about me.

4. My experience contradicts what you are saying about others

My response: As I said I have preceded my observations by "SOME", "MANY",
so the observations obviously don't hold for those not included in SOME/MANY,
Your experience was obviously with them.

5. You have belaboured the point in many cases where it could have been made
quite briefly.

My response: If you are like me I agree. But not all are like you and me. They
make a distorted interpretation no matter how precisely it is stated. This
is from actual experience and I had to expand some aphorisms before it was
understood correctly. The response was "Oh, thats what you meant. I thought
you meant..". It is safer to be verbose and leave no room for misinterpretation
than be precise and risk misinterpretation.