Friday, March 28, 2008

The Black and White Theory

In response to my dear friend Arun’s statement on territories of comfort…..

Dude, in the first paragraph you’ve referred to me as the odd one and it was not only me it was everyone among them. In fact, I wasn’t comfortable mentioning the live example considering a few things in my mind, here again I go against what I think, as I mentioned about the protagonist himself / herself turning out to be antagonist being bound to a specific criteria.

The discussion of theory of evolution and territories of comfort was O.K but the entire discussion does not relate to what was mentioned earlier. I think the theory of ‘territories of comfort’ may be well suited to a discussion on competition, but the aforementioned article discussed emotions.

I have categorically pointed out a few things there about categorization and the process that leads to the protagonist becoming an antagonist. Here, I give a simple example to give a better understanding of my statements. There are two groups A and B [lets consider both are of same sex]. Usually the normal tendency of gelling with other colleagues would happen only amongst the cadres, which is again mostly based on the categorization theory1 and very minimally the true care. I basically think the theory of evolution2 is the core cause of the cadre mechanism. I hope everyone agrees.

The key point of discussion is a few of cadre A might / might not get in real / true care with a few of cadre B, but are restricted not to show it out even though they want to because of the categorization theory1. I would term this a black and white theory of human psyche [as I left out the other darker sides in my earlier discussion], I’d only like to talk about the two kinds of dilemma which exist in deciding the individual’s way of living. Either to be with the cadre or to come out of it! The Black side is the one that tends to show the whiteness that is virtually presented without the confrontation, though the white side is focusing somewhere. The white side is the one with the pure idea of emphasizing a person's capacity for self-realization through reason getting to the other side by turning black.

And I was wondering about the extrapolation of the animal theory with humans. This is not about the physical or mental strength one has over the above and dominating because of that. The key point [in terms of cadre], an individual of cadre A wants to gel with an individual of cadre B but couldn’t do it because the rest of his colleagues would consider this as a defection to the other side and to avoid that, the individual cadre A who doesn’t want to gel with the rest of the cadre A is forced to do so, thus going against the odds of what really was his wish. I don’t understand where the chances of getting a girl comes from3.

I completely agree with the theory of territory of comfort3 but it’s nowhere related to the content of my article1.

References

1.The other side of the coin is rusting…..Sunday, March 9th 2008 http://selvasword.blogspot.com

2.Theory of Evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_evolution

3.Territories of comfort & competition… Monday, March 24th 2008 http://arunsaysthis.blogspot.com

7 comments:

Raj said...

Selva -

Your view on the subject is limited to that particular moment. My reasoning is trying to identifying the underlying issue.

Why should there be a discrimination in the first place? Why is there categorization? Why should they have a fear of you and why would they not be interested in gel-ing with you?

Answer that and then we will talk .... :D

selva ganapathy said...

Will answer your question :P... time chahiye :D

Aashiq said...

:)

Kalindi Sharma said...

aah...now thats a good answer
Arun needs to know that not everything revolves around procreation ;) and access to the other sex!
since we are talking of an incident with regard to Selva, we dont have to see a larger spectrum.

Gouri said...

hmmmmm.......i luv metaphysical stuff! Selva! u give me d opportunity 2 bring out d philosopher n metaphysicist in me. but, next time make sure u dont force ppl 2 comment at gun point (hehehe). Also, kripya bhavishya mein saral bhasha ka prayog karein kyunki mujh jaise praniyon ka angrezi shabdkosh bahut aviksit hota hai. Keeping aside all discussion abt 'territories of comfort' and 'theory of evolution', i wud simply like 2 comment on ur idea of d dialectics of black and white sides of personalities. (kyunki aur kuch zyada samajh nahi yaa, hehe). The law of dialectics focusses on the impossibility of the existence of gud without bad, right without wrong, beauty without ugliness etc. so, u dont understand d white side without an understanding of d black side of ur personality. i agree wth d idea dat d black side is d one that brings out or highlights d whiteness.
lukng forward 2 ur next blog! (n i hope dat u venture into sumthng completely new this time). Happy Blogging!

selva ganapathy said...

Thanks Guys!,
Gouri... tumhe detailed reply doonga :D..

Yes my next blog would not be on this kind of stuff..... :P

Raj said...

The very idea of the protagonist becoming the anagonist is about empathising and thinking in the other persons shoes. But question is why should we? If our srvival is under question then is it not better to just protect our own territories of comfort?

Why in the first wish to become the antagonist? :P

If you wish to counter this by talking about being compassionate and understanding, then our very fabric of animal instinct is disturbed. Being impulsive is in our nature and is to be left to explore its own domains and conclude on learnings.

A simple fact of nature is - Balance. "What goes around comes around." So what you give will come come back to you. Discriminate and u will be discriminated against. So Mr./Ms. Protagonaist Be Aware !