Bemused!
The duplicity reflected in the distinct confounding perceptions. Why? One
entity’s distinct opinions for the same issue but that too depending on who is
involved. No issues! It exists and is justified. Or else Liberty cannot be
defined and it would lose its sublime.
But then
somehow the significance of the opinion looses the ground and levitates, randomly,
when the opinion is placed with no conformity and inclines towards whatever suits
the best. But again the assumptions in this context can be diverged as no two situations
are same and its underlying reasons or cause can differ fundamentally. Even the
same issue can have distinct fundamental reasons.
Now, coming
back to the contents or opinions, but that too depends upon how that has been
expounded. Subject specific not included as there can be two proposed aspects of
it in which it can be explicated while not deforming the contents: Uncomplicated or
Hard and furthermore here the contents cannot be diluted by anyone in this regard.
Now the
alternate side or context or opinions (penned or displayed as an act) can be witty, splendid, claptrap, unsavory etc and that would depend who exactly is perusing that content and the
number of reflections of the minds and eyes adhered to it in perusing the same.
And what defines that context for them and in which essence.
On the
discussion on the contents or opinions or elucidations (penned or displayed as
an act), on one hand we define some conformity while making opinions and views which
should exclude dogmatism, risqué & odious
demeanor and should not be reflected in the contents adhered to any context, while
on the other hand, even if it includes the essence of three beautiful inclined
words herein above, the assertion of liberty plays a role. The issue is not to condemn
anything or any opinion unless really debased or vile. Because if done, it would defeat
the sole purpose of Liberty leading us to the middle age earth saga. But the real
issue is intermingling or amalgamating every content (penned or displayed as an
act) under one roof so as to define and form a category whenever and wherever we
want to associate or disassociate certain contents or views as per our own desires,
requirements and thoughts or for some specific purpose and to weigh it with the
perception of how many eyes and sometimes minds it had attracted. Something odious
cannot be concluded as witty or splendid and vice-versa. Furthermore it's the self conscious which should decide how to put your opinion or views without nipping, pestering or including any derogatory content which is defined by the term troll.
Like
on any Land, distinct entities with distinct flavors and perceptions exist,
same with the contents or opinions. They too reflect distinct identities when
we perceive. Equality to 'all' contents or annotations
or observations? Certainly Not. Well at that juncture we should define to ourselves with the
existing fact categorically as what’s hilarity, witty, risqué, splendid, off-color,
debased etc and what we should absorb and what to neglect. And that should be categorized, instead intermingling the same according
to the needs or aspirations. And let that not be generalized.
All
flavors are required and should be tasted, but they should be defined with
separate identities and not by establishing any affiliation between them or
exchanging essence along with their identities just to conduce something
was good, bad or in need, furthermore on the number of counts of the viewership.
Copyright © Pranav Chaturvedi 2015