The
basic philosophy what I feel should be but not necessarily: Never cover a dirt with
a lid stamped with positivity for the mere purpose of projecting the same.
First: Clean it. Resolve it. Sanitize it. Apply this at the idiosyncratic level
or in a social arena. And then embrace with this divine mark.
A
recent study has suggested that a person who utterly socialize lives longer and
is more elated than who doesn't. And that means Adding more Friends ( or may be
acquaintances) into your social arena. But one might conduce that with whom we
interact are not all 'Friends'. They are acquaintances. Simply putting, if you sieve
your own social circle, honestly how many of them you would certainly consider
as your 'Friend'? True Buddy? Madagascar :) Jokes apart!
The
question is, what ingredients one consider primarily to explicate the term socializing.
Distinct belief exists. And let us not blend it with Adding a Friend. In true comprehension
have a separate term for that i.e. Add an acquaintance rather making a separate
list of acquaintances from friend's list. That is much precise and better. And
which is certainly a correct fact also.
If we are talking about the interaction in
socializing and furthermore concentrating on subject specific, most of the
people do that. Nothing novel. But if we blend it with friendship, an obscure
thought.
The
question ensues! Can one expect those profound, fathomless and more intense insights
engender, amid social arena, towards other Beings or may be for any system via utter
socializing? Might be am wrong and do correct me, but predominantly socializing doesn't end up as
discussions which include both positivity or negativity. Herein subject specific interactions are not blended with it. Now it's not like completely disassociating
yourself with it, but yeah, any observations too is not plausible with absolute
association.
Ever
wondered why we 'still' emphasize and find deep insights in the writings written
centuries back or beyond that and Not in any contemporary texts? It's because
in contemporary writings, even if something faintly differs from the general perspective
what everyone follows, we stamp it with negativity. Either we don't want to
accept or consider that that would not be acceptable while socializing, which will
alas engender our contrived good repute. And were those writers socialites? As
far as I know, nope.
Secondly,
do we often read the philosophies or writings written decades or centuries ago by
a 'king' or an 'affluent' man except profound Leaders? I guess Not! But today we actually do the
opposite, forsooth. And that's where the problem lies. Coz that is all at the idiosyncratic
level and not engulfing everyone. May be due to good Projections by Projectors.
Certainly!
Now concluding,
firstly it is not like everyone is your buddy. Mostly are acquaintances. (Be
Good to everyone). Secondly, utter socializing, certainly good but at
the idiosyncratic level. Tertiary, profound insights are not found in socializing
( minus subject specific). Fourthly, it's
not detaching yourself from interactions but to observe, you need to sometimes
and that's not negativity or isolation. And finally, the philosophies and thoughts
of the affluent or eminent might help in moving markets or departments but not in
the evolution of a 'good' society which can be corroborated with the present situation.
Note: All My Blogs are subjected to
Copyrights