System

A proclivity to produce hindrance. An inheritance of interminable complexes, inculcating to thwart, might act like a sedative drug for some. But not a myth that sometimes to deal with any cosmic power is much uncomplicated rather dealing with any system.  And why is it? B'coz of the supra mentioned divine inherited capabilities of a clan or a group of homosapiens at a particular location on the sphere. There is no motive or might be, but the temperament is abhorrently erosive. Ruckus, obstruction, deliberately giving an issue a greater longevity, a struggle not to win but to fix (quid pro quo), tangle with complexity rather untangling with simplicity, may have become a tradition or is may be in vogue, depending upon how one defines the threshold point of such demeanor.

Such stagnated demeanor is contagious and thus spread by many. Whether developing minds with their eyes popping out of greed or selfishness or developed minds out of insecurity or fear, the nucleus accumbens might include to derive pleasure from the herein supra facets.

Unfolding or lifting the veil to unlock what lies behind that positivity in actuality is certainly not negativity.

Neutrality? But does it exists? The source of origin of any issue is first observed rather observing any issue first for resolving it.

Some developing or might be developed minds assert that having thick skin is a bliss. Is it? Or can we conduce it as shamelessness? Yup, thick skin against the wrong is a virtue.

A poor/developing and to some extent developed location should learn to Value their own good Beings to get appropriate readings from any social structure.

Things are being told sometimes not to be made understood by Beings on face value. Lift the veil, and it would promptly interpret itself on as is basis.

From calculated tangled opportunistic academic averments to loathful administrative actions and to further sudden transition from one specific deteriorated state to a consolation with a fear to lose the latter, all are inhabitants of the same closed system.

Thence, the facet of complicating any issue, analyzing the similar facts with the selfsame test rather examining the cause first or projecting as thick skin (which in actuality is shamelessness) does not unfold any entity's good actions. Shedding those complexes, analyzing the issues with some immediate action (rather calculating the benefits first one may derive from that source of origin or how many fists that origin is compounded with) is a good conduct & positivity. Doesn't matter whether it includes any trivial or significant matter.    

Copyright ©  Pranav Chaturvedi 2015

Equality!

The land of lost souls abandoned by the countrymen

They proceeded with no regret but zest,

With cognition untouched & static

Measured the conduct with selfsame litmus test;

But who says perceptions can’t judge

Not worth engraving the wood,

For who stands with the same facts in hand

The fortune or conviction for good;

Neither you are fool nor am I

But you are not the true my lord,

Remember, being on that primacy

Not righteous to transmute pen to an authentic sword;

Where Projectors transform the identities

But no one condemns,

Their own complexes & insecurities

Myth or Actuality, they know, but uninformed they pretend;

Those lost souls on that land

May be recipient of sheer malevolent conduct of your own men,

When facts never corroborated with intentions

Arduous to reinstate, even if later you amend;

None can question your wisdom

As one earns being exposed,

To infinite instances which had occurred

Where the positivity was never reposed;

Still not a pit with heaven over it

Would contend the latter exists widely,

But if you admit only facts ignoring cause

You would ponder the justice blindly.

Copyright ©  Pranav Chaturvedi 2015

Add a Friend!

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    

Deflating the Influence!

Discussing the ideology, logically criticizing the unstructured way in implementation of anything or determining the credibility or ethics (not solely confined to meritocracy which Beings generally take in Verbatim), is in no way transmute the liberty under the ambit of ‘undermining the essence’ of the privileges any democracy has imparted to anyone, when the republic or individuals are the direct recipients of the same and the subjective opinions made, make substantial sense & conclusions in their objections. That is at the public level. But personally, those entities, be a practitioner of any ideology, it's not right to snoop around into anyone’s personal affairs or matters and ending up unfolding distinct subjective outlook, and honestly, no one is even interested also in going through such contents.

But again, condemning or objecting the actual practice of that entity at any particular given instance where it could be clearly perceived that somewhere that Being has unfolded & utilized the ‘Influential’ factor and thus could be surmised with a reasoning that wherever any victim is involved, associated to that entity, professionally or personally, might be denied justice or the justice could never reach to that recipient, neither on this sphere nor beyond it due to that factor, is thence neither snooping nor infringing the private life of any entity. Because if the sanctity of the Democracy has to be maintained, the ‘Influential’ terminology shouldn't conceive only at the first place. As wherever the concept of ‘Buy Anyone’ & ‘Borrow Platforms for Projections’ exists, to question it would in no way undermine the sanctity of any rights conferred to anyone. So many victims, well I don’t have stats and figures where the projections in the chart are lowered or raised, as per the convenience, would have been succumbed to this obnoxious terminology 'Influence' is unexplainable, as we know how the structure works.

Thence, whenever any issue is surfaced where it is not even necessary to lift the veil to unravel that the ‘Influential’ part within that structure might have played the role to deny the justice to any victim associated with the same entity, it is the duty by and large to take the cognizance of the same. Also, the Projectors play an important role in it. Yeah, to listen and project the contentions or averments made by that entity is Absolutely Justified, but the projections made with an intention to project that entity as being the victim of infringement of privacy: certainly not right!   

Copyright ©  Pranav Chaturvedi 2015

The Idleness that Innovated this Confusion!

One might find this Blog to be faintly aggressive which is quite actually not my Tempo :) But was certainly confounded to perceive conclusions made in an article I read, not recently but in a distant past, that an 'Idle Mind' is more Innovative/Creative and conceive numerous distinct thoughts. Thence Idleness is good as brain can work as a Free Thinker, and was concluded with giving reference of some mappings & data.

The issue is not with the conclusion as I know the conclusions were drawn in good perspective as asking people to be more innovative/creative then remaining stagnated in the selfsame specific work and only following whatever is taught to you, but the interpretation is confounding as the association of the term ‘Idle’ with it, as to many its kinda slang to Homosapiens. Now as a recipient like everybody else, I am certainly too baffled and it won't be wrong in surmising this with our own idiosyncratic idle assumptions. And as their conclusions has to be taken is verbatim, one could surmise what it might meant if just perceived idly, that:

•  Only an ‘Idle Mind’ is engulfed with distinct Thoughts/Innovations/Creativity, whatever, which may further be either penned down or could be further innovated for a desirable invented product or any substantial content. Now that can be kindred to any domain. It may be Content; Process; Product or subject specific.

But perceiving the perplexity encompassed in the above perception; would still certainly pen down my Idle thoughts if taken the above context of an Idle Mind in Verbatim:

Firstly, if only ‘Idle Minds’ are flooded with many distinct novel thoughts/ expressions/ideas engulfed into their energy soaked brains, then I presume all the eminent authors/writers/columnists/innovators etc, actually pen down their contents or thoughts or invent any product when they are in a state of being Idle or are certainly infused with Idle minds. The more you unfold your novel concept, the more your association to Idleness will be proved. But now what about the public acceptability? Certainly, not all their work is affirmed by many Homosapiens, thence the contents which are infamous or the work which did not survive in the course of time, like many plays, should be called as the work of an Idle Mind encompassed with an only intention for destruction. Because if only public acceptability we look for the success of any content or product, then the latter definitely proves to be true.

And By the way, regarding the affirmations given by many, we have perceived in many cases as what level and kind of contents or products or works successfully found their place in the market. And furthermore, how those thoughts come into action, all salutation to PRs and Projectors and their divine constructive non idle thoughts.

We all have heard the quote as an Idle Mind is a Devil’s Workshop and is circumscribed with Destructive Thoughts, but Mind encompassed with distinct ideas for Innovation/ Thoughts/Creativity is the outcome of an Idle Mind, that’s surprising and in itself is a novel concept. If our brain is actually idling, which in fact never, and if there are constructive insights within our mind, how can we call it a state of Idleness? Can't we use any other terminology/word to explain this?   

And furthermore what’s constructive thinking? And who defines it when it can be further bifurcated into many distinct notions because it can have enormous distinct interpretations.

And can we just define the same under the ambit of 'restricted unless publicly accepted'? Would be utterly amusing.  

Moreover, as generally Beings co-relate the Idleness with Devil’s Workshop, so either first explain the conclusions before adopting this terminology/word to them or transmute the same into something else.

Even if you are in a process of infusing your own mind with distinct ideas, cognate to creativity/innovation or whatever, you are actually ‘critically doing something constructive’, which may again vary from person to person. So, how can one call the outcome or result as the work of an Idle Mind? Bemused!

To work until the affirmation of the Beings is received? It would be same as asking people to just flow with the wind. 

Contrary to the subject discussed herein above, would one call it freedom of thoughts (as long as you don't abuse or harm someone) if asked or presumably indirectly socially forced to follow the perceptions of only some defined entities, without even further analyzing with your own mind whether you want to follow or not or does that even suits your persona? And suppose, if some constructive perspectives are being left in aloof, would they be the conception of an 'Idle Mind' by the mere unacceptance of the masses or classes? More than amusing it’s surprising. 

Wondering what those quintessence illustrious Historical Writers/Authors/Poets etc. who had written impeccable, novel and vigorous contents in their lives must be thinking if someone would have called their work, even in a good perspective, as the outcome of an Idle Mind :)

Copyright ©  Pranav Chaturvedi 2015

Assigning Identities to Distinct Notions & Contents

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

Discovery++: Regulated or Opened?

Innovation evolves with motivation or exigency. It is an investment and not philanthropy, well some make such assertions. But whatever,  it plays an important role and keeps the world ticking and progressing.

The legitimacy to prove first is to find that the originality is not a mere discovery or replication but a novel product. That is and how I define invention as  (Discovery+1) or Discovery++, one or many steps ahead of discovery. And how this is regulated and achieved? Through Patents. Kinda intangible assets, granted to an individual but with Restrictions.

However, distinct opinions would always surface, some may be critical by saying that It:

1. creates stifle in the competition;

2. is a commodity to maintain;

3. is an unwanted necessity or onus that has been imposed on them to remain in the market or competition.

4. an expensive affair.

It is true that the process is too long and endeavors should be forged to expedite the same. But it’s unfavorable to question the credibility of it.

Furthermore the rights conferred are not absolute. But there could be averments as at what reasonable cost? Well that should depend upon the Country’s Infrastructure, Per Capita Income, inhibited by how many people with lower incomes etc.. There would always be distinct opinions on Patents. But seems neither Patents are stifle in the competition nor they are onus to the society.

Though in some notable cases the issues were thoroughly debated for prolong as to whether Business Methods, Abstract Theories, Mathematical Calculations etc. are patentable or not. You ask 10 different Experts to interpret this with a substantial conclusion, all would have distinct subjective interpretation specially when it comes to Software.

Simply putting like this from a Layman's perspective:

Why Word a patentable product? Though MS lost the word Patent Appeal later for its Version. But why it is for some and it isn't for some. Supporting it and without unfolding it's ingredients, characteristics and process, when Word was created with the help of existing Keywords of some Programming Language and Dictionary along with the Technology as it made people to possibly modify, alter, append, remove, align, make additions, create several documents & layouts, copies of documents etc. to express the content of their speech and thoughts in hard copy which was not possible for human beings to either remember the exact sequence and flow of the words in their mind chronologically what they wanted to share or send or to transfer to others or to retrieve the same manually, electronically in the form of Documentation. Even if it would have been possible, it would have been too tedious for any human if they would have done it manually. Therefore, it was novel, not a mere discovery or amalgamation or addition to any existing product and should be a patentable product. But these Simple justifications could be Negated by more strong Elementary averments like given herein above in distinct locations and by different people.

OSS!! A good Perspective?? To many, Yes but with some Restrictions!

And further not a bygone case of Natco & Bayer about the generic drug Nexavar and its compulsory licence. Here too conclusions can be drawn from both the angles, from the investment point of view and from the perceptions of the patients who ultimately are the recipients in the end.

And who can forget the neoteric case of Toyota opening it's whopping 5600+ Patents in the open market, as what they claim, for a good hydrogen future. 

But are they Commodities but quite expensive to maintain? Depends upon its valuation and its performance at the commercial scale.

But to maintain a balance between development and fulfilling the needs of the republic, is an arduous venture to achieve anywhere.

Copyright ©  Pranav Chaturvedi 2015

Lost in Interpretation!

Was a part of one fleeting discussion where I was just a passive listener, some time back! Somehow the concept of Faith evolved in the Discussion between these two persons. So this genuinely Respectable man with Impeccable Credentials told that accomplishment is achieved by someone 'only' to create a place and stand, up there, else what one would go and tell to his Creator with what other justifications?

As that was really a brief conversation, it just ended in no time.

But I was baffled with this concept! Self: Development; Realization; Empowerment; Establishment; Achievement: that’s all Personal. That’s one’s Personal Aspiration, Ambition and Need, which is perhaps a ‘Necessity’ for Human and Societal Development. And further precisely  restricting the same till Individual level. But how can we dovetail the two distinct aspects, that’s confounding.

Self Development, Personal Aspiration and Faith and Commitment towards, it may be in anything, all reside in segregated Aspects. The first two in the same and the latter in the distinct Horizon.

But then what’s Faith? Truth; Belief; Confidence; Commitment; Compulsion; Coercion; Concept; Illusion? Can we dovetail our Personal Ambitions with Salvation?

But it’s bemusing when the concept of achieving our personal aspirations and ambitions is correlated with the faith. Though the Former is a Necessity for the Human Evolution, but is certainly detached from the Latter.

Or are we really victims of Lost in Translation? We implement the aged Theories with ‘Blanket Affirmation’ without realizing in which Context and under what Circumstances or for whom they were written!

But from one particular angle, Faith or Devotion can be defined as a Belief and I presume affirmatively and confidently which exist from where one can get Confidence while perceiving  or facing ‘some’ unpleasant creations, further which is not an illusionary concept or followed by compulsion. And furthermore, certainly not for fulfilling your personal ambitions just to justify yourselves up there. 

I Presume whoever up there would see how good we were rather how godly we were being considered.

Note: All My Blogs are Subjected to Copyrights

Reflection of an Issue!

If the components of any issue is perceivable, does it require vexation or disgruntled reflection of any guileless idiosyncratic perspective to put efforts to make it cognizable amid any system?

For instance, an opened borewell, perceivable to many, but only becomes actually perceptible when a child or some entity falls into it, as such cases had been observed in the past as well as covered by the Projectors for many days also. Well that's at a trivial level though utterly unfortunate instances. Bigger instances creates the foundation of any Cause.

What precisely profound me is the existence of a belief to acknowledge the resentful agitation first, then the plight or concern which perhaps could have been simply extinguished before any subsequent resentment. The reasons are perceptible but ignorance is adopted. With deliberation, and if emphasis peculiarly is made on the conventional demeanor, is the inherent reaction only to the noises from some disgruntled entities and their resentment further resulting sans transmuting the same into any substantial conclusion. Thence making it impliedly and possibly a reflection of a passive unsparing and unconcerned aspect of the mysterious entity hidden within ourselves. Subsequent illumination and then recognition of the cause or concern shouldn't be a part of any system. And Furthermore if the precipitation of any cause or concern can be perceived, an action for the rectification or any corrective measure should be made first rather waiting for some agitation or resentment as an effect of the same.

Now, could we surmise entities as passive spectators?

Can we conclude this as an unsparing and if more narrowly explained, a sadist attitude which is not reflective but infused within the persona of every entity if seen through a prism? Do we impliedly cherish the grief of any separate unaffiliated discrete individuals, even knowing the cause or predicament but blindly discern it unless the reflection of the effect of the same, that might be desolation of the entity, is perceivable?

This could be more 'Publicly Visible' in the Below Developing and Developing Locations compared to the Developed where it exists in a 'Stealthy' state. May be the fear or insecurity that triggers the reflection of our distinct entity which presides within everyone, forces such deportment at the individual level just to be in coherence amid the system with selfsame structures.  

But if reason or concern is known, rather expecting any agitation or disgruntled opinion or resentment, an efficacious endeavor to resolve the uncertainty or impediment would be more valuable which will form a strong cohesion within the system. Thence, why Ignore any concern when they can be Resolved with manageable and simplistic approach.     

Note: All My Blogs are Subjected to Copyrights.