Education Starvation! A Very Common Perspective Re-defined.

Problem lies when Academicians aspire to join Business/Politicking Clan; And the latter wants to be God;

Under their Policies suppressed are the two: Common Beings & their Feeble Lord;

Most of the Policies instill Fear among the Students and not Education. And most of the Beings end up as Schooled not Educated.

I remember I read an article in which an ex top employee of a blue chip company had said that the employees are actually properly trained somewhere else. Here only basic hard, stand alone paper is provided. What if, even for second, we accept that’s true. Then there's an issue.

Lets start with the Coaching Classes. Never understood the concept of as why students spend/ or are forced to spend on private coaching/ tuition classes/centers. Then our Schools for what? From before admission to any institute till clearing any entrance exam, in plenty of the cases you would find that most of the students end up spending thousands of ackers which obviously does not involve their subsequent starter, main course & dessert fee.

So if the target of the life at any location revolves around at receiving the pattern ( +3/4 etc.) format, where they are only served in this static structure and even if beholding a less would collapse the entire anatomy, sending the recipient back to square one coz of unavailability & non implementation of the credit structure, then why not just appear for a bridge exam of +2 directly and spend your ackers & time for years in private coaching/tuition institutes, as they prepare for competitive exams well & then, just sail. Or is it more than that? 

Competition is necessary for growth of any organization/location. But what if the basic rights are taken away?

For instance, why not a credit system? Why it is in +2,+3/4 etc. pattern & and why not the asset format where every sem./subject passed becomes the assets of the Students? So let the base remain +2. Add to each subject/sem. passed be added to the Students assets. And these are irrevocable even if the whole pattern is not completed. And later at any time the pattern (which should be defined with the minimum credits), can be cleared anywhere, obviously subject to the availability. Yeah but not from the same institute where previously enrolled as there this contingency clause could be mentioned as to preserve the value of that institute also. This would actually extirpate that fear factor among students.

And why not give additional 3-5% who have prepared by their own or have attended free coaching classes for any competitive exams. Why? Now this would ensure equality. As any person, who could not afford any private coaching classes or test series and have cleared by himself/herself would be given higher preference than who had gone through the coaching class module. And how it can be done? Ask them for Affidavits! Simple. Give token nos. to every coaching classes which would enroll all names. This would confer more confidence. And furthermore any other course taken or done would only enhance the assets of any student.

But then again why not the selection process can be switched to taking into account the maximum Assets Earned + PI + perceiving the aptitude of the person whether the course module adopted by that individual is just to complete pattern/credits or in actuality the interest of that person lies to gain that specific knowledge. Let the student prove he/she deserve to be trained in that course.

And why can't the Industry decide independently. If food is the basic necessity, then education too. Then if someone is not authorized to decide the everyday's menu of someone else, then why can't that be implemented in Education also? Those who want to sip. Let them sip. Those who want to gallop, give them a free hand. The only difference would be the former would take more time to attain minimum assets required to be trained in higher courses, subject to availability, comparing to the latter. But certainly it won't become void-ab-initio at any level. Why innumerable procedures?

Alas! If the populace are evolved as the only thing they aspire to make things complicated & procedural which is again toilsome to accomplish.

And as rightly said by someone. Live to Express Not to Impress :)

Note: All My Blogs are Subjected to Copyrights

Can Robots & Humans co-exist? A Human Thought!

Innumerable people succumb to medical anomalies coz either they can’t afford treatment or due to unavailability of the medical teams & doctors. Now envision where with deployment of any Humanoid assistance, medical relief reaching to people in need, everywhere, at minimal cost, and to some places, for unlimited time in future. This is just a single case scenario.

Ok! So how homosapiens landed on Terra. Only theories exist. First the Evolution one, corroborated with science, and secondly, the Cosmic Power one, corroborated with faith. But they are not ‘absolute’ affirmations. But still prevails one commonality between them: Environment. And because of this auspiciously balanced natural phenomenon, life exists and flourishes. The Universal truth is, we cannot control Nature, and in future too, we would never be able to control it. What probably our actions might do in the end one day is, obliterating it, for our own selfish needs, which furthermore shall never be restored again with any substitute.  

The concept of Robots coexisting with Humans is not to prove humans can behave like any cosmic power, but to effectuate the system to bestow basic needs & necessities to people, forbidden from such care, which do not reach at least in the present circumstances to everyone, even in the most flourished places, and later could be administered.

Thence, it can be defined as: Humans creating an environment for the existence of Humanoids/Robots, with the reset/control command remaining with humans. Means, not assigning or delegating absolute authority to them, but programmed in a way to fulfill the needs of the Humans in need, or at the most assisting in accomplishing important tasks, but never to be treated like slaves.

Now, the responsibility lies on whom in achieving this? Not on one country or state but rather on all those countries/states who could at least afford in investing in such work to initiate research.

From basic administrative assistance, where then you don’t have to wait for years, and just wait & wait & further, wait, even for a meticulous work, till security concerns & measures, Humanoids assistance would only make the system robust. Utmost what would happen? The Contrived Pragmatism will transmute into Absolute Pragmatism. 

Ok! Did Humans really evolve like Humans? Answer yourself.

So when it comes to the values and conduct and conscience part of the Robot, in emergency, I am sure Scientists/People skilled in the said art, would be able to deal with the said situation, like redesigning, and then implementing it: which alas is not available for the humans :)

And with the proliferation of the developing minds love for greediness, and of the developed minds for power, there would be an imbalance in the societal structure and when the basic needs are not fulfilled, issue ensues. And if the Humans can correct this imbalance, as explained supra, then I presume no one would contend for any manufactured specie with selfsame mind.

Copyright ©  Pranav Chaturvedi 2015

Peace to Whom the Most? Reasoning or Belief?

What it means to be a True Being, I don’t know. The scientific evolution theory, the mysteries of the big bang to parallel universe, undeniably, are true. As it is based on facts and logics. But after all, they all are just Theories. No one has gone back billions of years or have seen what the Fish exactly happened, before Big Bang or after it. May be our belief in the existence of that someone or many, somewhere, up there, might also be true. The only difference is one wants to find the answers through logic and the latter through belief. 

I am a guy who believes in reasoning, logic & distinct facts. But I am Not an Atheist. There is something where my mind also keeps wishing for the existence of that or any unknown cosmic power :)

So, could we conclude people who believe in divinity are more at peace with profound thoughts as always contended? Many people I have come across (Well Distinct Experiences) who purely believe in the facts of evolution theories & other selfsame insights, somehow, some of them I have found to be contented, but yeah, they all are utterly dry & insensitive. Dry coz they don't believe in souls. Insensitive coz they don't believe in heaven & hell. And those who believe in something or in that someone or many, somewhere, up there, many of them seems to be discontented, with fake sensitivity but subsisting with some emotions. Fake sensitivity coz they feel that someone up there forgives everyone if they pray. And emotions coz they believe in souls. But for sure, nothing exists in Absolute. The contentment part can be switched.  

As contended by a physicist, those events which are rare, we surmise them as miracles, which is actually veracious. Furthermore, it seems preposterous but still logical to have this thought that whether divine beings were or are extraterrestrials that visited Terra once and might visit again! We might discover parallel universe, would be able to make exotic matters & worm holes and might take a trip to see what exists in this universe in the distant future, but how the hypothesis about 'why' and 'for what', would be concluded, I don't know, which in actuality is the utmost knowledge & wisdom one can achieve.

What exactly is being contended here is instead of subsisting with fear about something , one should try to evolve good conscience in their mind, which in true sense proffer peace.    

Ok! It's been said that one shouldn't keep animus towards anyone. Leave it on Karma. That gives quietude. But What exactly is the life cycle of Karma? It’s a profound terminology. But exactly how long one should wait or leave on Karma? The answer might be not available. But still it’s an utterly profound option to follow. Or else what, avenge? Nope. Wrong desire.

Am just comparing only the two sides. The tertiary or any other belief is not encompassed.

So who is at more peace? A being who sheds belief in divinity, emotions and engulf his/her mind with reasoning or logics? Who think his remains would be contributed to flora & fauna? Someone who thinks any kind of attachment is a mere poundage? Or someone who believes in that someone or many, up there, somewhere, who's looking at the deeds beneath deciding the fate, so if you do good, would be loved; do bad, would also be loved but only if you pray;which furthermore inculcate one to have emotions? Or Peace is just a state of mind, a calculated measure which deploys and activates a firewall whenever required which detaches you from all connectivity. Confounding!

Copyright ©  Pranav Chaturvedi 2015

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