I wanna blog!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The intervals between two successive posts on my blog are getting really long, and that is really bad cause it doesn't mean that I am not thinking or anything, it means that I am getting really lazy or I am so busy wasting my time that I can't get time to write....... anyway here's one after a really long time.... have done too many things in the meanwhile.. and even grew older!!!!

Somehow whenever I decide to write, I am always having deep,profound,serious thoughts on my mind and so nothing funny ever appears here. But believe me I am not the serious guy,the nerd... no way. I am normal, cheerful, fun-loving and all ... only that I am in IIT which I believe is a collection of the weirdest people in the country........... seriously. You have to be here to know.....

Sample this....... we had an off lecture followed by a really boring quantum physics lecture which I almost always sleep through. So we decided to bunk the same..... and while walking back stumbled upon this topic.... the discussions that led to the same were really different, I don't want to get into that...but the main point we considered was what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'.......

I know its a basic, fundamental, debatable topic since time imemmorial, but two long hours of debating, which did digress a lot, by the way, sparking off completely new thoughts about alcohol, Gandhiji and quantum mechanics, did shed light upon a lot of new things and was a nice learning experience too. Funny, how arbitrarily, walking back to the hostel, joking with friends
turns out to be a great lesson in life........

What is 'right' anyway? Is there is a difference between individual moral and right? Is there a universal 'right' and 'wrong'? One may say that universal right is what is right according to a majority of the society, but then again this clearly is not true. Copernicus was ridiculed and outcast because he propounded a 'right' against what was universally 'right' at that time.... so there arises a difference between considered 'right' by society or 'acceptance' and 'right'.....

So will it be better to say that 'right' is strictly individually defined? What is 'right' for me is what i believe in and want to do most? But then someone will want to murder his wife for being an infidel cause according to him it is against his morality and is 'wrong' for her to cheat on him. Zapping into her reference frame, 'right' to her is to satisfy her primary physiological desires which her husband fails to meet, etc etc..... just a difference of opinion.. and both of the perspectives are justifiable. Hell, even a suicide can easily justify the reason for him to end his life in a perfectly convincing argument, cause that is 'right' for him, and he is labelled a psycho by the society relying on 'acceptance'......

And what about all the teaching that goes on in school and college? Is what we are being taught 'right'? Its just that a number of scientists believe that something is true, makes it 'right'... this is going on majority opinion again. I will be called a fool if I say that all physics laws are all crap and that we are all in an interval of time delta-t in which everything thrown up falls back to the ground and a tomorrow will come when say we all will fly around..... to hell with all the things they teach us. We don't need no education...............long live the music of Floyd.

Anyway, what do we really infer? We agree upon the difference between acceptance and universal 'right'. And 'right' is a hybrid form of individual moral..... the real problem then is to define social morals, unacceptables.... the distinction is not very clear.

And then i just stumbled upon the same argument in a book I was reading... by Richard Bach (Running From Safety, awesome book, awesome author....) between him and his wife. He sums it up as follows. Right or good is what makes u happy which is a sense of well being.... its opposite is bad,wrong,unhappy. So right or wrong is individual. Also, consequences should be kept in mind. A murder may bring a temporary state of well-being, but consequences harm this state. And so on.....Pretty nice way to put it.

So what I really got from all this... what I really believe now is that yes, 'right' is for an individual to define, within limits. One is answerable to his own actions and decisions and so they should not bring any harm to society, in general... so no crime basically. Majority, polls,etc give only a cumulative measure of the individual 'right's, there is only social acceptance. There is no universal wrong and hence every opinion deserves existence and some amount of respect however ridiculous it may be. For lack of better techniques, decisions on the same should be taken by majority of perspective or opinion.

Think Think, Work Work................