@ Miss Muskan
"Aqal ko tanqeed sai fursat nhi
Eishq pai aamal kii buniaad rakh"
Your 'Tanqeed' on philosophy and politics is critically very critical....!!!
Actually love has inspirations for all positive looking people. You cannot say that 99% people never experience love. To find love in life is the desire of majority people. Everyone of them would want to find the pure love but with the passage of time or as a result of many influential aspects of practical life, sooner or later most of these people would ultimately find themselves among the class of 99% people. This is what they did not want but exactly this is what actually happens with them. Ultimately they have to change the priorities of their lives and so their love declines with time.
Even those people who never surrender before practical matters may or may not find their love. But in either case they save their original love from declining with the passage of time... They have more determination and association with their original priorities and commitments... So they prove themselves to be the true representatives of the world of emotions -- which is commonly not understandable to practical minded people...
These people may suffer losses also ... but they really promote the beuties of world.
@ Impossible..
Actually Ms. Qurat knows that I am part time King of all the Ootpatang people of the world. I had won election of kingship of Ootpatangs with heavy mandate. Shall you give me vote next time...??? But first you will have to prove that you are also ootpatang...
... Non-Ootpatangs are not entitled to vote..
Anyway, yes you are right .. People do sacrifice love for family... These people are among those who originally wanted to find pure love but at the end find themselves included in the class of 99% people... These are the realities and we must accept realities also.
@ Irum
Nice analysis...!
@ Smartanalyst
I think we, unlike common ppl, are not taking Jokes just for the sake of Jokes... We are trying to improve our understanding about a social and pyshological phenomenon...
@ Qurratulain
Quote:
|
I’ve not mentioned ‘be hoshi’ any where. I mentioned ‘josh’ and I think you can better differentiate between ‘be-hosi’ and ‘josh’.
|
Yes you had not mentioned 'be-hoshi' but you did mention 'hosh'...
Consider your following words:
"The differentiation of negative and positive emotions is possible only when a person is thinking practically (hosh)."
And the proper opposite of 'hosh' is 'be-hoshi' and NOT 'josh'
Hosh and Josh can exist together but 'hosh' and 'be-hoshi' cannot exist together...
So I was not wrong in discussing the implications of 'be-hoshi'. My real fault has been that I missed to discuss anything about 'Josh'...
Quote:
|
Totally disagree to the practical approach, and emotional as well. In my opinion emotional approach will be to ‘try to have his beloved through any way available’. While practical approach will be to find those hidden ways and strategies by which he can have his beloved. As far as the element of ‘wealth’ you mentioned, is not considerable, as ‘impossible’ has already mentioned in her titled post that ‘money’ can’t know the value of ‘love’. In your mentioned case, if the guy leaves her beloved for the purpose of wealth, then it means he’s not loyal. Or in other words there’s no love, and where there’s no love there’s no debate on ‘hosh’ and ‘josh’. But I want the description of your statement where y you said that, while in love a person should prefer emotions (josh) on practical aspect (hosh), and by preferring ‘josh’ he should distinguish between negative and positive consequences. I’m of the opinion that if a person goes after ‘josh’ he cant find better way outs of the problem, so he / she should not follow ‘josh’, instead he / she should be very practical in finding all the possible ways to have his/ her love.
|
First of all ... Just like Miss. Muskan, you are not considering 'declined' love as 'love' at all...
Whereas I have shown above that they also wanted to be loyal and commited to the original love... But circumstances of real practical world would change their priorities also.. You cannot consider these people as complete emotionless.
Your following statement is not clear:
"In my opinion emotional approach will be to ‘try to have his beloved through any way available’. While practical approach will be to find those hidden ways and strategies by which he can have his beloved."
I think that you are considering both 'emotional approach' and 'practical approach' as pro-love forces... which adopt different means with the view to achieve the common end i.e. love..
But you have not properly differentiated between those different 'means'...
Your 'emotional approach' as well as 'practical approach' are talking about single type of means ... i.e. "through any way available"....and... "hidden ways" .... And there is no essential difference between these two types of means... Because "through any way availble" can include "hidden ways" also...
My point of view is different from yours in that I consider 'emotional approach' as a pro-love approach ... whereas 'practical approach' as a sort of materialistic or selfish or non-loyelty type of approach ... and so as 'anti-love' approach..
Previously I had explained my point of view in terms of 'hosh' vs 'be-hoshi'. Since you have pointed it out, so now I am going to explain my point of view in terms of 'Hosh' vs 'Josh'
Remember that you had taken 'practicality' as 'hosh' and 'emotions' as 'josh' ... In this sense ... there is no conflict between 'practicality' and 'emotions'..
In this discussion, it was I who first had compared between 'practicality' and 'emotions'... And I had used these terms in conflicting sense...
Then in your reply ... you also should have used these two terms in conflicting sense ... but mistakenly you have taken these two terms as non-conflicting... I also have shown that you also could not bring any real difference between your non-conflicting 'practicality' and 'emotions' because your 'hosh' and 'josh' has no real or 'essentia' difference between them..
Now my point of view regarding 'Hosh' and 'josh':
Since you have applied these terms in non-conflicting sense... So I am also taking these terms in non-conflicting sense...
In my opinion, in the non-conflicting sense, a lover should not just be practical (in positive sense = hosh) but ... when it comes to love ... then one should be emotional (josh) also...
I try to explain it with example:
Consider a lover who is just practical and not emotional.. He realizes that practically it is very difficult to achieve his love. Since he is practical minded, so he would decide to not go after love and in this way would save himself from many difficulties and troubles.. In this way, he would just opt an easy way for him.
Now consider another lover who is practical minded in his routine life but also becomes emotional as a result of finding himself in love. In this case, his 'emotional' attitude would be that now he would not care for any difficulties or hurdels which are in the way of achievement of love. Now he would do all the POSSIBLE efforts with the view to achieve love..
He would not opt just easy way for him... He shall become emotional (in positive sense) and shall try to remove or to overcome all the difficulties of his way.
If the achievement of love was within possibility, though how much difficult it was, then most probably this positive emotional lover would successfully achieve his love.
But if the achievement of love was quite out of possibility, then this emotional lover may not be successful.
Now consider still another lover who is just emotional but not practical... What he shall do..?? If he is less emotional, then he always shall listen to sad songs ... since he shall not do any practical effort.. If he is more emotional, he can become singer of sad songs ... or can become an unsuccessful lover poet..
If he is still more emotional and still less practical, then he would tear up his clothes and would go to jungles and deserts...
Quote:
|
Well, I didn’t ask for any justification of ‘be-hosi’. As I mentioned earlier I wanted the role of ‘hosh’ and ‘josh’. And I’ve described my opinion above.
|
I also have described my point of view above..
Quote:
|
Again you are trying to baffle me in word’s perplexity (w.r.t an old post). But I must say that you should exclude this ‘be-hoshi’ from your list, See we are talking about rationality. And rationality is possible only in the absence of ‘be-hoshi’. If you still disagree then edit your post on Iqbalian philosophy of love in the thread “Why didn’t scientific revolution happen in Islam? By Pervaiz Hoodbhoy”
|
Well, I was not talking with reference to the terminology of that other thread.. Confusion has been created here just because I had used some terms in conflicting sense whereas you have talked about same terms in non-conflicting sense..
Now I have explained my point of view in non-conflicting sense also...
Quote:
|
Not intentions, preferences change over the time. If the ‘temporary intention’ changes then at least I don’t categorize such phenomenon as intention. Actually intention is a strong determination. And strong determination is not influenced by time. So if the determination is detoriating, that can’t be placed in the list of ‘intention’.
|
Everything... including intentions can change over time...
Simple meaning of 'intention' is what we want to do...
At first instance, this term gives the sense that what we now want to do, we always shall want to do the same...
But if you try to look somewhat deeply, the term 'intention' only suggests what NOW we want to do... More precisely ... in case of idea of 'evergreen' love .... We NOW want that love shall always be evergreen...
At a later stage, we can want to do something else. Intention of keeping the love evergreen is basically a commitment... Commitments need reinforcement... Commitments need continuous revivals ... Continuous re-commitments ... again and again re-commitments for the survival of the original commitment.
If any of these factors is missing... then any intention ... including the pure intention of keeping love evergreen... CAN BE CHANGED OVER TIME.
Quote:
|
Ok the case of emotional blackmailing is considerable, but you said that remaining unmarried is not a valid sacrifice. But at the same time in one of your post you mentiond Valid sacrifice would be that when one rejects a better option in favour one's lover. So here your definition of valid sacrifice is becomes invalid. Se, a person has a better option to marry some one else and have a good life, but he’s denying such good option to remain loyal with his beloved.
|
After lets say the marriage of beloved, lover would not be in a position to sacrifice anything in favour of beloved... Only sacrifice can be that he should let the beloved to forget him ... so that beloved should live a happy married life .... For this purpose, he himself also should try to forget the beloved... Agar wo beloved ke liye aahein bharta rahe ga... to may be he would be teasing the beloved ... may be he would be emotionally blackmailing the beloved...
Quote:
|
As I mentioned your definition of sacrifice as ambiguous above. But I think one should keep himself attached to some other constructive activity, rather than denying the options. I’d like to quote Amjad Islam Amjad jo mil gya ussay yaad rakh, jo nahi mila ussay bhool ja but I’m not fully agree with it as well. No doubt, person can’t forget his real love but he can keep himself attached to some constructive activities so that he can use his abilities for the benefits of others (if he don’t want to do himself he should do something for others)
|
Amjad Islam Amhad is absolutely right here... But "Jo nahi Mila" means that when all the chances have been finished... (Like all the three attempts of CSS) ... Aakhri chance se pehle lekin nahi bhoolna chahiye..
And I am not agreeing to your doctrine of "other constructive" activities...
This case would be similar to above mentioned singer of sad songs... or becoming poet of sad poetry etc...
I do agree with it ... but only for the case of 1% people... and not for any greater percentage...
Quote:
|
Again its ambiguous for me. please give a logical explaination.
|
The ambiguous thing for you had been my description of sacrifice by the beloved...
There was nothing ambiguous in that... Lover was doing some sacrifices which he never told to beloved ... because true sacrifices are only those which are never told to beloved...
What would be the 'sacrifice' by the beloved...????
Beloved should understande those sacrifices at her own... If she understands without having been expessively told, about the sacrifices of lover, and acknowledges those 'sacrifices'... this 'acknowledgement' would be her sacrifice for lover..
Even she does not understand ... just acts in a manner as if she is acknowledging the sacrifices (which may or may not be there in fact) .. of lover ... this type of acknowledgement by her would be another great sacrifice by the beloved...