Wednesday, February 27, 2008
The highest Good
The intoxication of self-feeling is the most intense, and the height of this intoxication is most admired
-- Soren Kiekergaard
A: Can you tell me, what is the highest 'good'?
B: Yes, actions that are 'selfless' are of highest good.
A: Are just saying philanthropic actions are good.
B: By selfless actions I don't mean just the so called 'philanthropic' actions. I consider, any action performed for its own sake, as good.
A: What you are saying seems to resemble Aristotle?? What do you exactly mean?
B: I think those actions that let one person forget about himself/herself are inherently good. When a musician performs passionately; when a tennis player gets ready to return a serve; when a scientist discusses the veracity of a theory with his colleague; possibly even when the cashier is in the midst of counting cash -- there is a possibility of the doer of the above actions losing track of themselves.It is possible that they forget their identity and in that instant, whatever they are doing is not for themselves. If that possibility manifests, then I think the action is of highest good.
A: What about "inaction"?
B: Inaction means that the person is not even thinking. When a person does not even think, then by definition he forgets about himself/herself and so inaction would be of highest good. As Ramana maharishi would say, "Of all thoughts that arise in the mind the "I" thought is the first".
A: Then would "suicide" would be of highest good?
B: No it would not. You are probably saying that since it leads to "inaction" and I had earlier considered "inaction" a part of highest good. But note that this is an action done to yourself because you think it will lead to "good". So it is an action where the doer is aware of himself and will not be a part of the "highest good".
A: Any practical significance??
B: One may have different kinds of acquaintances with different people. With some interactions, it seems the focus is more on the self, than others. I would say those kind of interactions, will not lead to "progress".
A: Are you saying that one should limit such kinds of interactions? At a more general level, are you saying one should limit actions that are not part of the "highest good"?
B: I am not sure.
A: Your theory doesn't seem to be very useful. OK, what about this conversation, is this a part of "highest good"?
B: I have been aware of myself in this discussion -- in other words, there seems to be slight pride when I am proposing this theory -- this is like "MY" theory. No, this would not be a part of highest good.
-- Soren Kiekergaard
A: Can you tell me, what is the highest 'good'?
B: Yes, actions that are 'selfless' are of highest good.
A: Are just saying philanthropic actions are good.
B: By selfless actions I don't mean just the so called 'philanthropic' actions. I consider, any action performed for its own sake, as good.
A: What you are saying seems to resemble Aristotle?? What do you exactly mean?
B: I think those actions that let one person forget about himself/herself are inherently good. When a musician performs passionately; when a tennis player gets ready to return a serve; when a scientist discusses the veracity of a theory with his colleague; possibly even when the cashier is in the midst of counting cash -- there is a possibility of the doer of the above actions losing track of themselves.It is possible that they forget their identity and in that instant, whatever they are doing is not for themselves. If that possibility manifests, then I think the action is of highest good.
A: What about "inaction"?
B: Inaction means that the person is not even thinking. When a person does not even think, then by definition he forgets about himself/herself and so inaction would be of highest good. As Ramana maharishi would say, "Of all thoughts that arise in the mind the "I" thought is the first".
A: Then would "suicide" would be of highest good?
B: No it would not. You are probably saying that since it leads to "inaction" and I had earlier considered "inaction" a part of highest good. But note that this is an action done to yourself because you think it will lead to "good". So it is an action where the doer is aware of himself and will not be a part of the "highest good".
A: Any practical significance??
B: One may have different kinds of acquaintances with different people. With some interactions, it seems the focus is more on the self, than others. I would say those kind of interactions, will not lead to "progress".
A: Are you saying that one should limit such kinds of interactions? At a more general level, are you saying one should limit actions that are not part of the "highest good"?
B: I am not sure.
A: Your theory doesn't seem to be very useful. OK, what about this conversation, is this a part of "highest good"?
B: I have been aware of myself in this discussion -- in other words, there seems to be slight pride when I am proposing this theory -- this is like "MY" theory. No, this would not be a part of highest good.
Monday, February 04, 2008
A real fast track
The brisbane pitch for the India v Srilanka one dayer is a real fast track. In fact it is so fast that is giving an illusion of lesser bounce.
With no seam movement, it is a battiing beauty.
With no seam movement, it is a battiing beauty.
