Before dwelling into the post, a word or two seem(s) fitting with the latest developments around me. I have taken the liberty of sending an automated notification for every new post of mine to a select group of my friends/acquaintances. If anyone deems it to be a nuisance, or is uninterested, feel free to let me know that and I will make the necessary changes. Any of the other visitors interested in availing of the same, please let me know. I will be honored with the knowledge of a loyal reader. The second is that some people feel an aura of haughtiness in my blog posts, especially so due to the strong persuasive tone. I am sorry but I have always believed that truth is no body’s property. That I endorse something means that there is an ideal out there and I have found it to pass all my tests of reason. I make absolutely no claim to it. Besides with very little thinking, it will be obvious to anyone that every act is in some ways or the other an imitation of a previous one.
The current post has most of its underlying ideas from the previous posts. Since the casual reader has mostly missed them, and the abstract-averse ones have misinterpreted them, another ensemble seems reasonable. It seems almost impossible to make peace with people differing from us. The orthodox and the modern, the proponents of classic rock and those of modern punk/grunge, Mahesh’s fans and Pawan’s ,(the examples are endless) have always been warring. Expecting people to think exactly like us is dangerous on many accounts. If everybody were to like the macho man, where would the new-age metro-sexual go? Ditto with simpletons and flashy-females. You need both kinds of people- those who like the former and the others who like the latter. Expecting the same shoe size to cater to all is more of a fanatic whim based on little or no thinking. The situation that would result from exactly identical tastes of all populace is that of a moribund, stagnant equilibrium. This is the first problem – that having identical tastes is disastrous, in that it is morbid.
The second point is that there is no rationale in a preference. You cannot deduce a preference. Mostly it is so that you ‘prefer’ something (because of sensual causality) and then substantiate it. This is "the" sequence of steps and not the reverse, i.e. you don’t reason it out first. Somehow I got used to listening to Bon Jovi and then I saw the positives in the band – good lyrics, ballads etc. Again, what can be reasons for liking something can be equally good reasons for not liking it. That Bon Jovi composes good ballads has him termed a sissy by heavy metal fans. Further, what we perceive is our own world. As much as it appears and appeals to us that there is a common basis for preferences, I am afraid there is none. The differences in perceptions are subtle for normal people; but can best be exemplified in the extreme case of a blind guy denying the existence of sun because he doesn’t see it!! The same it has been with preferences.
It is not a’ matter of fact’ ly dynamic (like the sun rising in the east), this process of liking something, for all of us to have the same set of preferences. Knowing that it cannot be so, I request people to have greater conviction in their tastes and not rub them onto others. A step further, all these tastes are sub-sets of a super set. Like sarcasm, farce, and other kinds of humor are parts of the ‘whole’ called humor; the whole doesn’t exist without the parts. This whole and part relation is the necessity of variation.