Waiting -- Oj's Witless Brevity 10

Dear kaniths,

I can see that the wise old owl has already answered the question you've asked. I think I would have answered on his behalf more or less along the same lines. And I might perhaps have done so by quoting the great Bengali poet Jibananda Das. The title of the poem was "A Day Eight Years Ago." Here is a quick (hence bad) translation of the last stanza.

oj

 

I know man. I know. See my response to kaniths!!
oj

 

Dear Sairindhri,

The wise owl is enjoying far more than waiting for oj's silly brevities. He enjoys LIFE. Starting from one end of eternity to the other end.
oj

 

Dear Kerman,

Who's waiting for the end? The universe of thought, is quite endless!! One can wait endlessly, not FOR the end!

kaku

 

No Viswa, I don't agree with you about the "duty" part. I have no duty to attend to. When questions relate to the abstraction of the mind, I am not duty bound at all except possibly to the structure of art. Even about that I am not too sure. Like Shelley's Cloud, "Like a child from the womb, like a ghost from the tomb/ I arise and unbuild ..." all that was ever built. I destroy everything that I represent, for I feel no duty to preserve, no duty to reach any goal worth its name. I don't even know if cogito leads to sum. Whatever Satchi may have to say.

oj

 

I think I agree with you Ashima10. Change is the only kind of constancy in the universe. This point was recently discussed in IL. I forget in which thread.
oj

 

Dear Savitha,

What a lovely point of view! Waiting for expression. Let them pour like the monsoon rains from heaven to the place beneath. In endlessly many colours and shapes. Wait, just you wait. Remember, even if vaguely, that you did wait.

oj-da

 

Can't follow the last sentence. Typos?

For the rest, is this what you mean? Availability of "Choice" suggests a perception of multiple action possibilities. "No Choice" stands for the alternative perception of a limited set (mostly a singleton) of available actions. "Choice", once exercised, is an action. But the availability of "Choice" need not lead to choosing. I may have the choice of eating an ice-creaming or a cake, but I may not eat either. But if the choice set consists of two elements, say going to jail and running away, probably an action will follow, voluntarily or involuntarily. "No choice" by contrast should lead to an action. "No Choice" but to keep one's mouth shut should imply a corresponding action. How about "No Choice" but to exercise a "Choice" though?

Anyway, much of these follow from the Cartesian logical frame, which claims to distinguish without any doubt between x and not x. Dialectical logic stands opposed to this course of thought.

More rubbish.

oj