When one speaks of something nice, it is always in respect with something, which is not so nice. For example, when we say that a particular rose is nice we are comparing it with other roses in the close propinquity of our memory or vision and then passing a so-called rational judgment. This singular orthodox method of discrimination seems to be inbred in us. Induced then, if not inbred. Let us come to the topic at hand. It was raised by a rather dubious doubt. We shall have it in conversation form for better comprehension of the point to be discussed cordially.

Before I launch in to the confab that started this in the first place, let me clear a point. I have not taken the physicality of the subjects into account because I'm dealing only with the metaphysics of selection. People would beg to differ because we all know how important physical apertures are to us and they offer another angle to our perspective on the entirety of the subjects.

Subject A: X's voice does not suit Y

Subject B: No it does.

A rather simple conversation when one speaks of descriptions of sorts. But what points were taken into consideration before the judgment was passed on X. One would think none really. Well let us look at it this way. Certain aspects of X had to be taken into consideration. Or else a rational judgment would have been a folly. Now take into consideration the occupation of X. He happens to be a singer. And he does a voice over for Y. And as per the conversation, X is not doing a good job of it.

But how does one come to that judgment. Whose talent is being scrutinized? Is the singer not good enough or is Y (actor) not compatible with the singer's voice. Do we take into account the acting prowess of Y and then coat it with the voice of X, making the acting capabilities of Y your yardstick for measuring their respective talents?

Or is it the other way round. In such a matter, I believe that individual prejudices must be accounted for. Then if subject A's analysis are taken in to account, according to his rationale, we would come to the conclusion that he believes that X is rather good to be doing a voice over for Y.

The same, in inverse, can be said for Subject B.

Who do you think is the more rational of the two? You'd probably say that each in his place is correct. Then why do you think that the two rights don't make a right? And why is there still a difference of opinion (Try not to think of this as minus into minus as plus, because numbers are not capable of displaying prejudice!).

If it appears to you that the point I'm making, or trying to make, is no point at all, please apply your disdain to the two people, namely A and B, without whom I don't believe, I could have upset you so.

Let us transverse to another topic. The sangfroid displayed by certain individuals in times of crisis has always been a thing of intrigue for me. In my limited experiences, regarding human emotions, I've seen people succumb to the most trivial matters of worry. Then they consequently go to great heights to minimize the trauma within. But then that is not the issue that I would like to dwell upon. The repeated discussions on the nature of depression and its subsequent diversities are rather...depressing.

Let us retain ourselves to the lighter side of such discussions.

The equanimity of certain individuals in the face of frightfully tense situations can be attributed to the fact that within them exists a perpetually indivisible hope that there is always a certain third solution to a problem that could, in full optimism, have only two solutions. But then how does one arrive at this third solution?

Belief in oneself is the sole strand of hope, one can hold onto, in the time of trying circumstances. When things start to look bleak, solace can be found within and the real worth of it is enhanced by the lack of understanding displayed by people around us.
But then, there are always our "best friends", our confidantes. But how does one confide in them the emotions that we, ourselves, are not so sure off. Maybe discussing it with them helps. But then their understanding of these emotions is their own. The emotions concern you, only because they are yours, the analysis being based on your friend's understanding, which may not be quite of your wavelength. Discussing it with friends is only a way of coming to a clearer understanding of the problem at hand. But the solution lies within you. Careful analysis of your conflicting emotions will lead you to the right path on untangling the mess within you.
Taking into account the individual ideologies of the people comprising a problem also helps in certain situations. One must approach a problem from three sides, your side, their side and then rationale's side.

As long as there is life, there is hope and as long as there is hope, there is a solution. It is a common clich

Current Mood: Preachy
Current Music: Colour Blind