A Dialogue

This post is actually in reply to a comment on one of my previous posts Ignorance is Bliss. I consider it a good piece of thought, and chose to make it an independent post in itself, given that it should not go unnoticed as a comment.

Its not a fascination about death, but only a conscious choice that a person faces, when he arrives at that point based on the previous arguments. Understanding life is an ongoing process since known history, and I’m sure you would agree with me, that humanity has made significant progress in that direction. Based on this fact, it is imperative that we cannot come to the conclusion that we can never understand why we live completely.There is a hypothesis that we simply cannot know about life in its entirety because we are not biologically and psychologically equipped enough for that mighty a task. And maybe we do need hardware changes, but evolution will take care of it, if it is indeed necessary. But since evolution is an ongoing process in itself, we as individuals are also playing a role in it. So let’s do think and contribute, and in doing so, we might be planting seeds for an increase in the said neuronal connections.

If we agree that attainment of bliss is the aim, many religions promise bliss and eternity. But we do not blindly go by all their rules. We use what we believe is our better discretion. And regarding anything, “how” is a much simpler question at times, because we can answer it through observation (be it even statistical) and through experimental science. But when we ask “why?”, it more often than not gives rise to a paradoxical never ending line of thought. One such example is regarding the creation of the universe, where an infinite causal regress arises.

Thinking about thought itself is perhaps what psychologists most definitely do, and philosophers sometimes stumble upon. But we should know that thought cannot think about itself without the initiator of the first thought in that cycle. So we should be sure that it is we who think about thought, which comprised of other thoughts.

Yes, we have built upon the thoughts of other people, though flawed they are. But we do not have a better way, for if we do not do that, we wouldn’t have any scope for progress – the one thing much craved by humanity in the present day. But in our process, we try by all means to identify and rectify the flaws committed by the people before us, in hope of a better outcome. In fact, that’s what philosophical dialogue is all about. Talking about the bliss due to the two different types of ignorance, true ignorance and willful ignorance, it is implicit that the bliss is of a different kind in both, in the sense that it arises from a different combination of feelings in both cases, but nevertheless be called as bliss, based on the definition of the word.

It is most definitely we, who are making ourselves happy, but we do so with the help of a complex combination of a plethora of aspects in and around our lives, and that’s just the way human life is. If we were to engineer and synthesize happiness willingly and forcibly, then we would perhaps be equivalent to lab rats, and a majority of us do not find that idea very pleasant. That said, many of us do make a positive attempt in that direction, because happiness is a dire need. But just because happiness can happen synthetically doesn’t mean that it does not happen through other means, and so does bliss happen through ignorance.



  1. bvprvishnu2 · December 21, 2016

    Watch this, Rishi!! most of our assumptions cannot be true.. https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy


    • Rishi Abhishek Rongala · December 21, 2016

      Hey! I have watched that video long back. I do not understand what your exact point is. If you’re trying to reassert that happiness can be synthesized, then perhaps you have missed that I have already agreed to it. I’m adding that not only can it be synthesized, but it also can be natural! This is mentioned in that particular video as well. And I still assert that we would not be interested in ‘forcibly’ synthesizing happiness, for that would simply not be happiness anymore, because real happiness is something we eagerly look forward to.

      If you are talking on a psychological basis, then it is obvious that we in some or the other way, try to be happy with the way we are, with whatever we have. In that sense, you can say that we ‘synthesized’ it. But that’s a different thing altogether, because anything and everything we feel is in a way ‘synthesized’ by our brains.


      • bvprvishnu2 · December 22, 2016

        Wow!! … I dare to say that we synthesized world to feel privileged, and confusing it to be real happiness. Happiness is constant and there is no unreal happiness. We both are in two parallel universes of our own, Rishi. I believe in asking ‘How’ is better and you seem to like ‘Why’ a bit more. It’s good. Biodiversity.. Lol.


      • Rishi Abhishek Rongala · December 22, 2016

        We can never say that we are confusing something to be ‘real happiness’ because the only reality we experience is our perceptional reality. And in this case, since the entire human species is in question, we can extrapolate that the only reality of humans is the reality which we as a race collectively perceive. Your two statements are in fact self contradictory, since you say that there is no unreal happiness, and also that we are confusing unreal happiness to be real happiness!


  2. bvprvishnu2 · December 23, 2016

    The word ‘Real happiness’ is your term from the paragraph. I thought of explaining it in your terms. But, you missed the real point there and caught the wrong train. There is no unreal happiness but the unreal civilisation everywhere, who think building ego is more important than doing the work itself and consider the gratification of our senses as the only ‘happiness’ which actually isn’t happiness at all. You think blind and deaf people do not have happiness or what. Let me tell you happiness is not there outside in anything. If you think as human beings we should consider perceptional reality as the only reality then I think we will be no better than ‘Heaven’s Gate group’. Manipulation can go to a whole different level, for a basic example, read paper on “Investigation of the Effects of Color on Judgments of Sweetness” . “Satisfaction” is different from “gratification”. Happiness is much more subtler and rudimentary than both of them. Just like you cannot explain how do you lift your hand you can just feel and have happiness. Like the parable in which somebody asked Buddha, “I want happiness” and where Buddha replies to remove the words “I” and “want”, all that remains is happiness. It may seem a trivial one, there is world of hypothesis that can be inferred from it.


    • Rishi Abhishek Rongala · December 23, 2016

      Firstly, there’s no ‘unreal civilization’ everywhere! Its ridiculous to label an entire civilization as unreal when we can perceive their existence within the level which we consider reality. Maybe there’s a civilization with your said characteristics, but if you call that unreal, then your statement is of no use in effect. And no, I did not anywhere say that I think blind and deaf people do not have happiness, and neither did I say that we should consider perceptional reality as the only reality. I said that the ‘only reality which we can experience’ is our perceptional reality!! Now its obvious that there’s a ton of difference between what I said and what you are stating. However, as you said, happiness might be rudimentary than both of your mentioned things, but unfortunately, that is not one of my concerns at the moment, as I am not into examining the nature of happiness, at the moment


  3. bvprvishnu2 · December 23, 2016

    I think always words fail in describing most of the things…same words are attached to different memories and arouse different emotions in two different people. I think we should read for understanding not just for replying. Read it again until you comprehend it properly. Be quick but don’t hurry 🙂


  4. bvprvishnu2 · December 23, 2016

    And by unreal civilisation, I meant not, that people are some kind of hallucinations but what people are running for are! I think this dialogue is getting nowhere and becoming a contest of emotions rather than a discussion to bring out a result. Lets end this conversation. What say we call a tea break?


    • Rishi Abhishek Rongala · December 24, 2016

      Yep, words are ambiguous, and I take their actual meanings usually, so couldn’t get what you felt you were expressing. We know text is a relatively inefficient form of communication.

      Yeah we are free to end this here. I’ve had a very stimulating experience with you!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s