In the end, good prevails. Or does it?
Like (former) bloggers the world over, twitter has certainly caused serious damage to some serious writing being produced. It is so much more convenient to not have to articulate or substantiate one's ideas. To someone like me who always struggled to find a nice ending, it is a total bliss. This post is not about micro-blogging v/s full blown blogging but more about the cyclical nature of things.
For the longest duration, preachers of good moral values cite an idea that good always prevails over evil. This idea used for anything from a morale booster for the oppressed and depressed to justifying which path has greater longevity and hence a wiser long term choice.
Time & time again, we see good things except of course that it doesn't last forever. Both the philosopher and the physicist will tell you that the problem is with the notion of what "end" is. There used to be a time a when where the end came after a person's end. We live in a decade where I doubt if either an Eric Clapton or a Kishore Kumar has been produced. We live in an age where a 10 year age difference warrants being labelled as a generation gap.
What all of this makes apparent is that there never was an end and moreover, good is not perpetual. Else by now, we should hardly be left with any bad. This is not meant to be sad story on why good is not forever. We all know what makes good so valuable is the lack of its universal presence. Just trying to call bluff on a fairy tale.
Personally, I am not satisfied with this post but the only way to get back in the groove is by actually resuming the habit of writing.
For the longest duration, preachers of good moral values cite an idea that good always prevails over evil. This idea used for anything from a morale booster for the oppressed and depressed to justifying which path has greater longevity and hence a wiser long term choice.
Time & time again, we see good things except of course that it doesn't last forever. Both the philosopher and the physicist will tell you that the problem is with the notion of what "end" is. There used to be a time a when where the end came after a person's end. We live in a decade where I doubt if either an Eric Clapton or a Kishore Kumar has been produced. We live in an age where a 10 year age difference warrants being labelled as a generation gap.
What all of this makes apparent is that there never was an end and moreover, good is not perpetual. Else by now, we should hardly be left with any bad. This is not meant to be sad story on why good is not forever. We all know what makes good so valuable is the lack of its universal presence. Just trying to call bluff on a fairy tale.
Personally, I am not satisfied with this post but the only way to get back in the groove is by actually resuming the habit of writing.