myreplyis.com asked in Humanities 20th May '16:What is positive about "being rejected"?. How should rejection be taken?.
Manosh Chowdhury replied 6th Jun '16:
This question risks of falling into rhetoric, as the authority of the rejecting entity has not been assumed here. There must be a huge difference between being ‘rejected’, regardless of its meaning perceived by the actors at that point, by a corporate employer in an interview board, and by a boy or girl in some potential affair or psychosexual relationship, for say.
‘Rejection’ has become such a serious issue precisely because of the rise of ‘individualism’ in making the modern personhood and subject. So I am of the opinion that dealing with ‘rejection’ has lot to do with sheer understanding of the contemporary power structures and agencies. The process is political as well as philosophical.
I, precisely because of my social background, had to face a series of ‘rejection’ in my entire life, if that is the right concept to use. And on every occasion, I came out with more acute understanding of the power-structure with its complex expressions.
But I guess the question is partly related with the ‘rejections’ that are evident in psychosexual atmosphere. I think people need to understand many shades of what is known as ‘laws of attraction’. On consensual basis, one has to be prepared for ‘rejections’ for it works only in a fluid manner. Any approach has enormous possibilities, almost infinite ones. On the other hand, any approach can end up with producing a dead-end. The psychosexual domain mostly is formed by the playfulness of the words/language. The course of actions often has many open-ended possibilities. While someone is vulnerable with probable ‘rejection’, s/he must be playing with words so that no ‘rejection’ would be possible. And of course, ‘play’ should not be taken as a moral; this is exactly as in ‘laws of attraction’.
I would like to know what ‘rejection’ actually is meant here.View all replies to this question
myreplyis.com asked in Humanities 21st Oct '13:In reference to the History of the world. Which period, aspect, and or detail of History are you most fascinated by, please elaborate why?
Manosh Chowdhury replied 20th Nov '13:
As a student of society and culture, I have developed quite a disbeliever kind of statue. I think I should light on that aspect first. I do not have faith in any such “world history” that can serve to diverse interests, identities and cultural entities. In this line, “history of the world” has been purely an academic category to me full of assumed premises, if not of gross manipulations, and provides an acute paradigmatic impulse to the human thought of the later years.
Considering the given periodical history of the world, I further am skeptical about the phases that are referred to both as specific stages and particular set of values. But to engage with the very question, I would rather identify roughly 16th and 17th century specifically of European history. Fascination may not be the best word to describe what I really feel about this phase with the certain aspect accompanying it. Rather I feel this phase with a series of intermingled acts has affected the ‘world history’ so devastatingly that the hu[wo]mankind have got irreversible route.
Two major aspects of this phase are: a) invention or import of the fire arms to the European emperors; b) invention of the sailing technology to a larger scale. No matter how disperses and different tradition of fireworks and firearms were there around the world, the concentration of the technology to the ever-empowering and self-obsessed emperors twisted the route of firearms drastically. It coincided with the ambition of sailing over the ocean, not only to ‘discover’ the world, but also to ‘collect’ new things. On a shorter note, I must say ‘voyage’ has a complex meaning in the Western history. While I am very aware of the probable threat of posed Occidentalism, I would playfully contend that ‘pilgrimage’ and ‘voyage’ could be two metaphors, very unfortunate though, to underline a major trajectory of the World History. While ‘pilgrimages’ opened up thoughts and bondages, ‘voyages’ ended up with brutal killing and extraction. This is not to blame a group of people. But to have an understanding of the History of World, this phase with it’s accompanying devices should be taken apart, as I do feel.View all replies to this question