Jorge Luis Borges had said somewhere that whatever happens, happens to “me”! Thousand of thousands people in the world and yet whatever happens, happens only to “me” : The universe is always a subjective experience.
Let’s stretch it further and fix in a discourse of different hue. Recently I have arrived at this notion that there is something lousy, self reproachful, even immoral in assuming that the "other" can be correct. Not that it can't be, but there is no way in the world you can control or regulate it. If the "other" decides to not seeing it straight or if he is simply incapable of doing it, then there is no way in the world you can make him see straight. If the "other" counts only vowels in a keyboard and develop a syntax based upon it, you can't help make him understand that there are only five vowels which leave out one and twenty characters in all and hence "other"'s is not just a flawed syntax, but it is a completely non existent one and there is no way you can arrive over a so called "consensus"on it with the "other", only to appear democratically inclusive.
The Consensus, after all, is a hypothesis which takes it for granted that all people are on the same page. But if a Dissent is politically motivated, you can’t for your life make them understand what you want them to understand. Thus the democratic consensus will become a utopian idea. You can’t arrive it. But you can’t be wrong simply because you can’t arrive it, can you?
Therefore, it is not only self loathing of the worst kind, a deception to oneself, but it's also immoral in the deep sense to hope and assume that the other can be correct at the expense of my intellectual honesty.
When I look around, I find people still struggling with the notions I had seen through full 17-18 years back, in my raw adolescent, in the company of great minds. I had seen through notions of God, religion, relationships, social order, social justice, class struggle, individuality, masters and converts, even back then. I see people around me still struggling with them. This is not their fault that they never encountered a Dostoyevsky yet, but then it is not my fault either if I choose to leave them out of my perception making process and not pretend to be inclusive just because they want me to be.
What I perceive, can't be absolute (it will be only subjective at best, especially if I don't know the art of metamorphosis) but then how can what "other" thinks can necessarily make it absolute? In any case we are more likely to be driven by subjective truths instead of objective ones. We are destined to. Still, I would always look forward to come across barrier free minds for whom ideology is not a pastime but something deeply ethical, as what I think is what I am, not the other way round. I would always look to come across such bright minds, but I must say, it's not going to happen very often.
Dear me, Be a martyr at the altar of ideas. Cross examine yourself thoroughly. Get yourself absorbed in an act of self indictment, a holy trial and emerge out of your ashes, victorious. Don't hope that "other" too will do it and you don't abide by "other"'s morality anyway. Be brave enough to be politically incorrect and say, there are more chances of me being correct than you and I will be delighted if you too get it straight more often. I will relish it. And beware of a Democratic consensus. It is a heinous lie, a condemned strategy more often than not. Beware of a group with manufactured consent. A group shouting slogans. They no longer can hear themselves thinking and wouldn't want you to do it either.