The previous post did not start out the way I’d thought it would go. I had ‘intended’ to do something else other than purely observing and theorizing in an anemic (lack of meaning) way. But it was nevertheless important as a prelude to this post.

I was reading some Iris Murdoch earlier and she quotes Professor Hampshire, “It is essential to thought that it takes its own forms and follows its own paths without my intervention, that is, without the intervention of my will. I identify myself with my will. Thought when it is most pure, is self-directing. No process of thought could be punctuated by acts of will, voluntary switchings of attention and retain its status as a continuous process of thought. It seems that I cannot present my own belief in something as an achievement because by so presenting it, I would disqualify it as belief.”

It struck me as interesting on the first count because my search for the thesis topic was not characterized by an act of thought (as I’ve suspected and hated on it). I truly think that thought, when attacked by an especially heavyweight will is anemic compared with the thought raised as a free-ranger.

And I shall adopt the free-ranger into my life, into the blog, however ironic and contradictory the action is w.r.t. to its principle. So far, I have been doing neither. And as a reference to the previous 2 posts, that is how my stint shall start again in a while. Viva.