More of a dilemma than a paradox. Perhaps, this is a choice one has to make inescapably, at least once in life. If ever there was a need to configure the pros and cons fo anything at all, I'm sure this contentious issue could be summoned to be the perfect food for thought. I have fellow beings talking about their ego, publicly that is. I'm just wondering if an egoist could actually be so blatantly blurteous about his/her ego. So, the very claim of being an egoist turns out to be all the more ironical. White Bear Phenomenon ? :P.
Having witnessed a considerable number of specimens of the so-called elite species of women, I'm somewhat intuitive of this dilemma prevailing in them( the losable lover or the lovable loser). Well, it's definitely not something to be critical about. But the whole idea of turning a simple choice into a gut wrenching dilemma is kinda thought provoking, nevertheless extremely entertaining to watch. A trade-off of sorts, the inherent qualities of being a good lover and being a genuine loser, are conflicting, but only peripherally (those who got the joke-> lol). It seems to be some kind of portfolio management. To be precise on the idea, you always intend to keep your options at hand. Now, that I've already framed the analogy, let me intrigue myself deeper and pour your brain into the bowl of abstraction , then, beat it unsympathetically into the proverbial yogurt.( this imagination by the way is indebted to the ever un-understandable idiom - Dimaag ka Dahi !). Investors, in particular, are a breed of gentlemen and not so gentle women, who in their incessant desire to get rich invest their already puffing bank balances into endeavors promulgated by others. The motives are comprehensively simple, to get rich. But somehow, by the virtues of common sense they do realise that the birth of every winner is an inevitable vindication of at least two losers, one being the loser himself and the other who made him realise that he really was one, and therefore winning as a proposition is not always equally likely. The standard panacea is to play low: Risk Averse Strategy. The so-called beta of such an investment is lower, guaranteeing the investor more safety than high returns. Nevertheless,on the flip side( risk lovers), there is always a collegium waiting to break free , longing to invest unscrupulously , carrying beneath their skin the fear of losing it all one day, the dramatically obvious Losable Lovers.
Somehow, I always try to conclude the paragraph with a personal take on the subject, but I guess, this time I just don't fit the context. If at all,though forcibly,I had to attach myself to a respectable category , I'll place myself in the section of losable losers , not that I'm particularly regretful of being one, quite on the contrary, I'm not regretful at all. Sometimes, having getting to see the fate of losable lovers and lovable losers and its effect on their respective counterparts is just too much fun. ;)
Having witnessed a considerable number of specimens of the so-called elite species of women, I'm somewhat intuitive of this dilemma prevailing in them( the losable lover or the lovable loser). Well, it's definitely not something to be critical about. But the whole idea of turning a simple choice into a gut wrenching dilemma is kinda thought provoking, nevertheless extremely entertaining to watch. A trade-off of sorts, the inherent qualities of being a good lover and being a genuine loser, are conflicting, but only peripherally (those who got the joke-> lol). It seems to be some kind of portfolio management. To be precise on the idea, you always intend to keep your options at hand. Now, that I've already framed the analogy, let me intrigue myself deeper and pour your brain into the bowl of abstraction , then, beat it unsympathetically into the proverbial yogurt.( this imagination by the way is indebted to the ever un-understandable idiom - Dimaag ka Dahi !). Investors, in particular, are a breed of gentlemen and not so gentle women, who in their incessant desire to get rich invest their already puffing bank balances into endeavors promulgated by others. The motives are comprehensively simple, to get rich. But somehow, by the virtues of common sense they do realise that the birth of every winner is an inevitable vindication of at least two losers, one being the loser himself and the other who made him realise that he really was one, and therefore winning as a proposition is not always equally likely. The standard panacea is to play low: Risk Averse Strategy. The so-called beta of such an investment is lower, guaranteeing the investor more safety than high returns. Nevertheless,on the flip side( risk lovers), there is always a collegium waiting to break free , longing to invest unscrupulously , carrying beneath their skin the fear of losing it all one day, the dramatically obvious Losable Lovers.
Somehow, I always try to conclude the paragraph with a personal take on the subject, but I guess, this time I just don't fit the context. If at all,though forcibly,I had to attach myself to a respectable category , I'll place myself in the section of losable losers , not that I'm particularly regretful of being one, quite on the contrary, I'm not regretful at all. Sometimes, having getting to see the fate of losable lovers and lovable losers and its effect on their respective counterparts is just too much fun. ;)
No comments:
Post a Comment