PS Malik speaks on: Male needs Polygyny, Man finds Monogamy (Problem Part)

Male needs Polygyny, Man finds Monogamy I (Problem Part)

Human race was evolved biologically and then it raised itself culturally. Doctrines, morals, ethics, laws etc. are all part of this culture which the human race has developed. But different localities developed their cultures differently. They have variations.

The manner of procreation is one such area where this diversity is more noticeable. In defining and reshaping the better and appropriate mode of natural and non artificial mode of procreation we have to delve into the psyche of human beings as a species rather than as a political entity.

Politically there is no difference between a man and a woman. They both have rights to cast equal votes and perform same or similar political objectives. But some people, after starting it from this political equality have stretched it too far. They want to undo all the difference between man and woman even that difference is far beyond the political domain. For example, despite being of different physical structure and mental psyche woman was forced to pursue a political slogan and were asked to do the same things as a man used to do by his very nature.

There are so many areas of such forced compulsions. It is not possible to deal with all of them here in this small article. For the purpose only one such area is chosen and that is – procreation.

There are so many aspects of procreation also. Culturally in Hindu mythology before creating this world Lord Brahma created five mental creations i.e. Sanak, Sanandan, Sanat, Sanatan and Ribhu Kumar. These were determination, joy, authenticity, continuity and the effort. In fact these were the five broad principles on which this world was later created by him. Out of these five basic principles the second is joy. If Sanatan (i.e. the procreation) is not coupled with Sanandan (i.e. the joy) then this would have been a mistake of the Nature and the population of this world would have not increased so smoothly.

Similar parables are there in Christian mythology where the Adam and Eve were blessed with the joy (apple) and temptation for the continuity (the Satan). They had temptation to have joy and procreate. All cultures had attached joy with procreation in one or the other forms.

Some anthropologists contend that this was merely a manifestation of a physically existing fact in nature. But this epistemological discussion is not the objective here. The objective is to implore the Biological truth behind these cultural metaphors. This article seeks to delve into an area of human existence where this Political Entity “Man” is a Biological Being “Male”; where the Political Entity “Woman” is a Biological Being “Female”; and where this Cultural Process of “Procreation” is called Evolutionary Compulsion “Mating”.

For the complete article please visit:

Male needs Polygyny, Man finds Monogamy I

http://www.psmalik.com/articlehub/41-i/142-mi.html

My Website:        http://www.psmalik.com/

My Blogs: http://www.psmalik.com/bl.html

PS Malik speaks on: Male needs Polygyny, Man finds Monogamy (Problem Part)

Shreyas Malik

My Website is psmalik.com

My Blogs are at Blogs

My other Website is searchingone.com

Posted via email from Pratap's posterous

PS Malik speaks on: Who is the Biggest - Me, My Mind or My God?

Who is the biggest Me, My Mind or My God?

This is a question you generally ask. You want to know the hierarchy; you want to know your position in the hierarchy so that you become satisfied. Others also ask it. They ask because they are not satisfied with what they know about it. They want to remove their dissatisfaction. They are dissatisfied with them and their information about their place. They have disturbance in them; in their minds. They invoke God just to inflate their status. God is merely an excuse. They want to give credence to their disturbance. They want either to repel the inconvenient part of their knowledge or they want a support to the convenient portion of their fumbling knowledge. But they want to know.

A good number of you claim that they know that they are an atman – a soul. They know that there is a God. They know that the God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. They learnt doctrines. On any availability of a chance you can speak a lot about you, your atman, your mind and your God. More learned you are more equipped you are to tell about you, your atman, your God and other related things and ideas.

On the other hand some of you know that you are a physical body; well proportionate mixture of chemicals which in their particular proportion create a sensation of self perception. You know hundreds of books on this aspect and further thousands of articles telling about the cosmological theories of celestial bodies. You claim to know the permutation of the celestial bodies, gravitational pull among them, conversion of celestial dust into white dwarf stars or the supernova via the state of being a star. You have theories in support of each of your arguments.

There are some others amongst you who are well indoctrinated about amino acids, developmental chronology of organic process on the planet earth, chromosomes, genes and a scores of concepts which were written by their predecessor colleagues in library books.

You know yourself either as a spirit i.e. atman or you know yourself as a physical body. Some of you might be knowing yourself as a combination of both of the atman and the body. Some others of you would be knowing yourself as a psychosomatic entity. Still some more among are possible who would be knowing yourself in some other ways, other permutations or combinations. Whatever form of yourself you know is an information based knowledge; a knowledge of yourself. You have a knowledge of yourself as you have the knowledge of parks in your locality, as you have the knowledge of rivers in a particular state or the knowledge of human skeleton as given in the books of biology. Your this knowledge flows from the information you receive. You know a fact on the basis of an information as it is made available to you. Please take notice that you know these facts of information as these are made available to you. You have not generated this knowledge. You have merely received an information from those to whom you appreciate and respect for their knowledge. But their knowledge is again a bundle of informations as it was yours. The only difference is the number of sticks in that bundle; the number of informations in that knowledge.

For complete article please visit:

Who is the biggest Me, My Mind or My God?

http://www.psmalik.com/articlehub/41-i/75-w.html

My Website:        http://www.psmalik.com/ 

My Blogs: http://www.psmalik.com/bl.html

PS Malik speaks on: Who is the Biggest – Me, My Mind or My God?

Shreyas Malik

My Website is psmalik.com

My Blogs are at Blogs

My other Website is searchingone.com

Posted via email from Pratap's posterous

PS Malik speaks on: BASIC INSTINCT

PS Malik speaks on: BASIC INSTINCT

 WILD BASIC INSTINCT

A recently released M.I.T. study confirms something that men have known for a long time: the sight of a beautiful woman is sufficient to cause a man to think of procreation.

As the Associated Press reports, “Beauty is working similar to a drug," said Dan Ariely of Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Sloan School of Management, a co-author of the study.

Researchers showed a group of heterosexual men in their mid-20s pictures of men and women of varying attractiveness, while measuring the brain's responses through computer imaging.

The beautiful women were found to activate the same "reward circuits" as food and cocaine do. The men had a negative reaction to pictures of good-looking males, suggesting they were threatened by them, study author Hans Breiter said.

Breiter said evidence that beauty stimulates these primal brain circuits has never been shown. He said the findings counter arguments that beauty is nothing more than the product of society's values.

“There are lessons to be learned from this study”, said the researcher, “but they are not the lessons the media seek to draw from it.”

First, the fact that males are attracted to females is not surprising. The desire for procreation is known as an instinct. Thus, the fact that the male brain reacts to the sight of a woman in the same way that it reacts to food is to be expected. Men are literally wired to respond in a particular way.

Liking for food is basis of the life itself. Without food one is not expected to live long. If men did not like women so much, the human race would die out. It shows the working or you may call the mechanisms how the instincts motivate people. They are coerced to behave in a particular way by their instincts. This is how instincts work.

The result is that this all happens in a way the cocaine affect s the mind of male. Do you still remember the word – ADDICTION? The Research says cocaine is addictive, food is addictive and the sex is addictive.

The sight of a woman sets a man’s mind’s instinct toward mating.  This happens naturally; in a natural way. Now the society starts playing its role to maintain its order. And it is achieved through law and enforcement machinery.

[Those who want to get benefitted with this they take recourse of EROTICA. See the article EROTICA IS BORN OF PORN AND NOT SEX.]

Both food and sex serve multiple purposes. Food is not only nutritive, but pleasurable also. Similarly the sex is used not only for procreation but for some other purposes. The learned readers are well aware of it.

To read the complete article click:

WILD BASIC INSTINCT

http://www.psmalik.com/articlehub/41-i/131-w.html

My website: http://www.psmalik.com/

My blogs: http://www.psmalik.com/bl.html

Shreyas Malik

My Website is psmalik.com

My Blogs are at Blogs

My other Website is searchingone.com

Posted via email from Pratap's posterous

PS Malik speaks on: Who is the Biggest - Me, My Mind or My God?

Who is the biggest Me, My Mind or My God?

This is a question you generally ask. You want to know the hierarchy; you want to know your position in the hierarchy so that you become satisfied. Others also ask it. They ask because they are not satisfied with what they know about it. They want to remove their dissatisfaction. They are dissatisfied with them and their information about their place. They have disturbance in them; in their minds. They invoke God just to inflate their status. God is merely an excuse. They want to give credence to their disturbance. They want either to repel the inconvenient part of their knowledge or they want a support to the convenient portion of their fumbling knowledge. But they want to know.

A good number of you claim that they know that they are an atman – a soul. They know that there is a God. They know that the God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. They learnt doctrines. On any availability of a chance you can speak a lot about you, your atman, your mind and your God. More learned you are more equipped you are to tell about you, your atman, your God and other related things and ideas.

On the other hand some of you know that you are a physical body; well proportionate mixture of chemicals which in their particular proportion create a sensation of self perception. You know hundreds of books on this aspect and further thousands of articles telling about the cosmological theories of celestial bodies. You claim to know the permutation of the celestial bodies, gravitational pull among them, conversion of celestial dust into white dwarf stars or the supernova via the state of being a star. You have theories in support of each of your arguments.

There are some others amongst you who are well indoctrinated about amino acids, developmental chronology of organic process on the planet earth, chromosomes, genes and a scores of concepts which were written by their predecessor colleagues in library books.

You know yourself either as a spirit i.e. atman or you know yourself as a physical body. Some of you might be knowing yourself as a combination of both of the atman and the body. Some others of you would be knowing yourself as a psychosomatic entity. Still some more among are possible who would be knowing yourself in some other ways, other permutations or combinations. Whatever form of yourself you know is an information based knowledge; a knowledge of yourself. You have a knowledge of yourself as you have the knowledge of parks in your locality, as you have the knowledge of rivers in a particular state or the knowledge of human skeleton as given in the books of biology. Your this knowledge flows from the information you receive. You know a fact on the basis of an information as it is made available to you. Please take notice that you know these facts of information as these are made available to you. You have not generated this knowledge. You have merely received an information from those to whom you appreciate and respect for their knowledge. But their knowledge is again a bundle of informations as it was yours. The only difference is the number of sticks in that bundle; the number of informations in that knowledge.

For complete article please visit:

Who is the biggest Me, My Mind or My God?

http://www.psmalik.com/articlehub/41-i/75-w.html

My Website:        http://www.psmalik.com/ 

My Blogs: http://www.psmalik.com/bl.html

PS Malik speaks on: Who is the Biggest – Me, My Mind or My God?

Shreyas Malik

My Website is psmalik.com

My Blogs are at Blogs

My other Website is searchingone.com

Posted via email from Pratap's posterous

PS Malik speaks on: SPIRITUALITY IS NOT THE MORALITY

SPIRITUALITY IS NOT THE MORALITY

The morality, the ethics and the practices recommended by them are to regulate the behaviour of an individual towards others. These others may be the other members of the same society or the members of some others societies.

Subsequently societies developed their political set ups also to evolve new practices; enforce them and also punish for their violation. This branch assumed the name of the law and law Courts.

But this all including the morality, the ethics and the law were only to regulate the outer behaviour of a subject. This is all external; imposed from outside; enforced from outside and observed from outside. No society or system will object to your most contrary beliefs and notions so long as your external conduct is in conformity with its morals or laws. The societies have nothing to do with your internal fabric. They are in expectations of your external conduct to be in conformity with their practices – the morals or the ethics or the laws.

All morals, ethics and laws presuppose the existence of others. This existence of others is independent of anyone else in the society. The morals, ethics and the laws are all Bipolar Processes. It envisages YOU the doer and those OTHERS who would face the result of your deeds. These morals, ethics and the laws are the bridges bridging the individuals. For all the morals, ethics and the laws (hereinafter these will collectively be termed as External Trio) the existence of plurality of individuals is an essence. Without a plurality and the interconnections amongst that plurality this External Trio is void ab initio. It is meaningless. It loses its worth.

Now take the spirituality. But before entering the domain of spirituality the meaning of “Bipolar Process” ought to be made clear. This “Bipolar Process” was discussed in the preceding paragraphs while dealing with the issue of the External Trio. It was said there that this External Trio is essentially a Bipolar Process involving “You” and “the Others”.

The outside world enters you as sensations through your senses. Your mind processes these sensations and produces information or knowledge for you. All the empirical knowledge has two components. One is the sensation from the outer world and the other is the processed product of your mind.

When the concepts of one person are expressed to others it is through verbal conversation. In all verbal conversations there are generally two elements one relates to the fact regarding the sensation you received through your senses and the other is the mental element provided by your mind. When the facts are in contradistinction to each others a mental element is taken recourse of to overcome the stagnation of contradistinction of facts. “Ram steals bread to feed a starving person” involves two facts (may be moral or legal or ethical) in contradistinction to each other. The matter is resolved by a mental process giving more weight to one fact over the other.

These mental elements embedding the sensations are called thoughts. The thoughts are essentially based on sensations received by your senses. May be, some thoughts appear to be free from the empirical basis. But it is not so.

You may think of an animal with the tail like a horse and the body like a lion. But it is nothing more than a new permutation – combination of your sensation about tail, horse, lion and body etc. Your mind gives these combinations new names as a child gives different names to the different shapes made from the same clay.

SPIRITUALITY IS NOT THE MORALITY

http://www.psmalik.com/article-hub/67.html

My website: http://www.psmalik.com/

My Blogs: http://www.psmalik.com/bl.html

This Article: http://www.psmalik.com/article-hub/67.html

PS Malik speaks on: SPIRITUALITY IS NOT THE MORALITY

Shreyas Malik

My Website is psmalik.com

My Blogs are at Blogs

My other Website is searchingone.com

Posted via email from Pratap's posterous

PS Malik speaks on: Who is the Biggest - Me, My Mind or My God?

Who is the biggest Me, My Mind or My God?

This is a question you generally ask. You want to know the hierarchy; you want to know your position in the hierarchy so that you become satisfied. Others also ask it. They ask because they are not satisfied with what they know about it. They want to remove their dissatisfaction. They are dissatisfied with them and their information about their place. They have disturbance in them; in their minds. They invoke God just to inflate their status. God is merely an excuse. They want to give credence to their disturbance. They want either to repel the inconvenient part of their knowledge or they want a support to the convenient portion of their fumbling knowledge. But they want to know.

A good number of you claim that they know that they are an atman – a soul. They know that there is a God. They know that the God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. They learnt doctrines. On any availability of a chance you can speak a lot about you, your atman, your mind and your God. More learned you are more equipped you are to tell about you, your atman, your God and other related things and ideas.

On the other hand some of you know that you are a physical body; well proportionate mixture of chemicals which in their particular proportion create a sensation of self perception. You know hundreds of books on this aspect and further thousands of articles telling about the cosmological theories of celestial bodies. You claim to know the permutation of the celestial bodies, gravitational pull among them, conversion of celestial dust into white dwarf stars or the supernova via the state of being a star. You have theories in support of each of your arguments.

There are some others amongst you who are well indoctrinated about amino acids, developmental chronology of organic process on the planet earth, chromosomes, genes and a scores of concepts which were written by their predecessor colleagues in library books.

You know yourself either as a spirit i.e. atman or you know yourself as a physical body. Some of you might be knowing yourself as a combination of both of the atman and the body. Some others of you would be knowing yourself as a psychosomatic entity. Still some more among are possible who would be knowing yourself in some other ways, other permutations or combinations. Whatever form of yourself you know is an information based knowledge; a knowledge of yourself. You have a knowledge of yourself as you have the knowledge of parks in your locality, as you have the knowledge of rivers in a particular state or the knowledge of human skeleton as given in the books of biology. Your this knowledge flows from the information you receive. You know a fact on the basis of an information as it is made available to you. Please take notice that you know these facts of information as these are made available to you. You have not generated this knowledge. You have merely received an information from those to whom you appreciate and respect for their knowledge. But their knowledge is again a bundle of informations as it was yours. The only difference is the number of sticks in that bundle; the number of informations in that knowledge.

For complete article please visit:

Who is the biggest Me, My Mind or My God?

http://www.psmalik.com/articlehub/41-i/75-w.html

My Website:        http://www.psmalik.com/ 

My Blogs: http://www.psmalik.com/bl.html

PS Malik speaks on: Who is the Biggest – Me, My Mind or My God?

Shreyas Malik

My Website is psmalik.com

My Blogs are at Blogs

My other Website is searchingone.com

Posted via email from Pratap's posterous

PS Malik speaks on: Yoga Misunderstood So Far ...

Yoga Misunderstood So Far ...

Yoga is the only methodology available with the humanity which has anatomized the human existence without opening a human body. It is the oldest and the deepest psychology of the human existence. It is unlike the present day psychology which studies only the mind of the subjects. Yoga is not constrained to the personality, mind or any aspect of mind of people; rather it gives a complete description of the whole existence of the humanity, its mental fabric and a methodology to transcend it.

… …

The difference in the approaches of the Indian Yoga and the modern psychology is because of the differences of visions of the two schools. The modern psychology begins with the hypothesis that the Psychology is the science of the mind; that the human mind is the most complex machine on Earth; that it is the source of all thoughts and behaviour. The modern psychology believes that there is a mind and it has to be in consonance with some prototype mind. The modern psychology believes that the mind can be and usually is sick; its sickness can be cured. The real minds have tendencies. These tendencies of a real mind can be molded. A mind can be trained and can be taken to some sort of proximity of that prototype mind.

Yoga views the mind differently. For it a mind can not be infected by sickness but it is a sickness in itself. It cannot be cured because it has this form of sickness as an essence for the physical existence. Physical existence is not possible without the mind. Yoga does not speak of ‘a mind’ rather its subject matter is ‘the mind’. Modern psychology studies, treats and cures an individual mind while Yoga is for the generality of mind. Psychology is particular in approach and it discovers generality from particularity. In Yoga the mind in general is explained and a particularity approached from the generality.

For Yoga the mind is an obstacle in the path of self realization. This obstacle of mind is very much intrinsic and an essential ingredient of the creation (the Srishti). To attain your absolute state you have to transcend the mind. Yoga does not prefer wasting its time in curing a sick mind to make it healthy. There is nothing like a healthy mind in Yoga’s vision.

For complete article please visit:

Yoga Misunderstood So Far …

http://www.psmalik.com/article-hub/65.html

Shreyas Malik

My Website is psmalik.com

My Blogs are at Blogs

My other Website is searchingone.com

Posted via email from Pratap's posterous

PS Malik speaks on: 10 different ways to lose weight

10 different ways to lose weight

Do it for yourself.

The motivation to lose weight and keep it off has to come from within you. If you're relying on gimmicky diets, you may still be hoping for some magical solution outside yourself.

 

Think 10 per cent.

People who focus on losing just 10 per cent of their weight may have the best chance of long-term success. And dropping those first pounds produces the biggest health gains like decreased blood pressure, lower blood cholesterol and lower blood sugar, to name a few.

 

Take it one pound at a time.

Crash weight loss programs rarely work. Even if you're able to stick with the severe calorie deprivation or the extreme energy output required, such quick-fix regimens leave you totally unprepared for the moderate but permanent changes needed to sustain the loss. Experts recommend that you strive to drop no more than half to one kilo a week while working to develop eating and activity habits that you can maintain for a lifetime.

 

Weigh in weekly.

Evidence from several studies indicates that people who maintain weight loss hop on the scale at least once a week.

For complete article click:

10 different ways to lose weight

http://www.psmalik.com/bl/54-f/134-1.html

Shreyas Malik

My Website is psmalik.com

My Blogs are at Blogs

My other Website is searchingone.com

Posted via email from Pratap's posterous

PS Malik speaks on: Psychology of Love

Psychology of Love

 

Which are the love relationships we hold most dear and would most like to duplicate in our own lives? That enduring closeness and collegiality make the most inspiring model of love in our time is one of several surprises that turned up in a new PSYCHOLOGY TODAY survey.

 

First bit of advice from the resulting road map to romance:

Save your money:

 

Some 62 percent of respondents consider a bouquet of wildflowers spontaneously plucked from the side of the road to be much more romantic than a dozen long-stemmed red roses; just 38 percent felt otherwise.

 

And almost two to one they prefer a candlelit dinner at home to one at a fancy restaurant (66 to 34 percent).

 

Men and women may not speak the same language, but they select the same ideal of love.

 

Psychology of Love

http://www.psmalik.com/bl/55-lm/124-p.html

My website: http://www.psmalik.com/

My Blogs: http://www.psmalik.com/bl.html

Shreyas Malik

My Website is psmalik.com

My Blogs are at Blogs

My other Website is searchingone.com

Posted via email from Pratap's posterous

PS Malik speaks on: Mediocre Minds Plead Reason, Higher Ones Transcend it ...

The request to the learned readers is that this article touches the very existence of the human understanding therefore it sometime offends against the established beliefs and on other times it proposes new intellectual horizons. The subject matter of this article is a bit difficult, scientific and philosophical therefore a patience is humbly requested for.

When the science broke a particle a new sub-particle level was found. It was, therefore inferred that one day as the technology provides a suitable gadget the ultimate sub-level will be discovered and thereafter the sciences will reach their summit. This optimism of people about the ultimate reality through the scientific methods made them develop a psychological mental framework regarding the superiority of sciences, matter, objectivity, reason etc.

….

Then it came the twentieth century. A scientific revolution also came along with. Einstein, Heisenberg, Dirac, Plank, Bohr, Bose, Schrödinger and a lot more scientists joined the stride. Einstein told people that it was not the matter only but the energy was also equally important. Matter and energy were inter-convertible. When this all was on, Heisenberg put forward his revolutionary idea. He said that the position and velocity of a particle both cannot be ascertained simultaneously with the same precision. He gave a particular number that the imprecision would always be greater than that number. As per Prof. Dave MacCallum, November 20th, 2000 (Ref: http://iguanaworks.net/~bluey/MyWritings/f_philo-of-quantum-11-20-00.php ) later it was realized that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle applied not only to the relationship between momentum and position, but between non-continuous observables. If the spin of a particle in the z direction is known, then the spin in the y direction cannot be known. This is equivalent to the probabilistic aspects of quantum mechanics demonstrated in the Stern-Gerlach measurements and in the Copenhagen interpretation of the wave-equation. These probabilistic results are quite disturbing for a belief in absolute truth.

…

These conclusions of Einstein attack the “Reality” in two ways. Firstly, as no action can move faster than light therefore the mankind is always constricted to have a very limited glance of the universe. They can not know the universe as it is “Now and Here”. If a space station receives a signal from a celestial body ten billion light years away then it means that they view that celestial body as it was ten billion years back and they have no means to know how it is now. Today’s picture would be available ten billion years henceforth. This is a mechanism in the nature itself that it has not allowed you to look it “all at once”.

…

There are two types of subatomic particles – fermions and bosons. Fermions have some characteristic values assigned to them (called their quantum numbers) while the bosons do not. No two bosons are distinguishable from each other. Are they all one – as per the Law of Identity? If not, is this some illusion? Scientists say that these bosons contribute more than the contribution of fermions in this universe. Then, for being violative of the Law of Identity, is this world a hallucination? Those who cite Aristotle even for curing a rotten tooth will not find a satisfying answer here. Leave them.

…

Now come to “reason”. (As per Wikipedia) The concept of reason is connected to the concept of language, as reflected in the meanings of the Greek word "logos", later to be translated by Latin "ratio" and then French "raison", from which the English word derived. As reason, rationality, and logic are all associated with the ability of the human mind to predict effects as based upon presumed causes, the word "reason" also denotes a ground or basis for a particular argument, and hence is used synonymously with the word "cause".

A few things about “Reason” should be made clear. “Reason” is associated to those things which are the past expereince. No reason can be addressed to some new situations. No body can reason the behaviour of a human body on a new planet. For that he needs to know the pressure, temperature, oxygen etc. over there and then he would relate those variables to his past experience as to how a varied composition of these variables affects a human body. No body can address a reason for a planet X having an atmosphere of gas Y and a temperature T and pressure P unless some pre-known values are given to these variables X, Y, T, P. You can not rely upon a reason until select to be revolving in a given periphery of already known situations.

What has been seen so far is that the logic is nothing but a linguistic game like a game of riddles and puzzles. Reason makes you revolve round in a given periphery and by its nature it is deaf for the unknown circumstances, may it be of unknown future or of unknown experience. It is useless there. The logic and the reason both follow the languages. They end where the languages cease to prevail. The languages are not natural. They are artificial. The logic and the reason stand even on a lowere padestal simply because they need that artificial language for their own life.

Only the science remains to explore new things. It reveals new aspects of the existence but not through the logic or the reason. It does so through the observation and the explorations. That is why sometime on a new discovery they do not have a diction-backup and use some ad-hoc words like Young’s modulus, Raman effect, Chandrashekhar limit or Hubble Telescope. The sciences do not follow languages. They follow the existence. But here again there is a problem, however of different kind.

For complete article click:

Mediocre Minds Plead Reason, Higher Ones Transcend it ...

http://www.psmalik.com/articlehub/41-i/86-m.html

Shreyas Malik

My Website is psmalik.com

My Blogs are at Blogs

My other Website is searchingone.com

Posted via email from Pratap's posterous