Decisions of today

By Julian Sudre


Certain reasons propped up by clarity of mind induce us to a particular state of mind. When this clarity of mind is subtracted, a conflict may occur as a result of misinterpretation of logics.

This is lately what I have become to be afraid of, when a civilisation loses track of clarity and remains stubborn with its ideology, the state of mind is neither here nor there. And the reason is because of the absence of positive criticism, that categorically gives food for thought, alters irreversibly the judgments and actions taken by people.

Precious as it may sound, the little sparkle that fizzles around within our mind is the main generator of analysis and can probe the deepest corners of convoluted data and dissect them with imperturbable concentration. Clarity of mind oozes with vapid, cloudy, un-taut rigour when it is muddled with by external factors such as influences and trend per se.

Arriving at the conclusion that everyone is endowed with clarity of mind is facile and miscalculated.
The point is that clarity of mind is graded into several layers of shades; starting from immaculate white which proffers unblemished judgment to darker shades which describe the degrees of twists and slants of one’s perspectives. I suspect many people are fooled by their own mind into accepting their inevitable sort.
They would come up with heavy-handed affirmation that they maintain who they are and know what they do, resulting to magnified revelations they did not expects as a lack of visceral juxtaposition of the self and the mind.

The busyness of our lives and the absorbing of unsolicited thoughts from our surroundings have gradually gnawed at our attitude to self-reflection and turned the layers of shades into inky hues.
If I were to say that making a decision today has become more challenging than the last century; in so many words the answer would be yes as many more today’s strands get naturally tangled into a bale of confusion.
But unfortunately few people have scratched under the surface to find that the mathematical constituents of a decision-maker – advice skewed across the board – become splashed across a very indeed colourful canvas that conveys too little assurance.

And when we get to vote for a presidential election, it is bestowing the said colourful canvas upon a trustful personality that will orchestrate the hoi-polloi stance on current affairs.
Tony Blair has had his reputation tainted over the cash-for-honours affair ( even though he voiced that New Labour would be whiter than white), the common denominator was the electorate that triggered the actual state of affairs.
George W Bush had Kissinger’s opinions over the steps to take about Iraq but now Kissinger’s reputation is on the line again, over war crimes, business interests.

A decision -- whatever it might be – is filtered through a spectrum of unfounded ideas.
We only can re-assess what we reap when it is too late.
But it seems the build-up of errors and mismanagement of our reckoning will lead us to our own demise.