I wonder why am I churning so many entries (ok many are just plain dumb) but I see there is nearly one entry a day since the last one week. (is it correct? grammatically??) (for my other blog viewers only!!!)

Anyway, I had asked my co-worker about the difference between psychiatry and psychology (since my boss exclusively deals with the former one). And she said Psychiatry is a definite science, it deals with mental behavior in terms of chemical imbalances and hence a medical P.O.V (point of view) whereas on the other hand, psychology also deals with behavior, mental imbalances but from the viewpoint of what is considered as "SANITY" in terms of society's definition, which I suggested is as abstract as it could be. Hence, I consider psychology to be a rather "abstract" science. Ok, all psychologists can shoot me now.

But, the very fact that society defines what is sane and insane in itself is a flawed statement. This society as we know is a bundle of contradictions (picked up this phrase from ('Voltaire' 8th class english text). for started, something is considered sane in one society and something is not in some other society. So, how can you define a universal sanity rule??? (heck, even sanitary rules are not same for all societies!!!)

But this is just the tip of iceberg, what lies beneath is a whole lot of ... ummm ice(??) and yes more contradictions too. Cultural, moral policing is one of the biggest problems we face in India. Who exactly are these moral-police and what exactly are they defending?? I hate 'em whenever I come across their so called "cultural savior-ism" in News. I wonder who gave them the permission in the first place to defend something as abstract as morals and culture. (I could further strengthen my argument by quoting famous lines and examples, but am just plain lazy to do that now).

And at the other side, I have this really strange feeling that a "free"society isn't exactly the ideal society to be in, case-in-study, the all great, liberal, free, American society. Human beings would grab freedom in anything at the first available opportunity. And this is exactly what has happened here. You are free to do almost anything... and I MEAN almost anything. After watching the movie "Hostel" I have absolutely no doubt on that. Though it takes place in Slovakia (I think), the very fact that its sequel is being made and people are anticipating its release shows that too much of freedom is bad, just B.A.D!!! How can you justify a movie being made on the (supposedly ills) of psychos who pay for renting un-suspecting victims to torture them to their hearts' content???? HOW CAN YOU BLOODY SHOW THAT TO A COUNTRY OF PEOPLE WHERE (allegedly) every 1-2 people out of ten are psychopaths????? (Ok, this stat I read in an article, not sure where, it may be flawed but right it's making my case ;)).

The free society has its advantages and disadvantages too. Like where would you draw the line between free speech and speech to spread hatred (hate-speech), how do you define what qualifies for free speech and what doesn't? When an Indian student in the U.S. was arrested on terrorism charges for writing in a blog/forum on how Georgie Porgie should be killed, isn't that suppression of free-speech? Did he really intend to do it? Or was his writing inflammatory?? If so, then does the line be defined as "any speech that possess danger to government of the land" then how would you define the same things being written about a tyrannous totalitarianistic governments???

I don't know. I can't think of a solution. Can you??? (No smarty-pants answers pls, but if you just them, well go ahead)