A friend has commented upon my blogs that I am very subjective in my approach. This has made me analyze once again my own self in an "objective" manner. But can I be objective when I have to analyze someone whom I perceive to know so well? And what is bad in being subjective when it deals with persons and events that make a part of your life? I really wonder about the truth of being objective in self analysis. It is strange yet painful revelation that all we try to pose, in front of even our own self, is a good picture, a truth as we would like to see it!

I may not be very true to myself as subjectivity brings that kind of bias in analysis but on the other hand how can someone else point out to us about this subjectivity as it could also be that being subjective, he also reads the text as he wants to and not as it is.

It is the same catch that has been working during all writing debates--my version, your version, and the truth!

The truth is what all of us, including me, try and vouch to search for and paradoxically it is the truth that we all the time keep on avoid facing--even when it is such a harmless truth about our own self!

It is perception about the reality that makes us subjective, I suppose. I see or read something as I want to and not as it should be. But the question as to how it should be read, once again eludes answer. When we read a piece of prose written by someone else, how can we know the kind of thoughts that made the writer come up with that piece. Is it not for this reason that the autobiographical notes pertaining to the life of a writer and especially at the point of time when a particular piece, under analysis, was written, are meticulously observed. We all want to see a pattern in the development of the thought process and in this way see the reality as we perceive it to be and as a result thereof become subjective.

It is a vicious circle which leads to still more confusion. So the best is to enjoy a piece of writing without going into the details of "why’s" and "how’s"!