After putting one post on my website yesterday, I still felt the need of elaborating on the same theme a bit in detail. The main point behind that is the so-called notion of moral achievement or moral success that we have got conditioned to. The fact is that within an achievement, there are so many layers of non-achievements and failures that it's never possible to develop a singular definition of the eventual result of any action. When I tried my hands at organic farming, it was an achievement for me but deep down, I could notice that there are so many failures which were really hurting my target of holistic course of development. The very first was that the land never belonged to me in a proprietary sense of the term. It limited my options to go deeper into my experiments. It was a question of serious debate between private and public property which I was struggling to handle. The second question was the availability of seeds which was again limited because of my non-training in the realm of natural farming. The third question was to take my professional career along with my ideal choice. The final was that me, my family and my society were not in total sync with one another over this issue. This kind of set of problems can be found in any kind of moral choice or a moral success. That's why I started feeling that thinking should be more than a moral activity. It has to be organic and somewhat in correspondence with the contemporary history. It is not possible to think ecologically when the society around you is not thinking the same way. The predominant method of social thinking currently available to us is monotheistic and pursues the path of mono-linear morality. When an individual makes a choice, he/she has to get entangled into the immediate web of external ecosystem of the contemporary times. This eventfulness is very mixed in nature because it can be simultaneously progressive and regressive. Here begins a story of partial movements, partial compromises, partial failures and partial successes. I'm not pessimistic about this kind of existential reality or the resultant action but what I want to point out is that there is a serious need to understand the limited nature of current methods of thinking. To be honest, any method of thinking has to be a partial choice of what human beings can achieve by interacting with reality. If the method of thinking is replaced with the ecological nature, we face the problem of not having a conscious structure of thinking. This is something that we are not used to and that's why we keep building structure after structure. Thinking has to be taken into the organic domain so as to make it not just unlimited but also interconnected with the counter possibilities. It has to be potent and in sync with its ecosystem. That shall make it ethical and moral instead of vice-versa. The question of morality is the question of judgement but the question of living is the question of continuity. Any rupture in this process of continuity demands the emergence of justice but any principle of justice cannot be imposed permanently upon this continuity. By sticking to judgements, we keep sticking to the ruptures and hence, we keep sticking to the fractures of reality. This kind of conditioning makes the life a serious mono-crop affair. We might desire to live in the jungle of human possibilities but we trap ourselves into artificial worlds of so-called moral thinking.