We have known many things for ages and all of our knowledge pertains to what we are today. From the times when man used to believe in the supremacy of nature and demean his own abilities to understand or change nature, society and himself to the current world where everything is questionable. We have moved a long way. We all are reasonable human beings who try to legitimate each and every work we do by means of reason. But here lies the crux.
Most of the times the reasons we abide by are different from other individuals. Sometimes different reasons of different individuals reach the same conclusion and sometimes same reasons of different individuals lead to different conclusions. Power also plays a very important role here. So even in the very simple things of your friend circle, power may give rise to different reasons and hence different viewpoints. As we may know that in the age of modernity every group or so called every community used to have what is called as meta narratives which used to define what is right. So how much ever different that "right thing" may be from what is truth you ought to believe that. Simply speaking this kind of meta narratives still exist in each society, culture,country,state and even in the smallest units of groups. So consider a small group of friends. Invariably within that group too, there will be different ideas, viewpoint and hence power centres. When these power centres operate their results a shift of the fulcrum. But who decides where that fulcrum would be? Again this may be decided by the meta narrative or the so called discourse that the group pertains to. This discourse is very difficult to identify how it has been formed. Perhaps that may depend on the initial days of the formation of the group, necessicities and expectations of each group member during those days, and how much "valued" is each one in other's eyes. We know that we hardly value people unless they are valued by other people. So a kind of chain effect continues. Say suppose you have a person who is very much valued by others, you are bound to give that person more importance and thus that person emerges as a power centre and the fulcrum will tend to shift in that direction. But two things need to be considered here. One, what is the "time" when that particular person is being valued high. If that time is inherently favourable because of some other reason, needless to say, the actual value depreciates.Secondly, who are the "other" people who are evaluating the person. They may have some interests of their own, they may not be the right audience to valuate or else they may simply not be that serious about valuation. So once the group centre point gets decided based on the above, it becomes very difficult to change that discourse.
Now the question is, isn’t it all a matter of relativity? Is it at all possible to define the meta narrative so easily? And while once it has been formed does it not change? This is where post modernist ideologies may come in even in the smallest of group dynamics. This questions the authenticity of reasons and logic. So whatever is "good" or "bad" has been actually "made" that way by the power centres whose formation is again dubious and who do not have any credulity. So suddenly if everyone starts admiring someone, they will have their own reasons, but certainly there will be other dimensions to the very presence of those very reasons. Every valuation of every person, thing, incident we do keeps on changing in both time and space frames. So most of the times we fail to take into account this transience. And even if we believe that things are changing, we cannot identify that there are changes to the method of change also, just like the acceleration also changes. This transience gets restructured every moment; however the changes are visible and realizable only after a certain period of time. Going a bit far, suppose we have loved and cared for someone at some point of time, and that is because that person was a "valued" one at that particular point of time. But because of this transience, after sometime, on a revaluation, there may seem to be a reduced "value” and we may not find that care present. So if we continue pondering over the fact that we do not find that friendship being present anymore, that only hurts!!But understanding that the person is no more that important makes us "value “those times that we may have spent together in past instead of cribbing for something impossible at present. However having said this, logic doesn’t apply everywhere, and where ever it does, it can be highly biased too. We tend to give answers to questions we have ourselves formulated in the way we get our expected replies. Hence though I have quoted the example of human relationships, there still exists something’s which are beyond the scope of our logic and are governed by the heart and are forever, beyond the scope of time , space and other unknown, unrealized dimensions.