(Imported from my old weblog January 26, 2004)
'What was God's first creation?' The question has stayed with man from the very
day of his own creation. Was the universe created out of the sacrifice of the
primordial man 'Purusha'? Or was it the first creation of God as per a well led
plan, on the sixth day of which 'Man' was created? Or was it out of the
explosion of a gigantic mass at very high temperatures some ten thousand
million years ago?
Perhaps these questions are here to stay. Perhaps our quest for the Creator
may never see its end. Perhaps the wisdom lies in observing and marvelling at
grandeur and beauty of this creation called the Nature, the Universe. Perhaps,
we are here to proudly rejoice being tiny parts of this magnificant creation.
To dance in sheer joy, in gratitude for having been created, for having been
made a part of His creation.
We present before you one such attempt to acknowledge the greatness of the
greatest creation. A dance-performance that tries to trace the story of the
creation of the Universe, and life, as has been depicted by our wise ancestors.
In this, God Himself tells this story taking the voice of a human being for
narration; and of human form, gestures and movements to visually depict the
story of the Universe, of Life.
A subtle story of the descent of the five elements, of life. Of God's
infinite joy, which has found expression in His greatest creation : Life.
The Story begins...
I was here, I am here now, I will be here always.
Here. Everywhere.
I am within you; I am around you.
I am your creator; I am you!
I am the infinite. I am Sat-chit-anand. I am Infinite truth. Infinite existence.Infinite Joy.
And from this infinite joy emerged that little spark. The spark that was a speckof brightness that I am. The spark that you named 'Agni' : Fire. You have
rightly made it a tradition to start all your endeavours with the
sacred union of Agni with his wife 'Swaha'. I have sent the very embodiment of
fire to you in the form of SURYA, the Sun, to give a holy start to each day of
your life; and to bless you with my own light.
In the form of Agni, you could see me. Through Vayu you could touch me. Feel
me. And it's Wind and Air through which you have always breathed me. With Air
you have filled yourself up with me.
I am where everything is. I am where nothing is.
Behold my vastness through the vast emptiness of the space : Antariksh.
Space is like me.
It subsumes everything. Yet it never comes in the way of anything. Vast yet
Modest. All-consuming, yet infinitely gentle.
The Final act of the drama of Creation wouldn't be played without a stage as
beautiful, as grand as the theme of my creation. The white shyness of Sun
wouldn't ever unfold the numerous colours in its soul unless it had a canvas
which could capture so many colours. There could be no sounds heard, no
lights seen, no movements touched, no flow of life, and no fresh fragrances of
animation, if there hadn't been EARTH.
Agni took my BRIGHTNESS, space took my VAST EXPANSES.
Earth took from me my most prized possession. My LOVE. My GENEROSITY. No wonder
that over and over again you have emerged from her. Danced to my love tunes
on her bosom. And have gone back to rest in her laps after having played your
part. All wisdom of your learnings stays engraved in her calmness, her warm
serenity. Go, ask her about all that she has silently withheld : Your games of
childhood, you business, your lovemaking, your killing, your end. Ask her what
she knows. And you will know all I have to tell you through her unending
silence. She is your MOTHER. She is your greatest instructor.
Finally, WATER appeared completing the grand assembly of the five elements.
In her flowed the animation of life. She was the satiating draught of life.
She was tearful expression of your emotion. Yes! She was life itself.
See life in the tiny raindrops. See the mischief of life in the streams
trickling down the mountains. And the gravity of life in holy rivers, which
proceed sinuously drawing lines of prosperity on the huge canvas of
Earth. Observe the vast ocean, which withheld the churning out of AMRIT.
The ocean, which is naive on the surface, but which hides the vibrance of life
in the form of innumerable beautiful creatures for whom it is the world.
Water has run through your veins in the form of your life-blood. And it has
manifested my rage through unequalled destruction too.
Then came the great moment. Then came the moment for which these five elements
had been brought together. The moment when I revealed myself in all my glory.
That was the moment when even I felt a moment of pride. That moment I created
my greatest and most beautiful creation.
That moment I created LIFE!
My consciousness took shape in you, my children. Through life you saw my
brightness, my ROOPA. Through life you felt my touch, my SPARSHA. Through life
only, you sensed my taste, my RASA. And through life, could you smell my GANDHA.
And believe me my beloved. Through your life I have lived too.
I have rejoiced when you have laughed.
I have felt being loved when you have loved each other.
I have strained through each drop of honest sweat you have dropped over your
undertakings.
...
...
Monday, March 13, 2006
More Patriotism
(Imported from my old weblog March 11, 2004)
I too take the cribbing sessions of resident and non-resident Indians a
part of their wish to escape. By cribbing, they are just collecting
excuses to run away and stay away.
The best and the strongest ones will stay back and bring out the real
India from inside it. The best this country can get from outside is
money, consumer good, and some technical knowhow. All that is incapable
of turning the fate of the nation. The thing our country needs most
badly is to realise is that creation is a part of our cultural and
national character. The urge to create should never make you snap your
ties with your motherland.
Oscar Wilde said, 'Patriotism is the virtue of the malicious.' That
holds true when all nations mind their own business. We can't let our
inferiority complex be a fodder for somebody else's vanity. Quite a few
of them depend on our continuing to feel inferior for their continuing
to feel superior. They depend that creation doesn't happen from here.
And if creativity takes birth here, it ultimately finds its way to their
home. Alas, with creativity, this body hosts many a vice. Greed, vanity,
cowardice. These are made use of to pull the creative minds away from
their home. So, that the whole nation keeps thinking that people capable
of doing some worthwhile are rarely born here. And if they are, this
nation can't retain them.
That's not acceptable.
I too take the cribbing sessions of resident and non-resident Indians a
part of their wish to escape. By cribbing, they are just collecting
excuses to run away and stay away.
The best and the strongest ones will stay back and bring out the real
India from inside it. The best this country can get from outside is
money, consumer good, and some technical knowhow. All that is incapable
of turning the fate of the nation. The thing our country needs most
badly is to realise is that creation is a part of our cultural and
national character. The urge to create should never make you snap your
ties with your motherland.
Oscar Wilde said, 'Patriotism is the virtue of the malicious.' That
holds true when all nations mind their own business. We can't let our
inferiority complex be a fodder for somebody else's vanity. Quite a few
of them depend on our continuing to feel inferior for their continuing
to feel superior. They depend that creation doesn't happen from here.
And if creativity takes birth here, it ultimately finds its way to their
home. Alas, with creativity, this body hosts many a vice. Greed, vanity,
cowardice. These are made use of to pull the creative minds away from
their home. So, that the whole nation keeps thinking that people capable
of doing some worthwhile are rarely born here. And if they are, this
nation can't retain them.
That's not acceptable.
Rightists and Centrists
(Imported from my old weblog January 8, 2005)
Hm.
Everything you said is true. Nothing to dispute.
There's one doubt although. I understand that Kashmir is closer home than Iraq. But are we really aware of the complete reality either in Iraq or Kashmir? We come to know of these things through several hierarchies of media, and textbooks. No doubt that these informations are twisted and turned depending upon all the agents through whom they flow down to us.
Similarly there are radical people who try to break this hierarchy terming it vain, politically motivated and dishonest. These people, however well-meaning, have their own biases. Facts are pawns of judgement. One can suppress and blow up facts according to what he wants the listener to believe. One really doesn't need to lie in order to misguide.
We realise how biased grooming can change one's philosophy, life, everything. Some glaring examples are Jihaadis, who die shameful deaths thinking that they're dying for a noble cause. I am sure the pride and sense of sacrifice that those jihadis have in their heart is no different from what Bhagat Singh and Azad had in theirs. You'll heatedly dispute saying the Bhagat Singh and Azad never raised even a finger on a innocent soul, while jihadis butcher innocent people. Very true! But there're two aspects. One, the legends about the glorious freedom fighters could be taken with a pinch or salt. Two, jihadis just need an extra amount of brainwashing to start believing that lives of innocent people are lost just as a sacrifice for serving a noble cause! India is a free country now. People who died fighting for her independence are glorified as freedom-fighters. Jihadis are dying with some similar hope in their hearts. How unfortunate! Another example is our National inferiority complex, about which we two had had a discussion earlier too. We all have been cultured for three centuries now that westernisation is the way to progress. So deeply ingrained has this thing become now that it shows in almost every aspect of our life: the language we speak, the dresses we wear, the philosophies, socialisation, celebration, and even working. Even as I lament its presence, I can't guess all the various number of ways in which I myself may be a victim of this complex!
In short, all I mean to say is that I am filled with scepticism, almost to the point of cynicism, about how much ear I should lend to any voice that raises itself above others to make itself heard. I am now almost numb towards anything that uses ways of clouding the logical thoughts. Such things include, but are not limited to: Loud explosions, heated speeches, religious sentiments, and our biases towards or against our own pedigree.
I am equipped with insufficient information about Max-Muller and Aryan invasion stuff. I also have an inkling of the antithesis of it. I don't believe either. I understand that Aryan invasion theory does have a chance of being just a theory propounded by imperialist forces to make a subtle and deep attack on our racial confidence. But that's just a chance, a possibility. I would, given the time and inclination, like to know much more before leaning either way. Unless, I do history as my profession, or plan to use historical facts to have tremendous effect on my (my people's) future, I am not ready to get sold to either of these theories. They are nice stories for me, each of which is as much a fiction for me as a fact.
I feel that trying to find out more about major world facts which have taken a shape of folklores is a noble act. It's in fact the only noble act that can be done regarding them. Anything else done in this matter is just an addition to the chaos that is already overwhelming the scene. I don't find it worthwhile to argue with, fight with or be sarcastic to people who, just like me, are blinded by propaganda; and unfortunately have fallen into the opposite camp. I think the only vaible thing to do is to join hands with your opposite camp and dig out facts. The next best thing to do, in case one doesn't have the energy to research into deep facts (as in my case) is to keep quiet accepting the ignorance. We should realise that after all matters of past are important only in an academic way. If there's an academic motive behind talking about them, it's great! If I attach my sentimental vanity to any of enquiries, I think that's useless, even vile.
Therefore, I don't want to vehemently argue either for or against Aryan Invasion theory. I have a feeling that if I do argue against it, I am trying to borrow a concession from others to think of me as a superior race. If I am good, the only way to prove that is through my acts. I don't prove anything by bullshitting about my genes, and that too by arguing on the basis of historical hypotheses, both sides of which are ridden with biases and sentiments. I feel it's as vain to do that as it would be to fight for or against caste system. Do the brahmins indeed have an intellectual edge? May be they had 2000 years ago. May be they hadn't. How does it matter? Now, each man has to speak for himself. So why raise the issue at all?
On the other hand if I argue for the Invasion theory, I am doing nothing significant. We all know that there's a strong chance of its being a manipulated theory. Its critical examination is the only thing to do. Or completely ignoring. There's no good reason to support argument for it (I am yet to meet an Indian who'd do that just for the sake of it).
There's a single point I want to make Aasees bhaiyya! I feel deprived and unfortunate for being ignorant about certain matters. I accept my ignorance. And I look with awe and respect at people who have devoted their time and scholarly energies into factual investigation into many controversial matters. They're real scholars, and deserve being listened to. On the other hand, I have no respect for people who develop undue sentiments on the basis of information which is barely mature. We should join hands to investigate. If not that, we should keep quiet and let the real scholars do the good work. It's shameful for us to turn a beautiful scene of scholarly investigation into a battlefield ridden with noise, dust, mire and blood by fighting over the interpretations of incomplete investigations.
I feel you're one of the good people with strong thoughts and emotions. Could you add a bit of composure to it? Give a chance to age-old methods of investigation, arguments and discussions, instead of being sarcastic and loud (and then having to cover it up by being defensive to those for whom the sarcasm is not meant). Is it possible to put effort into proving the sheer absurdity of building camps on socialogical matters about which even the best of the best can't claim to have definite knowledge? Can't we try to make all these groups work together to find the actual truth? But the first step towards that would be to stop being sarcastic about somebody's camping with the wrong people (as per our viewpoint). It's not the people who're wrong. It's the very process of camping (even if I am with the right camp).
Perhaps, Gopalkrishna Gokhale and BalGangadhar Tilak would have had many similar discussions like this in the 1890's too. :) :) I know that finally it was Tilak who must have been the winner. But, I would still consider lending an ear to Gokhale! :)
Only Rajesh Khanna and Devanand could be the hearthrob of the whole nation by looking handsome by tilting their head 'right' and 'left.' For the all the rest of us, I think, the first condition to look good is to hold the head straight up, right between both the shoulders, and occasionally bowing forward with respect towards everything that's truly good! :)
Hm.
Everything you said is true. Nothing to dispute.
There's one doubt although. I understand that Kashmir is closer home than Iraq. But are we really aware of the complete reality either in Iraq or Kashmir? We come to know of these things through several hierarchies of media, and textbooks. No doubt that these informations are twisted and turned depending upon all the agents through whom they flow down to us.
Similarly there are radical people who try to break this hierarchy terming it vain, politically motivated and dishonest. These people, however well-meaning, have their own biases. Facts are pawns of judgement. One can suppress and blow up facts according to what he wants the listener to believe. One really doesn't need to lie in order to misguide.
We realise how biased grooming can change one's philosophy, life, everything. Some glaring examples are Jihaadis, who die shameful deaths thinking that they're dying for a noble cause. I am sure the pride and sense of sacrifice that those jihadis have in their heart is no different from what Bhagat Singh and Azad had in theirs. You'll heatedly dispute saying the Bhagat Singh and Azad never raised even a finger on a innocent soul, while jihadis butcher innocent people. Very true! But there're two aspects. One, the legends about the glorious freedom fighters could be taken with a pinch or salt. Two, jihadis just need an extra amount of brainwashing to start believing that lives of innocent people are lost just as a sacrifice for serving a noble cause! India is a free country now. People who died fighting for her independence are glorified as freedom-fighters. Jihadis are dying with some similar hope in their hearts. How unfortunate! Another example is our National inferiority complex, about which we two had had a discussion earlier too. We all have been cultured for three centuries now that westernisation is the way to progress. So deeply ingrained has this thing become now that it shows in almost every aspect of our life: the language we speak, the dresses we wear, the philosophies, socialisation, celebration, and even working. Even as I lament its presence, I can't guess all the various number of ways in which I myself may be a victim of this complex!
In short, all I mean to say is that I am filled with scepticism, almost to the point of cynicism, about how much ear I should lend to any voice that raises itself above others to make itself heard. I am now almost numb towards anything that uses ways of clouding the logical thoughts. Such things include, but are not limited to: Loud explosions, heated speeches, religious sentiments, and our biases towards or against our own pedigree.
I am equipped with insufficient information about Max-Muller and Aryan invasion stuff. I also have an inkling of the antithesis of it. I don't believe either. I understand that Aryan invasion theory does have a chance of being just a theory propounded by imperialist forces to make a subtle and deep attack on our racial confidence. But that's just a chance, a possibility. I would, given the time and inclination, like to know much more before leaning either way. Unless, I do history as my profession, or plan to use historical facts to have tremendous effect on my (my people's) future, I am not ready to get sold to either of these theories. They are nice stories for me, each of which is as much a fiction for me as a fact.
I feel that trying to find out more about major world facts which have taken a shape of folklores is a noble act. It's in fact the only noble act that can be done regarding them. Anything else done in this matter is just an addition to the chaos that is already overwhelming the scene. I don't find it worthwhile to argue with, fight with or be sarcastic to people who, just like me, are blinded by propaganda; and unfortunately have fallen into the opposite camp. I think the only vaible thing to do is to join hands with your opposite camp and dig out facts. The next best thing to do, in case one doesn't have the energy to research into deep facts (as in my case) is to keep quiet accepting the ignorance. We should realise that after all matters of past are important only in an academic way. If there's an academic motive behind talking about them, it's great! If I attach my sentimental vanity to any of enquiries, I think that's useless, even vile.
Therefore, I don't want to vehemently argue either for or against Aryan Invasion theory. I have a feeling that if I do argue against it, I am trying to borrow a concession from others to think of me as a superior race. If I am good, the only way to prove that is through my acts. I don't prove anything by bullshitting about my genes, and that too by arguing on the basis of historical hypotheses, both sides of which are ridden with biases and sentiments. I feel it's as vain to do that as it would be to fight for or against caste system. Do the brahmins indeed have an intellectual edge? May be they had 2000 years ago. May be they hadn't. How does it matter? Now, each man has to speak for himself. So why raise the issue at all?
On the other hand if I argue for the Invasion theory, I am doing nothing significant. We all know that there's a strong chance of its being a manipulated theory. Its critical examination is the only thing to do. Or completely ignoring. There's no good reason to support argument for it (I am yet to meet an Indian who'd do that just for the sake of it).
There's a single point I want to make Aasees bhaiyya! I feel deprived and unfortunate for being ignorant about certain matters. I accept my ignorance. And I look with awe and respect at people who have devoted their time and scholarly energies into factual investigation into many controversial matters. They're real scholars, and deserve being listened to. On the other hand, I have no respect for people who develop undue sentiments on the basis of information which is barely mature. We should join hands to investigate. If not that, we should keep quiet and let the real scholars do the good work. It's shameful for us to turn a beautiful scene of scholarly investigation into a battlefield ridden with noise, dust, mire and blood by fighting over the interpretations of incomplete investigations.
I feel you're one of the good people with strong thoughts and emotions. Could you add a bit of composure to it? Give a chance to age-old methods of investigation, arguments and discussions, instead of being sarcastic and loud (and then having to cover it up by being defensive to those for whom the sarcasm is not meant). Is it possible to put effort into proving the sheer absurdity of building camps on socialogical matters about which even the best of the best can't claim to have definite knowledge? Can't we try to make all these groups work together to find the actual truth? But the first step towards that would be to stop being sarcastic about somebody's camping with the wrong people (as per our viewpoint). It's not the people who're wrong. It's the very process of camping (even if I am with the right camp).
Perhaps, Gopalkrishna Gokhale and BalGangadhar Tilak would have had many similar discussions like this in the 1890's too. :) :) I know that finally it was Tilak who must have been the winner. But, I would still consider lending an ear to Gokhale! :)
Only Rajesh Khanna and Devanand could be the hearthrob of the whole nation by looking handsome by tilting their head 'right' and 'left.' For the all the rest of us, I think, the first condition to look good is to hold the head straight up, right between both the shoulders, and occasionally bowing forward with respect towards everything that's truly good! :)
Friday, March 10, 2006
Staring -- Uhm! Bad Manners!
I am prompted to write this blog by Pritesh's thought provoking Women's Day blog.
Hope I am able to keep it in a lighter vein.
One of milder form of sexual harrassment is 'staring.' Well, I have felt harrassed when I got a glare from a teacher, or my father, or somebody like that. I have never experienced the 'sexual' part of it.
I wonder if I have ever subjected anybody to such a harrassment! Hm!
Let me see if I have stared at anybody at all. Well. I think I have. A beautiful girl. Or an attractive figure. Perhaps complimented with a revealing dress. Oh yes! I have looked hard. Have I ogled? I don't know!!
Well, it's exciting to watch an attractive girl. No! no strings attached. I would rather have her never know that anybody's watching. Let her go her way. Let me enjoy the good sight. I mean, when I am watching the moon and its beauty, I really don't want it to get conscious of it and stop going its way! :)
OK! What happens if the girls comes to know of it. I don't know. I don't take the risk of figuring out. There are two reason: One, I don't dare; two, I don't care. There are three possible reactions.
One, positive. Well. I really don't know how to handle that. I really don't know the mannerisms of stealing glances at somebody who's doing the same thing with you from across several tables in the cafeteria. Give her a smile? A wink? Act a bit smarter than you are? Gosh! I can't do all those silly things! It's complicated! And how do you know that it's positive? Suppose you misinterpret...then you are sexually harrassing someone without your knowledge!
Two, neutral. Good! No problems as long as it stays that way. I promise to stare only within decent limits...as I said...something like staring at the moon or stars. No strings attached!
Three, negative. Good God! I have never ogled. I have never got back that dirty look either. I don't know if I get back that look. Most probably if I get back that look, it will be by mistake. Hence, I will never realise that someone is trying to give a dirty look to me. I will perhaps think that she's ugly. And stop looking at her.
My type of staring is mostly of the 'no strings attached' type. It does have that sexual element in it. But I hope that's not the taboo here. My behaviour has engrained in it, the regard for the other person's reaction. I wonder if that makes me very timid or what. I don't know. I have first hand experience in girls interpreting a guy's decency and hesitation as 'shit-scaredness'; while the same characteristic in a girl is quite fine and natural. Somehow guys are supposed to be a bit mischievous, if not indecent. A perfectly decent guy is, by definition, not mischievous. Hence, quite uninteresting!
Many of my friends, who boast of a lot of success with females have consistently differed from me on this regard. They have been aggressive with females, risking insult in order to secure chances of something interesting happening. I am sure that they might have involuntarily subjected some females to mild harrassment, just in the name of taking their chances with flirting with them. But they don't care. Some girls have responded favourably. Interesting things have happened thereafter. It's these which have mattered to them. Those other cases of mild harrassment have got lost in forgetfulness.
One very important thing about their exploits is that, the whole things gives a feeling that whether some of your overtures are smart flirting or sexual harrassment almost magically decided by how the girl responds. The cleverness is in deciphering the reactions correctly after the first mild overtures. It looks that you stand nowhere in absence of those first overtures (by the way, I stand nowhere!). And you are a sexual abuser if you persist even after receiving negative vibes. A very thin line of smart sensibility exists between being a duffer like my kind, and being an abuser.
So, the thing is. As far as staring goes, I request my female friends not to term every act of clumsy staring as harrassment. Some of them are maiden attempts by a newbie to be that smart initiator. That too, because, one of his friends -- whom he thinks of as a casanova, but who might very well be a scoundrel -- has told him that guys are supposed to make the first move. A cold, unsympathetic look from you will be enough to discourage them from trying another mischief for the rest of their lives. Poor chaps! Have pity on them. Don't hate them all. Just give back that icecold look if you don't think that attempt by them suits them. :)
And in the rare chance, if you happen to like that idiot, for God's sake, do something by yourselves. Most of them will never know if and when they are being encouraged and are therefore expected to take the next step. No! Don't give back that seductive, alluring look of yours. It's not going to work. Mostly, it will strike them down dead like a thunderbolt. If you wait like a lady for him to act like the man, he will bungle up at every step, making a fool of himself, and making it embarrassing for you. Try out something else. Like just sitting on the same table in the tea board or mess and starting a very casual discussion on a very light topic -- like philosophy, spiritualism, or rocket science. Please stay away from heavy niche topics like weather, dresses, good hangout places, movies etc. :)
Well, I'm no expert in the art of talking through eyes. I was first introduced to it in our tenth standard Hindi textbook, in which there was a poem by Bharatendu Harishchandra. I have forgotten the name and the poem. I got diverted to easier, more mundane areas of studies in my future course. I haven't studied that subject further. It's a good thing that I could at least manage to scrap out a crappy blog on it so many years later, out of sheer lack of experience! ;)
I will say no more!
Hope I am able to keep it in a lighter vein.
One of milder form of sexual harrassment is 'staring.' Well, I have felt harrassed when I got a glare from a teacher, or my father, or somebody like that. I have never experienced the 'sexual' part of it.
I wonder if I have ever subjected anybody to such a harrassment! Hm!
Let me see if I have stared at anybody at all. Well. I think I have. A beautiful girl. Or an attractive figure. Perhaps complimented with a revealing dress. Oh yes! I have looked hard. Have I ogled? I don't know!!
Well, it's exciting to watch an attractive girl. No! no strings attached. I would rather have her never know that anybody's watching. Let her go her way. Let me enjoy the good sight. I mean, when I am watching the moon and its beauty, I really don't want it to get conscious of it and stop going its way! :)
OK! What happens if the girls comes to know of it. I don't know. I don't take the risk of figuring out. There are two reason: One, I don't dare; two, I don't care. There are three possible reactions.
One, positive. Well. I really don't know how to handle that. I really don't know the mannerisms of stealing glances at somebody who's doing the same thing with you from across several tables in the cafeteria. Give her a smile? A wink? Act a bit smarter than you are? Gosh! I can't do all those silly things! It's complicated! And how do you know that it's positive? Suppose you misinterpret...then you are sexually harrassing someone without your knowledge!
Two, neutral. Good! No problems as long as it stays that way. I promise to stare only within decent limits...as I said...something like staring at the moon or stars. No strings attached!
Three, negative. Good God! I have never ogled. I have never got back that dirty look either. I don't know if I get back that look. Most probably if I get back that look, it will be by mistake. Hence, I will never realise that someone is trying to give a dirty look to me. I will perhaps think that she's ugly. And stop looking at her.
My type of staring is mostly of the 'no strings attached' type. It does have that sexual element in it. But I hope that's not the taboo here. My behaviour has engrained in it, the regard for the other person's reaction. I wonder if that makes me very timid or what. I don't know. I have first hand experience in girls interpreting a guy's decency and hesitation as 'shit-scaredness'; while the same characteristic in a girl is quite fine and natural. Somehow guys are supposed to be a bit mischievous, if not indecent. A perfectly decent guy is, by definition, not mischievous. Hence, quite uninteresting!
Many of my friends, who boast of a lot of success with females have consistently differed from me on this regard. They have been aggressive with females, risking insult in order to secure chances of something interesting happening. I am sure that they might have involuntarily subjected some females to mild harrassment, just in the name of taking their chances with flirting with them. But they don't care. Some girls have responded favourably. Interesting things have happened thereafter. It's these which have mattered to them. Those other cases of mild harrassment have got lost in forgetfulness.
One very important thing about their exploits is that, the whole things gives a feeling that whether some of your overtures are smart flirting or sexual harrassment almost magically decided by how the girl responds. The cleverness is in deciphering the reactions correctly after the first mild overtures. It looks that you stand nowhere in absence of those first overtures (by the way, I stand nowhere!). And you are a sexual abuser if you persist even after receiving negative vibes. A very thin line of smart sensibility exists between being a duffer like my kind, and being an abuser.
So, the thing is. As far as staring goes, I request my female friends not to term every act of clumsy staring as harrassment. Some of them are maiden attempts by a newbie to be that smart initiator. That too, because, one of his friends -- whom he thinks of as a casanova, but who might very well be a scoundrel -- has told him that guys are supposed to make the first move. A cold, unsympathetic look from you will be enough to discourage them from trying another mischief for the rest of their lives. Poor chaps! Have pity on them. Don't hate them all. Just give back that icecold look if you don't think that attempt by them suits them. :)
And in the rare chance, if you happen to like that idiot, for God's sake, do something by yourselves. Most of them will never know if and when they are being encouraged and are therefore expected to take the next step. No! Don't give back that seductive, alluring look of yours. It's not going to work. Mostly, it will strike them down dead like a thunderbolt. If you wait like a lady for him to act like the man, he will bungle up at every step, making a fool of himself, and making it embarrassing for you. Try out something else. Like just sitting on the same table in the tea board or mess and starting a very casual discussion on a very light topic -- like philosophy, spiritualism, or rocket science. Please stay away from heavy niche topics like weather, dresses, good hangout places, movies etc. :)
Well, I'm no expert in the art of talking through eyes. I was first introduced to it in our tenth standard Hindi textbook, in which there was a poem by Bharatendu Harishchandra. I have forgotten the name and the poem. I got diverted to easier, more mundane areas of studies in my future course. I haven't studied that subject further. It's a good thing that I could at least manage to scrap out a crappy blog on it so many years later, out of sheer lack of experience! ;)
I will say no more!
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Understanding Epistemology
I have a doubt about the basic nature of a priori knowledge: How do we say that '2 + 2 = 4' is an a priori knowledge. First thing: the number 2, and the operator + are both abstract entities, members of an algebraic world. We see that 2 men + 2 men = 4 men; 2 balls + 2 balls = 4 balls. Thus, we see physical instances of this fact happening in the concrete world. From this, perhaps, we deduce, or perhaps postulate, that 2 + 2 = 4. I wonder what would happen if we treated 2, 4, + and = just as symbols, wrote down a basic set of rules independent of our knowledge of numbers. What category of knowledge would that fall into? To generate a(n algebraic) world of our own, without regard to anything concrete...does that make the knowledge of that world a priori? I am not a philosopher, nor a mathematician. I am ignorant of the true origins of this knowledge.
Second doubt is about the a priori-ness of our knowledge of our feelings. Whether I love somebody etc. are in a sense physical facts. Introspection can also be looked at as a kind of keen observation of the internal world. The internal world is very like the external world. It contains facts like what I feel, what my opinions are etc.
What's the actual distinction between a priori and posteriori? The distinction between the internal world on the one hand, and the external on the other? Or is it the distinction between observed fact on the one hand, and deduction, induction and prediction on the other?
Currently, I feel like looking at it this way: All knowledge of facts, whether pertaining to the external world or the internal (emotional, psychological, intellectual) are all posteriori. Everything derived from these facts are a priori. In fact, the nature of the knowledge is closely intertwined with the nature of the fact itself. Certain facts just exist out of nowhere. Something else in their place would have resulted in a different, but probably equally valid, world. They contribute to posteriori knowledge. On the other hand, facts that can be deduced, or predicted, from the set of posteriori knowledge are all a priori. Their induction to the set of knowledge that a person may have (for example, whether a person learns a formula by heart or derives it from first principles) doesn't affect the nature of that knowledge.
Second doubt is about the a priori-ness of our knowledge of our feelings. Whether I love somebody etc. are in a sense physical facts. Introspection can also be looked at as a kind of keen observation of the internal world. The internal world is very like the external world. It contains facts like what I feel, what my opinions are etc.
What's the actual distinction between a priori and posteriori? The distinction between the internal world on the one hand, and the external on the other? Or is it the distinction between observed fact on the one hand, and deduction, induction and prediction on the other?
Currently, I feel like looking at it this way: All knowledge of facts, whether pertaining to the external world or the internal (emotional, psychological, intellectual) are all posteriori. Everything derived from these facts are a priori. In fact, the nature of the knowledge is closely intertwined with the nature of the fact itself. Certain facts just exist out of nowhere. Something else in their place would have resulted in a different, but probably equally valid, world. They contribute to posteriori knowledge. On the other hand, facts that can be deduced, or predicted, from the set of posteriori knowledge are all a priori. Their induction to the set of knowledge that a person may have (for example, whether a person learns a formula by heart or derives it from first principles) doesn't affect the nature of that knowledge.
Art and Science
(Afterthoughts of my discussion with Kalyan)
Meeting this time with Kalyan, I was really amazed with the diversity of his interests in things artistic. He is almost as crazy as me! ;)
I asked him: If he was so interested in all the artistic things, didn't he also feel the same way for science. His answer was NO.
He said that scientific achievements are rather insignificant compared to the truths which really matter. As per him, one secret worth unravelling anytime is : Why are we here? Purpose of life? etc. The question is definitely not original to Kalyan. We all have asked this question. Everyone has. And a lot has been talked about it. Kalyan's originality is in thinking that that's the one and only thing to be discovered. Nothing else matters.
And due to the insignificance of other findings in comparison to this pending discovery, science itself becomes insignificant.
Kalyan subsequently accepted that this was perhaps just trying to reverse engineer a reason for the fact that he wasn't so scientifically inclined as artistically. Perhaps, 'why' was beyond his comprehension actually.
Whatever...but I did gave it a thought (couldn't help, as usual), especially because, for me, science and art are not all that different. In fact, I find them similar in spirit.
I have looked at art as an act of creating the beauty that we see all around us. A particular way to look at this is: what beauty we notice around is essentially within us. Art is an expression of beauty. Fine arts are expression of visual beauty, music is an expression of auditory beauty, cooking is a beautiful combination of senses of taste and smell. Dramatics is a higher level art form combining all the above in variety of ways.
I feel, comprehension is another kind of beauty. Clarity in thought, knowing, understanding, etc. all of them cater to a sixth sense of ours, curiosity. Being able to perceive the same object, be it a concrete thing or a concept, in a variety of ways gives us a similar type of joy as good food gives our taste buds, music gives our ears, a painting gives our eyes. Like the other senses, the sensitivity towards this sense varies from person to person. For a person, eating the three meals of a day may be just a matter of routine bordering at drudgery. For someone else, those same meals could be a source of unbounded bliss (as in my case :) ). Similarly, being able to understand something may be, for someone, just a matter of pragmatic concern. Being able to put it well in words or other forms could again be a practical issue for him. For some (as, again, in my case), comprehension could be the essence of any intellectual exercise. To be able to understand something well -- however mundane, however exotic; however concrete, however abstract -- may become a passion similar in intensity as art is for an artist.
A philosopher, or a scientist, is an artist seeking beauty in comprehension. He wants to understand and express everything that there to know, in as many ways as possible, in as clear, complete, and correct manner as possible. For him, clarity of concept is that beautiful sculpture after finishing which a sculptor can sit and gloat ad infinitum.
Computer science, especially its theoretical aspects, are indicative of that passion for comprehension that equates scientists with artists. The kind of profound modelling and analysis that has gone into the computational tools is one thing to marvel upon. But the very fact that they could be conceptualised gives goose pimples!
Philosophy is another subject which excites similar feelings. Metaphysics, Ontology and Epistemology are subjects which just have no pragmatic reason to exist. The only reason they exist is some very sensitive people did spot that element of beauty in the concept of reality, concepts and knowledge. It's simply out of the world.
Yes. So, science does have a similar apeal as art. In fact, an artist has every reason to be as fascinated with science as he is with arts, and vice versa. Of course, due to limited time and faculties, we might always prefer one to another as our main occupation. But that's besides the point.
Related blogs:
Mystery and Curiosity
Understanding Epistemology
Meeting this time with Kalyan, I was really amazed with the diversity of his interests in things artistic. He is almost as crazy as me! ;)
I asked him: If he was so interested in all the artistic things, didn't he also feel the same way for science. His answer was NO.
He said that scientific achievements are rather insignificant compared to the truths which really matter. As per him, one secret worth unravelling anytime is : Why are we here? Purpose of life? etc. The question is definitely not original to Kalyan. We all have asked this question. Everyone has. And a lot has been talked about it. Kalyan's originality is in thinking that that's the one and only thing to be discovered. Nothing else matters.
And due to the insignificance of other findings in comparison to this pending discovery, science itself becomes insignificant.
Kalyan subsequently accepted that this was perhaps just trying to reverse engineer a reason for the fact that he wasn't so scientifically inclined as artistically. Perhaps, 'why' was beyond his comprehension actually.
Whatever...but I did gave it a thought (couldn't help, as usual), especially because, for me, science and art are not all that different. In fact, I find them similar in spirit.
I have looked at art as an act of creating the beauty that we see all around us. A particular way to look at this is: what beauty we notice around is essentially within us. Art is an expression of beauty. Fine arts are expression of visual beauty, music is an expression of auditory beauty, cooking is a beautiful combination of senses of taste and smell. Dramatics is a higher level art form combining all the above in variety of ways.
I feel, comprehension is another kind of beauty. Clarity in thought, knowing, understanding, etc. all of them cater to a sixth sense of ours, curiosity. Being able to perceive the same object, be it a concrete thing or a concept, in a variety of ways gives us a similar type of joy as good food gives our taste buds, music gives our ears, a painting gives our eyes. Like the other senses, the sensitivity towards this sense varies from person to person. For a person, eating the three meals of a day may be just a matter of routine bordering at drudgery. For someone else, those same meals could be a source of unbounded bliss (as in my case :) ). Similarly, being able to understand something may be, for someone, just a matter of pragmatic concern. Being able to put it well in words or other forms could again be a practical issue for him. For some (as, again, in my case), comprehension could be the essence of any intellectual exercise. To be able to understand something well -- however mundane, however exotic; however concrete, however abstract -- may become a passion similar in intensity as art is for an artist.
A philosopher, or a scientist, is an artist seeking beauty in comprehension. He wants to understand and express everything that there to know, in as many ways as possible, in as clear, complete, and correct manner as possible. For him, clarity of concept is that beautiful sculpture after finishing which a sculptor can sit and gloat ad infinitum.
Computer science, especially its theoretical aspects, are indicative of that passion for comprehension that equates scientists with artists. The kind of profound modelling and analysis that has gone into the computational tools is one thing to marvel upon. But the very fact that they could be conceptualised gives goose pimples!
Philosophy is another subject which excites similar feelings. Metaphysics, Ontology and Epistemology are subjects which just have no pragmatic reason to exist. The only reason they exist is some very sensitive people did spot that element of beauty in the concept of reality, concepts and knowledge. It's simply out of the world.
Yes. So, science does have a similar apeal as art. In fact, an artist has every reason to be as fascinated with science as he is with arts, and vice versa. Of course, due to limited time and faculties, we might always prefer one to another as our main occupation. But that's besides the point.
Related blogs:
Mystery and Curiosity
Understanding Epistemology
Sunday, February 19, 2006
Wisdom in Non-Violence
>
> 1) Mohd Ghori & Ghazni attacked India(and F***ed Indians) more than
30 times.
> 2) Mughals Ruled(Ruined) india more than 2 centuries.
> 3) French, Dutch, British conquered and ruled us.
> 4) China attacked us.
> 5) And at present bloody Pakis are terrorising us( Its a fact that
our Communist Intellectuals respect these terrorists arguing they are
FREEDOM FIGHTERS !!!!!)
...and
6) Why does this country full of one billion cowards refuse to die?
Why, in spite of all atrocities hailed on it, it continues to be the
most ancient civilisation of the world? Why, though we keep loathing
ourselves, the world keeps getting terrified by the power of this meek
race of Indians while Pakistanis are nowhere in sight?
Just now came back from a talk by Gurucharan Das. And the whole talk was
all about the fact that in spite of all these you have told, and many
more such reasons, India has steadily grown richer, not just the
software crowd but the literacy rates, the poverty
statistics...everything are growing better. According to those analyses,
India shows a far more sustained (though more moderate) growth trend
than China. If you believe him, we all will live to see India growing
into a stronger economy than Japan.
Well, to quote another example from yet another topic of hot discussion:
We men have subjugated and trampled upon the rights of women for much
longer than any imperialist has ever trampled any nation. Yet, we must
accept that women are coming up very strong. Not by becoming like men
and taking up arms, but just continuing being what they are. And the
best thing is: men and women are now friends (hopefully).
Tigers, strong, beautiful, agile, ferocious...are a species at the verge
of extinction. Elephants are not.
In short, perhaps the wisdom in non-violence and non-retaliation is
beyond our comprehension. But over a long run it has shown its toughness
in many ways. A race which makes itself useful for the rest of the
population creates much better chances of its survival than the one
amassing huge arsenal.
Vyagrataa tyaago vats. Aur socho, samjho. Stop having ultra-strong views
and opinions. They skew intellect. Be peaceful and calm and aware.
That's the only essence of our culture which we need to protect.
Everything else is secondary and transient.
> 1) Mohd Ghori & Ghazni attacked India(and F***ed Indians) more than
30 times.
> 2) Mughals Ruled(Ruined) india more than 2 centuries.
> 3) French, Dutch, British conquered and ruled us.
> 4) China attacked us.
> 5) And at present bloody Pakis are terrorising us( Its a fact that
our Communist Intellectuals respect these terrorists arguing they are
FREEDOM FIGHTERS !!!!!)
...and
6) Why does this country full of one billion cowards refuse to die?
Why, in spite of all atrocities hailed on it, it continues to be the
most ancient civilisation of the world? Why, though we keep loathing
ourselves, the world keeps getting terrified by the power of this meek
race of Indians while Pakistanis are nowhere in sight?
Just now came back from a talk by Gurucharan Das. And the whole talk was
all about the fact that in spite of all these you have told, and many
more such reasons, India has steadily grown richer, not just the
software crowd but the literacy rates, the poverty
statistics...everything are growing better. According to those analyses,
India shows a far more sustained (though more moderate) growth trend
than China. If you believe him, we all will live to see India growing
into a stronger economy than Japan.
Well, to quote another example from yet another topic of hot discussion:
We men have subjugated and trampled upon the rights of women for much
longer than any imperialist has ever trampled any nation. Yet, we must
accept that women are coming up very strong. Not by becoming like men
and taking up arms, but just continuing being what they are. And the
best thing is: men and women are now friends (hopefully).
Tigers, strong, beautiful, agile, ferocious...are a species at the verge
of extinction. Elephants are not.
In short, perhaps the wisdom in non-violence and non-retaliation is
beyond our comprehension. But over a long run it has shown its toughness
in many ways. A race which makes itself useful for the rest of the
population creates much better chances of its survival than the one
amassing huge arsenal.
Vyagrataa tyaago vats. Aur socho, samjho. Stop having ultra-strong views
and opinions. They skew intellect. Be peaceful and calm and aware.
That's the only essence of our culture which we need to protect.
Everything else is secondary and transient.
Saturday, February 18, 2006
Our Discriminating Strength
Harshit is a little cute boy. He's not two yet, I think. He plays around in the yard of our S-block with his tri-cycle. Or some stick. Or just like that. Every passing person always spends a minute or two having a chat with Harshit. Harshit, I think, is too young to speak articulately. And I think, if he makes anything out of what grown-ups tell him, those are too imaginative and sophisticated for us grownups to understand. But, of course, all these people would still like to have a conference with little Harshit. The big surprised eyes with which he would look at you while you speak are a better treat than a standing ovation.
And all this while, looking over his activities is Harshit's granny. She's old and stooping, and is in no way less cute than Harshit. She only speaks Telugu. But talking to her has similar benifits as talking to Harshit. She won't try to understand what you're saying. And she'll nevertheless have something to say in reply. Of course, there's not much hope to making out that, unless you can pick up telugu. She never tries to be gentle to Harshit. In fact, I have found her giving him a hit or two when Harshit tends to be too naughty. Yet, Harshit runs back to her each time one of us tries to be overpaly with him. She is his great protector from all evils. I, with my moustache and serious face, really have no hope of being taken well by kids. But, sometimes, when that chap looks irresistible, I try to go close to him and say something clumsy which I suppose then to be friendly and appropriate for a man of his size. Of course, Harshit runs back to his granny's lap, whenever I try to do all that. Harshit doesn't seem to like me much.
Yesterday morning, when I was leaving S-block for lab, I saw Harshit's granny carrying him on her lap going somewhere. Harshit seemed comfortable looking puzzledly here and there. A big stream of snot oozing out of his right nostril. Well, he is the loveliest thing that's ever been in the history of mankind. I stopped for a while, and asked Harshit why he was troubling his Granma by burdening her like this. Somehow GranMa got what I was asking and started complaining that they had been out for a walk and then in the middle Harshit just started insisting that he should now be carried. Perhaps he'd seen some dog or something. It seems she told him to walk by himself but he wouldn't listen. And hence this.
All that complaint was quite false. GranMa looked perfectly comfortable carrying her grandson like that. That complaint itself was a way to express the joy she felt perhaps.
Harshit is nearly two and a fairly healthy child. He must be weighing a good 10-15 kg. If that weight had been of a bag or books, it would be a difficult one for even a young man to carry for long. A beautiful, lovely grandson is pleasure to carry on yourself, even if you are bending down with age.
We can be arbitrarily strong...but our strength chooses by itself when to show itself. :)
Funny, it is! :) :)
And all this while, looking over his activities is Harshit's granny. She's old and stooping, and is in no way less cute than Harshit. She only speaks Telugu. But talking to her has similar benifits as talking to Harshit. She won't try to understand what you're saying. And she'll nevertheless have something to say in reply. Of course, there's not much hope to making out that, unless you can pick up telugu. She never tries to be gentle to Harshit. In fact, I have found her giving him a hit or two when Harshit tends to be too naughty. Yet, Harshit runs back to her each time one of us tries to be overpaly with him. She is his great protector from all evils. I, with my moustache and serious face, really have no hope of being taken well by kids. But, sometimes, when that chap looks irresistible, I try to go close to him and say something clumsy which I suppose then to be friendly and appropriate for a man of his size. Of course, Harshit runs back to his granny's lap, whenever I try to do all that. Harshit doesn't seem to like me much.
Yesterday morning, when I was leaving S-block for lab, I saw Harshit's granny carrying him on her lap going somewhere. Harshit seemed comfortable looking puzzledly here and there. A big stream of snot oozing out of his right nostril. Well, he is the loveliest thing that's ever been in the history of mankind. I stopped for a while, and asked Harshit why he was troubling his Granma by burdening her like this. Somehow GranMa got what I was asking and started complaining that they had been out for a walk and then in the middle Harshit just started insisting that he should now be carried. Perhaps he'd seen some dog or something. It seems she told him to walk by himself but he wouldn't listen. And hence this.
All that complaint was quite false. GranMa looked perfectly comfortable carrying her grandson like that. That complaint itself was a way to express the joy she felt perhaps.
Harshit is nearly two and a fairly healthy child. He must be weighing a good 10-15 kg. If that weight had been of a bag or books, it would be a difficult one for even a young man to carry for long. A beautiful, lovely grandson is pleasure to carry on yourself, even if you are bending down with age.
We can be arbitrarily strong...but our strength chooses by itself when to show itself. :)
Funny, it is! :) :)
Researchers and Film-makers
The other day, standing in front of the DDLJ poster in front of the mess, Karthik and I were chatting. I remarked that after DDLG it became Shahrukh's professional commitment to swoop away with the heroine just when she's going to get married to someone else. Kucch Kucch Hota Hai, Dil To Pagal Hai, Veer Zaaraa and I think some more of them. Perhaps it makes him look very heroic and manly to be able to pull the heroine out of her worldly commitments by his charms. Whatever!
Then we thought that it's always shown in movies that guy loves girl, girl loves guy, they get separated, they go against the world, and they get married. If you see movies assuming that they are an honest representation of the society, then you would tend to think that the biggest and the most prevalent tragedy in the romantic world is the separation of the hero and heroine tied through a bond of mutual love. And hence, it's the onus of all the film-makers to get together and show this evil and the ways to fight it. Just as they show other social evils (like corruption, violence etc), and methods the hero employs to tackle these.
Even if we don't consider the unrealisticness of the ways and means a hero employs (either going and spraying bullets at ten gundaas, or gatecrashing into the heroines marriage) to solve his problems, there is a big snag.
The fact is: this problem of love happening and the zamaanaa coming in its way is a negligible problem compared to things which happen before the love happens. I think the biggest problem of the love matters is its one-sidedness in most cases. I think thousands of hearts break everyday due to the emotion residing in one heart never communicating to the other. Then, even if it's communicated, it doesn't contract. The number of people suffering from this evil is far more numerous than the one film-makers show happening in every story and getting solved in the end.
I feel, in this regard, film-makers are like researchers. Researchers know of a plenty of problems which are far more serious than the ones they solve. But they stick to solving a very small class of problems which are dwarved both in terms of their importance and in terms of their difficulty in comparison to a lot many more other problems. A quick example from my field: Regular languages form a very small subset of all the languages in Chomsky hierarchy. Of all languages, regular ones are the only decideable class. That is, a question posed in the form of a regular expression can be answered in finite time in general. As a result, we keep talking about finite state systems, simply because we just don't know how to handle the other cases! Similar case exists in the field of electrical and mechanical engineering where most real problems are inherently non-linear. But since, it's usually computationally infeasible to tackle non-linearities per se, they keep solving problems in the linear domain, which actually is a very small subset of all existing problems.
People very well know that there're bigger and more difficult problems to solve, but they keep talking of the easier ones, and try to convince themselves and others that those are the most important problems. It's not like that though.
Then we thought that it's always shown in movies that guy loves girl, girl loves guy, they get separated, they go against the world, and they get married. If you see movies assuming that they are an honest representation of the society, then you would tend to think that the biggest and the most prevalent tragedy in the romantic world is the separation of the hero and heroine tied through a bond of mutual love. And hence, it's the onus of all the film-makers to get together and show this evil and the ways to fight it. Just as they show other social evils (like corruption, violence etc), and methods the hero employs to tackle these.
Even if we don't consider the unrealisticness of the ways and means a hero employs (either going and spraying bullets at ten gundaas, or gatecrashing into the heroines marriage) to solve his problems, there is a big snag.
The fact is: this problem of love happening and the zamaanaa coming in its way is a negligible problem compared to things which happen before the love happens. I think the biggest problem of the love matters is its one-sidedness in most cases. I think thousands of hearts break everyday due to the emotion residing in one heart never communicating to the other. Then, even if it's communicated, it doesn't contract. The number of people suffering from this evil is far more numerous than the one film-makers show happening in every story and getting solved in the end.
I feel, in this regard, film-makers are like researchers. Researchers know of a plenty of problems which are far more serious than the ones they solve. But they stick to solving a very small class of problems which are dwarved both in terms of their importance and in terms of their difficulty in comparison to a lot many more other problems. A quick example from my field: Regular languages form a very small subset of all the languages in Chomsky hierarchy. Of all languages, regular ones are the only decideable class. That is, a question posed in the form of a regular expression can be answered in finite time in general. As a result, we keep talking about finite state systems, simply because we just don't know how to handle the other cases! Similar case exists in the field of electrical and mechanical engineering where most real problems are inherently non-linear. But since, it's usually computationally infeasible to tackle non-linearities per se, they keep solving problems in the linear domain, which actually is a very small subset of all existing problems.
People very well know that there're bigger and more difficult problems to solve, but they keep talking of the easier ones, and try to convince themselves and others that those are the most important problems. It's not like that though.
Monday, February 13, 2006
Exposure of Female Anatomy - A Biological Perspective
It's rather cliched now to lament that dresses of ladies are getting shorter and shorter. It's now become a form of art to cleverly expose some extra bit of flesh on the woman's body without showing 'those' parts fully, yet making it scandalising enough to attract attention.
There's nothing right or wrong about all this. So, let's not lament. Let's try to look at it from as many angles as possible.
A female is an attractive thing biologically. The male of a species (especially in mammals) is biologically programmed to feel sexually attracted to the female of his species. A female is biologically programmed to show off her charms to attract male attention. Exposing flesh, which is nothing but an exhibition of sexual health, is a natural thing for a female of a mammal species to do. Biologically speaking, again, the sexual equations of male and female are that man dominates, and female submits. It gets well betrayed right from the manner a courtship starts to the way a copulation happens (of course, I am talking about the natural ways; not the creative ones invented by us!) In that manner, when a chappie feels like pouncing on a girl showing off her assets, it's not really his sex-starvedness or his narrow upbringing. It's his biology. If he does that he will do the most natural thing for him to do: sexual domination.
As exposure is increasing in films and on streets, we are going closer and closer to our original biology. The female is showing off her sexual beauty. The only deep rooted biological reason for that is to attract sexual attention. A natural consequence of it would lead to mating with a male, which would substantiate the sexual domination of the male ape on his female counterpart.
In animal kingdom, there's no concept of molestation or rape. It happens with humans because they create a condition of tremendous biological stress through a society driven by intellect, and not biology. However, choosing a level of submission and conflict with their biological propensities depends not on any clear logic but as per fads and fashions. In turn, fads and fashions are dictated by deep-rooted biological characteristics. Intellect just serves as a protector of rights: the right to violate or submit to those biological instincts. There was a time when ladies wouldn't even wear a blouse. There are times and places when there would be no part of her anatomy visible. These days, often things are fairly functional, in the sense that convenience and comfort, and not sexual exposure, dictate the taste. But many very attractive dresses worn by girls even today seem so tight as to be cutting through their bodies, or so flimsy as to be ready to fly away any moment. Of course, it's neither comfort nor convenience that gives birth to such tastes. It's pure biology. I have moved in circles where shaking hands with a member of the opposite sex used to be a taboo. I have been witness to cultures where bodily contact is a de facto part of male-female interaction. Humans really don't have a clear concept as to what is the safe and right amount of closeness. Nor do conditions of today allow the development of such an idea. When somebody learns to be at ease with some given norms – notwithstanding the biology – circumstances take a sharp turn around him; and he is faced with an entirely different culture! Most of us are smart enough to handle these unnatural changes. But we should accept that we are blessed with a biological make of a fairly primitive tribal ape. While our intellect fights hard to adapt to the ever changing cultural conditions, our biology has fallen far behind. Acts of sexual crime are calls of distress from our biology.
All this may make it all appear as an advocacy for conservative dressing. It's not the case though. I am advocating an acceptance of the presence of dominance of our biological instincts upon us. The exposure that we see these days has a lot to do with the women empowerment and also with money. But a point to note is that after getting the freedom to do what she wants, a female ape will have a biological tendency to choose submission and sexual exhibitionism in many ways. She will pierce herself at several parts, she will wear clothes and footwear that will restrict her movements and make her uncomfortable. She will go to strange limits to create illusions of the hairlessness of her body. All this is loud evidence of the fact that women are liberated. But they are also loudly declaring that a female mammal would always choose male sexual dominance, going biologically. In case of humans, that happens in an extraordinarily sophisticated manner: self-inflicted trauma by females to look attractive, for instance. It is done by choice, hence can't be condemned as an atrocity; at least not while these acts of female beautification are in fashion.
On the other hand, one of human-being's nature is to go against his nature. Our intellect is as much a part of our biology as our genetic code. Our intellect exposes us to many other ways of looking at things than our mere biology. Take again the case of female dressing trends. We have come a long way from the time when a woman was supposed to kill herself if her husband died. We now think of it as some kind of atrocity done to women by a male-dominated society. The atrocity was there; but it didn't have more to do with men than with women. Here again, biology seems to have a part to play. Male dominance is always a fashion. Then it was crude. A women mounting her departed husband's pyre would be an epitome of female submission. In her age, she would be hailed as a heroine. Today, those ways of female submission to male dominance are rapidly going out of question. But new ways – more subtle and less blatant – have to been invented to make that same thing happen. Inconvenient methods of dressing, expensive ways of looking good, be it through expensive (and very temporary) hairdo, outragiously priced jewellary and dresses, painful piercing and hair removal ... they are more sophisticated methods by which a women takes the liberty of submitting to the male need of sexual dominance. The story of perfectly willing sacrifice of Madri by burning herself up with Pandu seems ridiculous and barbaric to us today. In a more sophisticated society tomorrow, when they come across methods by which females of today subject themselves to painful experiences – be it by wearing inconvenient and uncomfortable drapery, by going through the tedium of hair removal just so that they have the liberty to show off that extra square inch of their anatomy -- those people of tomorrow will proclaim the society of today as barbaric and male chauvinistic.
The money aspect in the movies etc. also has a mapping to the same cause. There's nothing inherently noble about a lovely face, and nothing inherently ignoble about a sexy figure. The exposure of physical beauty, be it in the form of eyeliners and lipsticks accentuating an artificial pout, or skimpy outfits accentuating curves, are all directed towards the same end: enticing the male, a perfectly natural thing for a female to do. In all ages, such acts have always been done by the most aggressive and outgoing of the females of that age. Madri and Rani Padmini displayed their loyalty (which in this case is a display of the strength of sexual pair-bond and hence sexual strength itself, in some sense) by walking out of the crowd and taking the liberty of ending their lives. Today, a film heroine takes the same liberty by wearing the skimpiest of all dresses and walking proudly and gracefully in front of a crowd of thousands. Both these classes of women are aggressive and powerful; both are heroines of their own respective ages; both are doing the same act of sexual submission in their own ways fashionable in their respective era. And since the acts of most aggressive sexual submission are done by the most empowered of all females of an age, they are rewarded, not just by sexual attention, but everything else: money, fame, power etc. Exposure in films and in the most fashionable circles are not the consequence of a lot of money. The money is a consequence of exposure, which only the most aggressive and empowered of all women dare do in our present age.
I realise that saying all this may subject me to a lot of brickbats from the female audience, but I entreat for a scientific view to what I am saying. It will be a very emotional thing to do if I am interpreted as an advocate of female subjugation. As I mentioned above, we are intellectuals – and that fact is as fine-engrained in us as our biologically being mere beasts who are susceptible to strong biological tendencies beyond reason and control. We have a fair degree of control in deciding what's right and what's not through volitional thought. We are blessed with some degree of freedom to even go against our biology. But we must also understand that we are still strongly held back by our genetic make: the make of a primitive tribal ape where male sexual dominance and female sexual enticement and subsequent submission comes very naturally to us. If our intellect wages war with that make, there's going to be tremendous tension. That tension again is a part of the game we are in the middle of. Man always adventures; he always takes risks; he always walks on a knife's edge. He falls and bleeds. But he gets up and keeps on walking. Our rebellion against our biology is also a very natural thing for us to do.
We intellectuals would definitely like to have a society that treats men and women equally.But the biological part of us will reject such a society as very dry and uninteresting. The more we try equating the two sexes, the newer and more ingenious methods will we devise to again create distinctions. But the justification for the inherent differences between men and women, which linger in the form of poetic verses or allusions of mystical thoughts, are not very effective. Men and women are different by their biology. If that's accepted, we don't need to knock at the doors of mystics of poets to look for an explanation as to why we are not what we think we are or should be.
To close, I will assert that exposure of female anatomy, whether in movies or in real life, has definitely to do a lot with women's liberation. The money factor is involved but it is not so much an antecedent, as it is a consequent of the exposure. The exposure happens mostly by the most aggressive and powerful females of the human species – film stars and attractive and popular ladies – and is an act of display of sexual powers of a (sexually) powerful and confident female. This act itself is nothing new of this age. Sexual exhibitionism is very typical thing for a female of our species to do to attract male mates. This same biological event sometimes goes awry and takes the form of sexual crimes, whorehouses and nude bars. But that's a combination of a largely unnatural social intellect and a personal intellect defeated in the hands of very strong biological instincts.
And to reduce all this to one line, there are various aspects – sociological, philosophical, moral, economic – to this issue of exposure of female body catching up in fashion, but all that is clearly pervaded by the biological aspect, which always keeps men and women of our aggressive species at war – with competitors,with each other, and even with oneself -- to win each other's attention, in the course of which, both sexes not only show tremendous ingenuity, but –partly owing to our massive intellect – go to unnatural extents in inflicting even pain and death unto oneself.
I repeat, there's nothing right or wrong in this. But surely, there's a lot of material to wonder and feel awe at the complex way we have been designed by that clever and crazy chap: God!
Postscriptum: I owe a lot to Desmond Morris and his book 'The Human Zoo' for the above treatment. The central idea – that of female exhibitionism and male dominance – is a scientific fact according to him. In his book, he gives far more numerous and naked examples of this thesis. I have just instantiated this idea to explain the point of the above discussion.
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Rang De Basanti
I saw it the day before yesterday. I liked it. But not so much for a second time watch. Found the message potentially unhealthy. Of course, it's all upon how one takes it. I also felt that the director has trying a little too hard to make the whole thing appear very masti-masti, while trying to give good messages. I found Soha Ali Khan a disaster!
But there were some really good things I liked: Dialogues, Amir's acting, cimenatography...the British girl's enthu and passion, the transformation of the Hindu fundamentalist...and of course, the message of social awareness the passion to do something about it beyond just cribbing.
But there were some really good things I liked: Dialogues, Amir's acting, cimenatography...the British girl's enthu and passion, the transformation of the Hindu fundamentalist...and of course, the message of social awareness the passion to do something about it beyond just cribbing.
Thursday, February 09, 2006
On The Malicious Cartoons
Terrorism in any form is bad. What's being done all over is another more sophisticated form of terrorism. Anti-Islam sentiments show clearly in the cartoons released in the last couple of months. Some of the cartoons are in a deplorable sense of humour. Freedom of press can't be given away to any people claiming to be houses of journalism. The cartoons published show a negative sentiment to a major religion of the world. And the depiction is so vulgar! If it's being taken sentimentally, there's no wonder.
I definitely am not justifying the ensuing violence. But, now it's quite clear that powerful nations and powerful agencies nurturing anti-islam sentiments are publicly acting on them. It's very worrying.
Things happening are not right. But given the history of human-beings, such things can't be ruled out from the list of expected. It's quite evident that there's a growing body of world population that's got directly affected by terror attacks. Their family and friends have been lost. Innocent people have been killed. If the above irrationalities are rooted amongst such a population, things are already beyond right and wrong.
Extreme attrocities done on many muslim communities, clubbed with an unrealistic ambition of a purely Islamic world by many of them has resulted in many of them losing their mind and taking the path of terror. We can't sympathise with them; nor can we downright blame them as terrorists.
But the so called terrorists -- if they have chosen their way with a hope of killing evil -- can see their whiteskin images on the opposite camp. Terror is giving birth to more terror.
The excesses in the form of malicious humour is no different. They are another form of terror. All parties should learn from this. All should understand that both parties are behaving in the same way. They are already at war with each other. It's no more a question of right and wrong. Now's the question 'who'll win?'
It's pathetic! We sane people are helpless.
I definitely am not justifying the ensuing violence. But, now it's quite clear that powerful nations and powerful agencies nurturing anti-islam sentiments are publicly acting on them. It's very worrying.
Things happening are not right. But given the history of human-beings, such things can't be ruled out from the list of expected. It's quite evident that there's a growing body of world population that's got directly affected by terror attacks. Their family and friends have been lost. Innocent people have been killed. If the above irrationalities are rooted amongst such a population, things are already beyond right and wrong.
Extreme attrocities done on many muslim communities, clubbed with an unrealistic ambition of a purely Islamic world by many of them has resulted in many of them losing their mind and taking the path of terror. We can't sympathise with them; nor can we downright blame them as terrorists.
But the so called terrorists -- if they have chosen their way with a hope of killing evil -- can see their whiteskin images on the opposite camp. Terror is giving birth to more terror.
The excesses in the form of malicious humour is no different. They are another form of terror. All parties should learn from this. All should understand that both parties are behaving in the same way. They are already at war with each other. It's no more a question of right and wrong. Now's the question 'who'll win?'
It's pathetic! We sane people are helpless.
Creativity - The Basic Instinct
Two days ago, I saw our lab's cleaner Boy, Manju's exploits with MS-Paint and was amazed at his creativity. How a good talent is getting wasted here! He had built a painting with a house, a Shiva Linga and a snake twined around the Linga. There was another snake twined on one of the branches of a nearby tree.
The house, the shiva linga the tree and the snakes were geometrically correct. He had used some very unnatural colours. But the overall effect was good. The Painting was looking anything but bad.
The creativity that we get to see is not just creativity. It's creativity plus opportunity plus training. It's quite clear that inherent creativity is a much more prevalent virtue in a far more numerous people than we can comprehend. And neither is creativity a trait of only the rich and well-fed. Even those who are starving have live creativity within them. Creativity is so inherent in us that it breathes and speaks strongly even when the so-called more basic requirements are not sufficiently fulfilled.
I feel greatly hopeful that this inherent creativity will free this miserable species of its woes. One day it will.
Related blog :
Addendum on Curiosity
Mystery and Curiosity
The house, the shiva linga the tree and the snakes were geometrically correct. He had used some very unnatural colours. But the overall effect was good. The Painting was looking anything but bad.
The creativity that we get to see is not just creativity. It's creativity plus opportunity plus training. It's quite clear that inherent creativity is a much more prevalent virtue in a far more numerous people than we can comprehend. And neither is creativity a trait of only the rich and well-fed. Even those who are starving have live creativity within them. Creativity is so inherent in us that it breathes and speaks strongly even when the so-called more basic requirements are not sufficiently fulfilled.
I feel greatly hopeful that this inherent creativity will free this miserable species of its woes. One day it will.
Related blog :
Addendum on Curiosity
Mystery and Curiosity
Friday, February 03, 2006
Bright Forces - Dark Forces
In the Star Wars series, this concept finds mention multiple times. Jedii warriors are people with special powers, and they defend the good people. Siths on the other hand are equally powerful people, but are dark and bad.
Darth Vader, the most powerful Jedi, turns into a sith in 'The Revenge of The Sith.' Before his becoming a sith, he used be a Jedi named Anakin Skywalker. He remains equally powerful -- infact grows in his power. But he no more remains a Jedi.
What differentiates a Jedi and a Sith? It's the concept of dark forces. Sith's give themselves up to the dark forces. Jedis don't. That's the difference.
On the face, the concept looks absolutely simple. Quite on the contrary, it most probably is based upon a very profound philosophical thought. I also sense that it's been deeply inspired by Hindu philosophical concepts.
When Anakin is introduced to the Jedi council as a prospective Jedi, Jedi Master Yoda has something quite insightful to say. Although Anakin is full of the powers needed to be a good Jedi, Yoda senses a deep sense of fear in him. 'Fear leads to anger; anger leads to hatred; and hatred leads to war.' He says, and reconsiders inclusion of Anakin as an apprentice inspite of his being a prodigy. Anakin is, however, eventually accepted into the Jedi council. He proceeds to become the most powerful Jedi that had ever been. But his fear, one of the dark forces, is constantly at work within him. And finally, in the moment of test, he loses his integrity and passes into the dark side. The Sith Lord rechristens him as the 'Darth Vader.' And while he's luring Anakin to turn into a sith, he says: 'Learn to use the dark side of The Force.'
I would direct you to learn more about these things to this place.
There is a mention of 'The Force.' And the dark forces are as much a part of this Force as bright forces are. Dark side of the Force are fear, anger, hatred, jealousy, pride, greed. Bright side of the forces are love, serenity, self-control. Both are sources of enormous powers. In a beautiful shot scene, the Darth Sidious is trapped by Jedi Master Mace Windu, and a severe fight ensues. The sith powers, arising from the dark side of the Force, are a good match for the Jedi Master's powers. But there is one difference. While the good and evil forces meet with each other, moment by moment, the Sith Lord suffers a severe decay. Within seconds of combat, Darth Sidious turns from a powerful figure into a crumpled, wrinkled invalid. Master Windu, however, remains unscathed. I could sense a very clear indication of the fact that dark forces are powerful, but they cause a decay from the inside. While dark forces might add to the immediate power and results, they invariably eat away the inner health.
This is the point where the discussion could be seamlessly transformed into Hindu philosophy.
(Much of the material below are more my interpretation; not verbatim translation of the scriptures. So, it would be a good idea to take things with a pince of salt. But the better thing about the following matter is that I am ready to be believed or disbelieved; to defend refutation modestly on an intellectual level)
In that, it's said that three kinds of forces reside in us: Saatwik, Raajsik and Taamsik. Instances of Saatwik forces are love, intelligence, alertness, love, peace, etc. Instances of Raajsik forces are aggression, determination, courage, eroticism etc. Instance of Taamsik forces are fear, hatred, jealousy, laziness, selfishness, greed etc.
Saatwik forces are outright good; Raajsik ones are neutral; and Taamsik ones are outright bad. The ancient caste system of India was partly based on this. Brahmins (researchers, doctors, priests) were supposed to be pure saatwik characters. They would pursue knowledge and spread it among able disciples, would lead a simple and ascetic life, would never accumulate wealth, and would generally be agents of connecting the rest of the humanity with the higher world. Khrathriyas (rulers, judiciaries, warriors) came next. They are mostly saatwik, but would have raajsik elements in them. Their saatvik character would give them the ability to think and the love for their people. Their raajsik character would give them the power to defend their state if need arose. Vaishyas (traders) came next. They had an equal mix of all forces. They would handle their business with intelligence and energy, which are saatvik forces. The aggressiveness required to defend their wealth emenated from raajsik sources. The greed, which is inherent in all trade adds that dash of taamsik force into the vaishya. Shudras(slaves, labourers, butchers, janitors,...) are predominantly taamsik. They aren't intelligent. They are not courageous. They don't feel for others. They don't have the self-respect to stand up against oppressive forces. They are lazy, unalert and uninnovative. Their only motivation towards working is greed, fear (of punishment and starvation).
The caste system was abused for centuries. Caste was never an inherited wealth in its original form. It had to be earned through conduct and good living. Its running in the lineage might have been authentic many centuries back. But, bloods mixed and matched beyond all account. There's no more any purely Brahmin blood, Kshatriya blood, Vaishya or Shudra blood. We are all born to an unknown lineage of virtues and vices. Today, each man has to prove for himself what he is. We can't borrow any discount from our lineage, since it doesn't exist. Moreover, considering the economic system of today, we all are part Brahmin, part Kshatriya, part Vaishya, and part Shudras.
These forces have also been said to have connection with our lifestyle. For instance, vegetarianism is said to enhance saatvik elements in our being, while non-veg, alcohol and other addictions are supposed to enhance raajsik and taamsik elements. One of the reasons why brahmins have mostly been forbidden from eating non-vegetarian food. The varying levels of ascetism they are supposed to observe also has a similar reason : simplicity enhances satwa; materialism subdues it giving place to tamas.
In parting, the beauty of the idea must be noticed and appreciated. Could it be an experiment worth carrying to keep a probe as to which tendencies are at work at various points of our day-to-day life when we are working, sleeping, talking, eating etc.? Are there such supermen present who lead an active and productive life without ever borrowing energy from the taamsic elements (the dark side of the force). Are there people who can be active, courageous, productive, creative just because they have discovered and opened up the vast reserves of saatwik forces (Bright side of the Force) inside them? Are there true Jedi warriors found these days?
And more interestingly, whether they exist or not, the question is: Can we live a life driven completely by saatwik elements? Can we purify ourselves to become true Brahmins?
I think, it's worth giving a shot!
Darth Vader, the most powerful Jedi, turns into a sith in 'The Revenge of The Sith.' Before his becoming a sith, he used be a Jedi named Anakin Skywalker. He remains equally powerful -- infact grows in his power. But he no more remains a Jedi.
What differentiates a Jedi and a Sith? It's the concept of dark forces. Sith's give themselves up to the dark forces. Jedis don't. That's the difference.
On the face, the concept looks absolutely simple. Quite on the contrary, it most probably is based upon a very profound philosophical thought. I also sense that it's been deeply inspired by Hindu philosophical concepts.
When Anakin is introduced to the Jedi council as a prospective Jedi, Jedi Master Yoda has something quite insightful to say. Although Anakin is full of the powers needed to be a good Jedi, Yoda senses a deep sense of fear in him. 'Fear leads to anger; anger leads to hatred; and hatred leads to war.' He says, and reconsiders inclusion of Anakin as an apprentice inspite of his being a prodigy. Anakin is, however, eventually accepted into the Jedi council. He proceeds to become the most powerful Jedi that had ever been. But his fear, one of the dark forces, is constantly at work within him. And finally, in the moment of test, he loses his integrity and passes into the dark side. The Sith Lord rechristens him as the 'Darth Vader.' And while he's luring Anakin to turn into a sith, he says: 'Learn to use the dark side of The Force.'
I would direct you to learn more about these things to this place.
There is a mention of 'The Force.' And the dark forces are as much a part of this Force as bright forces are. Dark side of the Force are fear, anger, hatred, jealousy, pride, greed. Bright side of the forces are love, serenity, self-control. Both are sources of enormous powers. In a beautiful shot scene, the Darth Sidious is trapped by Jedi Master Mace Windu, and a severe fight ensues. The sith powers, arising from the dark side of the Force, are a good match for the Jedi Master's powers. But there is one difference. While the good and evil forces meet with each other, moment by moment, the Sith Lord suffers a severe decay. Within seconds of combat, Darth Sidious turns from a powerful figure into a crumpled, wrinkled invalid. Master Windu, however, remains unscathed. I could sense a very clear indication of the fact that dark forces are powerful, but they cause a decay from the inside. While dark forces might add to the immediate power and results, they invariably eat away the inner health.
This is the point where the discussion could be seamlessly transformed into Hindu philosophy.
(Much of the material below are more my interpretation; not verbatim translation of the scriptures. So, it would be a good idea to take things with a pince of salt. But the better thing about the following matter is that I am ready to be believed or disbelieved; to defend refutation modestly on an intellectual level)
In that, it's said that three kinds of forces reside in us: Saatwik, Raajsik and Taamsik. Instances of Saatwik forces are love, intelligence, alertness, love, peace, etc. Instances of Raajsik forces are aggression, determination, courage, eroticism etc. Instance of Taamsik forces are fear, hatred, jealousy, laziness, selfishness, greed etc.
Saatwik forces are outright good; Raajsik ones are neutral; and Taamsik ones are outright bad. The ancient caste system of India was partly based on this. Brahmins (researchers, doctors, priests) were supposed to be pure saatwik characters. They would pursue knowledge and spread it among able disciples, would lead a simple and ascetic life, would never accumulate wealth, and would generally be agents of connecting the rest of the humanity with the higher world. Khrathriyas (rulers, judiciaries, warriors) came next. They are mostly saatwik, but would have raajsik elements in them. Their saatvik character would give them the ability to think and the love for their people. Their raajsik character would give them the power to defend their state if need arose. Vaishyas (traders) came next. They had an equal mix of all forces. They would handle their business with intelligence and energy, which are saatvik forces. The aggressiveness required to defend their wealth emenated from raajsik sources. The greed, which is inherent in all trade adds that dash of taamsik force into the vaishya. Shudras(slaves, labourers, butchers, janitors,...) are predominantly taamsik. They aren't intelligent. They are not courageous. They don't feel for others. They don't have the self-respect to stand up against oppressive forces. They are lazy, unalert and uninnovative. Their only motivation towards working is greed, fear (of punishment and starvation).
The caste system was abused for centuries. Caste was never an inherited wealth in its original form. It had to be earned through conduct and good living. Its running in the lineage might have been authentic many centuries back. But, bloods mixed and matched beyond all account. There's no more any purely Brahmin blood, Kshatriya blood, Vaishya or Shudra blood. We are all born to an unknown lineage of virtues and vices. Today, each man has to prove for himself what he is. We can't borrow any discount from our lineage, since it doesn't exist. Moreover, considering the economic system of today, we all are part Brahmin, part Kshatriya, part Vaishya, and part Shudras.
These forces have also been said to have connection with our lifestyle. For instance, vegetarianism is said to enhance saatvik elements in our being, while non-veg, alcohol and other addictions are supposed to enhance raajsik and taamsik elements. One of the reasons why brahmins have mostly been forbidden from eating non-vegetarian food. The varying levels of ascetism they are supposed to observe also has a similar reason : simplicity enhances satwa; materialism subdues it giving place to tamas.
In parting, the beauty of the idea must be noticed and appreciated. Could it be an experiment worth carrying to keep a probe as to which tendencies are at work at various points of our day-to-day life when we are working, sleeping, talking, eating etc.? Are there such supermen present who lead an active and productive life without ever borrowing energy from the taamsic elements (the dark side of the force). Are there people who can be active, courageous, productive, creative just because they have discovered and opened up the vast reserves of saatwik forces (Bright side of the Force) inside them? Are there true Jedi warriors found these days?
And more interestingly, whether they exist or not, the question is: Can we live a life driven completely by saatwik elements? Can we purify ourselves to become true Brahmins?
I think, it's worth giving a shot!
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Violence in Movies
Last week I saw 'Viruddh' in Gymkhana. Amitabh Bacchan plays an ordinary aging man, whose young son gets killed in the hands of a rich and powerful guy. AB is driven to a point where he takes the law in his hands, kills the villain, cleans the mud-stains that had been created on the image of his deceased son through a very farcical lawsuit to try the murderer. Of course, he goes to jail afterwards.
I feel, there are three effects of depiction of violence in movies.
When movies have shameless depiction of violence, there's a clear intent to kindle the basic feelings of violence in the audience. People with lots of violence pent up inside -- occasionally with some reason, but mostly because we are biologically programmed to be violent -- and unable to give vent to them, find immense relief from the pressures thus created, by watching somebody else doing those things. One has the liberty to place oneself in the place of whichever character one identifies with or idolises with the most, and live some experiences that one wouldn't dare to in a normal life -- murdering someone, making love to a very attractive man/woman, etc. The feelings which get vent this way aren't necessarily negative or violent. Feelings of pent up love, patriotism etc. also find private expressions through movies. My father, for instance, who finds it quite hard to express well how much he loves us and everybody and is quite caught up in his self-created image of strict and edgy person, finds a very powerful vent to his soft emotions while watching movies. He usually sits with a towel in his hands, and has it dripping with his tears after a single session of movie-watching. :) Movies aren't a multi-billion rupees industry just without reason.
The other effect of depiction of violence is, of course, the kindling of the right kind of violence. It's undeniable that there're evils everywhere. We need power and violence to fight them in many cases. In this age, non-violence can't tell itself from cowardice, even though they are fundamentally different. However, we are prone to get into cowardlike attitudes of resignation more often that not. That happens because callousness and insensitiveness is often the only escape from a persistent feeling of helplessness. More often than not, this insensitiveness to real problems overshoots the line of optimality. A whole people turn deaf and dumb to exploited by another people who take advantage of this. Rebellion at all levels gets necessitated then. Movies, and other media, do have the power to give us the necessary shock-therapy for awakening us from our soporific attitudes. Again, violence depiction is just one of the things that can be passed as a message. Many lessons can be learnt from movies (and other media) if one honestly depicts the right things, and one watches with an open mind.
There's a third, and not so obvious effect, of which it's my main intention to talk. I feel, movies which end in a violent climax have a deep terrorising effect on us. Our logical mind is well capable of noticing the relation between the undoing of the evil, and the way that was brought about. While we get charged up to fight evil by seeing the possibility of its end in the movie, the fact that only a very extreme act of violence brought that gets surreptitiously registered in our mind. A person of normal strength and courage is never going to resort to some extremes of violence, however hard he's driven towards it. If it's craftily shown to him that only a very violent act can bring an end to evil, he will easily believe it. His response: a conclusive resignation and surrender to his own plight.
There are many acts of courage and strength which are not violent in nature: honesty and integrity aren't the least of them. Hard-work, self-reliance being two more to count. It requires a much more expert storytelling to show that these are ultimate weapons against many atrocities. The instances of thorough implementation and success of these virtues may be rare, which proves the point that it's difficult to achieve freedom through non-violent means. But they exist, and an astute observer will notice the much greater heroism involved in them.
But, I wonder if that's at all the intention of many filmmakers. Very talented film-makers who have made movies showing extreme violence have been known to have direct or indirect links to the underworld. I wonder if they are to the Underworlds what writer used to be to the social reformers: careers of messages. While for centuries, writers and artists have effectively conveyed many forwardlooking ideas to the common people, I am apprehensive that many good filmmakers do a very good job in slowly uprooting all faith in goodness and non-violence in the normal public, to make cynical cowards out of them.
We must take care in absorbing hidden messages from movies. If life-partners aren't earned by singing songs running around trees, then liberation from social-evils can't be obtained by going about shooting villains.
I feel, there are three effects of depiction of violence in movies.
When movies have shameless depiction of violence, there's a clear intent to kindle the basic feelings of violence in the audience. People with lots of violence pent up inside -- occasionally with some reason, but mostly because we are biologically programmed to be violent -- and unable to give vent to them, find immense relief from the pressures thus created, by watching somebody else doing those things. One has the liberty to place oneself in the place of whichever character one identifies with or idolises with the most, and live some experiences that one wouldn't dare to in a normal life -- murdering someone, making love to a very attractive man/woman, etc. The feelings which get vent this way aren't necessarily negative or violent. Feelings of pent up love, patriotism etc. also find private expressions through movies. My father, for instance, who finds it quite hard to express well how much he loves us and everybody and is quite caught up in his self-created image of strict and edgy person, finds a very powerful vent to his soft emotions while watching movies. He usually sits with a towel in his hands, and has it dripping with his tears after a single session of movie-watching. :) Movies aren't a multi-billion rupees industry just without reason.
The other effect of depiction of violence is, of course, the kindling of the right kind of violence. It's undeniable that there're evils everywhere. We need power and violence to fight them in many cases. In this age, non-violence can't tell itself from cowardice, even though they are fundamentally different. However, we are prone to get into cowardlike attitudes of resignation more often that not. That happens because callousness and insensitiveness is often the only escape from a persistent feeling of helplessness. More often than not, this insensitiveness to real problems overshoots the line of optimality. A whole people turn deaf and dumb to exploited by another people who take advantage of this. Rebellion at all levels gets necessitated then. Movies, and other media, do have the power to give us the necessary shock-therapy for awakening us from our soporific attitudes. Again, violence depiction is just one of the things that can be passed as a message. Many lessons can be learnt from movies (and other media) if one honestly depicts the right things, and one watches with an open mind.
There's a third, and not so obvious effect, of which it's my main intention to talk. I feel, movies which end in a violent climax have a deep terrorising effect on us. Our logical mind is well capable of noticing the relation between the undoing of the evil, and the way that was brought about. While we get charged up to fight evil by seeing the possibility of its end in the movie, the fact that only a very extreme act of violence brought that gets surreptitiously registered in our mind. A person of normal strength and courage is never going to resort to some extremes of violence, however hard he's driven towards it. If it's craftily shown to him that only a very violent act can bring an end to evil, he will easily believe it. His response: a conclusive resignation and surrender to his own plight.
There are many acts of courage and strength which are not violent in nature: honesty and integrity aren't the least of them. Hard-work, self-reliance being two more to count. It requires a much more expert storytelling to show that these are ultimate weapons against many atrocities. The instances of thorough implementation and success of these virtues may be rare, which proves the point that it's difficult to achieve freedom through non-violent means. But they exist, and an astute observer will notice the much greater heroism involved in them.
But, I wonder if that's at all the intention of many filmmakers. Very talented film-makers who have made movies showing extreme violence have been known to have direct or indirect links to the underworld. I wonder if they are to the Underworlds what writer used to be to the social reformers: careers of messages. While for centuries, writers and artists have effectively conveyed many forwardlooking ideas to the common people, I am apprehensive that many good filmmakers do a very good job in slowly uprooting all faith in goodness and non-violence in the normal public, to make cynical cowards out of them.
We must take care in absorbing hidden messages from movies. If life-partners aren't earned by singing songs running around trees, then liberation from social-evils can't be obtained by going about shooting villains.
My Trip to Coimbatore - A Thought about Traditions
I did say a word or two about traditions in my previous blog: Simple Ways of South India. That more or less summarises my thoughts about them. I don't care much about traditions myself. I feel I don't need them in most cases. Some lesser mortal do, though! ;)
One of the first things that come to our mind while talking of traditions are elaborate rituals in religious ceremonies of India. And, one of the prime reasons why such elaborate rituals exist in our ways is sheer blind-faith mixed with a dash of histrionics of some pseudo-religious hypocrite.
I remember one such example while in Coimbatore recently. The bride's procession was about to leave from their home to the marriage hall. At that point, Senthil's mom was getting busy with two cute puppies -- Julie and Tommy -- she has adopted. They were innocently loitering around near the gate. Someone, supposed to be Senthil's father's old friend, suggested that the dogs be removed from sight, since it's inauspicious to have dogs in sight while setting out for a journey. I found his suggestion quite novel. I have been having dogs and cats and cows and pigs and men all around me many time while leaving for a journey. Unless one claims that my life itself is a tragedy, I feel those journeys have generally ended in an untragic note. Dogs are inauspicious to journeys no more than human beings are. When I probed the reason of his peculiar suggestion with him, he started giving the very reasonable explanation that after all those were dogs and could create a mess anytime, which is not good...whatever! That person was standing there puffing at a cigarette. I didn't like it; the bride didn't like it; and the dogs had nothing to do with it either. I would well have dragged the chap out of the sight and chained him up in the backyard! Atleast dogs don't give hypocritic suggestions! But the people who were controlling things there found no reason to disagree and Julie and Tommy were promptly removed from sight.
Yes...so a lot of compliance to traditions happens owing to blind faith and hypocricy on one side or all sides.
But there's one other aspect. It's rather positive. It's not unique to traditions and rituals. But, it's certainly true about them. Rituals let us slow down a bit. They let us lovingly proceed through the little parts of an important thing. That way, they lengthen the process, and help us focus on details. If you look at many hard things we do in our every day life, this technique works magic. A bit of concentration; and a bit of patience. Basically, often we stumble when we are in a hurry to get over with the current occupation, and get busy with the next one. Often, we are desparate to attain a feeling of movement; and we erroneously choose hastefulness to get that. Elaborate rituals can be looked at as good indirect lesson in slowing down.
There's another connected good thing about rituals. They involve many people, are often rather joyous or painful, and cause the event getting imprinted in the minds of its participation. That, I guess, is an effective -- albiet non-technical -- way of documenting history.
One other person who was also present there talked about traditions in an offhand manner, saying that traditions are being followed because of some reason that nobody is clear about. They'll all go in good time. Perhaps, it's a very intelligent remark. But I felt that there's snag in it. Old traditions will go; new ones will come. It doesn't seem likely that man is going to do without traditions in any short future. Traditions are abstract legacies that connect people with their past and future. They give them a community identity. All very practical and fundamental requirements of a human creature. Uhm. Traditions are here to stay -- in one form or another!
One of the first things that come to our mind while talking of traditions are elaborate rituals in religious ceremonies of India. And, one of the prime reasons why such elaborate rituals exist in our ways is sheer blind-faith mixed with a dash of histrionics of some pseudo-religious hypocrite.
I remember one such example while in Coimbatore recently. The bride's procession was about to leave from their home to the marriage hall. At that point, Senthil's mom was getting busy with two cute puppies -- Julie and Tommy -- she has adopted. They were innocently loitering around near the gate. Someone, supposed to be Senthil's father's old friend, suggested that the dogs be removed from sight, since it's inauspicious to have dogs in sight while setting out for a journey. I found his suggestion quite novel. I have been having dogs and cats and cows and pigs and men all around me many time while leaving for a journey. Unless one claims that my life itself is a tragedy, I feel those journeys have generally ended in an untragic note. Dogs are inauspicious to journeys no more than human beings are. When I probed the reason of his peculiar suggestion with him, he started giving the very reasonable explanation that after all those were dogs and could create a mess anytime, which is not good...whatever! That person was standing there puffing at a cigarette. I didn't like it; the bride didn't like it; and the dogs had nothing to do with it either. I would well have dragged the chap out of the sight and chained him up in the backyard! Atleast dogs don't give hypocritic suggestions! But the people who were controlling things there found no reason to disagree and Julie and Tommy were promptly removed from sight.
Yes...so a lot of compliance to traditions happens owing to blind faith and hypocricy on one side or all sides.
But there's one other aspect. It's rather positive. It's not unique to traditions and rituals. But, it's certainly true about them. Rituals let us slow down a bit. They let us lovingly proceed through the little parts of an important thing. That way, they lengthen the process, and help us focus on details. If you look at many hard things we do in our every day life, this technique works magic. A bit of concentration; and a bit of patience. Basically, often we stumble when we are in a hurry to get over with the current occupation, and get busy with the next one. Often, we are desparate to attain a feeling of movement; and we erroneously choose hastefulness to get that. Elaborate rituals can be looked at as good indirect lesson in slowing down.
There's another connected good thing about rituals. They involve many people, are often rather joyous or painful, and cause the event getting imprinted in the minds of its participation. That, I guess, is an effective -- albiet non-technical -- way of documenting history.
One other person who was also present there talked about traditions in an offhand manner, saying that traditions are being followed because of some reason that nobody is clear about. They'll all go in good time. Perhaps, it's a very intelligent remark. But I felt that there's snag in it. Old traditions will go; new ones will come. It doesn't seem likely that man is going to do without traditions in any short future. Traditions are abstract legacies that connect people with their past and future. They give them a community identity. All very practical and fundamental requirements of a human creature. Uhm. Traditions are here to stay -- in one form or another!
Saturday, January 28, 2006
My Trip to Coimbatore - The Early Return
For the last three days, I have been having a great time. I was in Coimbatore, attending the wedding of one of my childhood friends (I have lots of childhood friends; in fact the friends that I make even now are my childhood friends! ;) ). I came back yesternight. The sensation I had at that time was a sweet, lovely exhaustion and sleepiness, and a feeling : 'Ah! Now that was one crisp short trip!' When I was having a dinner in Tea board, I asked Satyam, Maria and Rumki one by one to join me. All of them were in the Gymkhana movie. So, I got to have some nice time with myself. I would suggest you try it one of these day. Spend yourself out for the day, and become thoroughly exhausted. Then go to Tea board and sit alone on one of the corner tables with a bowl of noodles and a cup of Tea. You are bound to have a memorable time with yourself. :)
We boarded Kanyakumari Express on Wednesday night. And were in Coimbatore at 5 AM, thursday. I went to Karthik's place first. Finished my breakfast there. I started off to the marriage place at about 9 AM.
I am also happy that I will be able to attend the Rhythmica programme today evening. The trip was initially planned to be three day long. I was supposed to be back on Sunday morning. Had that happened I would have missed the programme. But the day before yesterday, when I reached Senthil's (it's his twin sister Padma who got married yesterday) house, I realised that it was quite a crowded house that day. I was given the due importance, space and hospitality. But it would have been a wrong thing to expect them to pamper me (as they always do when I go to their place) for three days in such busy times. Coincidentally we had to go to the station that day to book some tickets. And I got the idea that perhaps the best thing to do was to return early. Luckily I got the ticket. And I am back. Good! :)
We boarded Kanyakumari Express on Wednesday night. And were in Coimbatore at 5 AM, thursday. I went to Karthik's place first. Finished my breakfast there. I started off to the marriage place at about 9 AM.
I am also happy that I will be able to attend the Rhythmica programme today evening. The trip was initially planned to be three day long. I was supposed to be back on Sunday morning. Had that happened I would have missed the programme. But the day before yesterday, when I reached Senthil's (it's his twin sister Padma who got married yesterday) house, I realised that it was quite a crowded house that day. I was given the due importance, space and hospitality. But it would have been a wrong thing to expect them to pamper me (as they always do when I go to their place) for three days in such busy times. Coincidentally we had to go to the station that day to book some tickets. And I got the idea that perhaps the best thing to do was to return early. Luckily I got the ticket. And I am back. Good! :)
My Trip to Coimbatore - Simple Ways of South India
Thursday, when I reached Senthil's house, I took bath and changed into a Kurta (Rhythmica) and a pyjama. That's a dress I usually never go out in. Supposedly my night dress, or something of that sort.
That evening, there was a premarital ceremony. It was almost in the same scale as the marriage. And know what?! I went there in my night-dress, a pair of bathroom slippers added to that! :)
And if you are thinking, that's too much, let me tell you that it wasn't by any means. Most of the gentlemen there were dressed in some light coloured shirt and veshti. My attire was more colourful than theirs.
Well, 'Do in Rome as Romans do.' I feel, that's exactly what happened there. I didn't get any scandalised glares from anybody there.
Contrary to this, I am sure that in North India, this would have been impossible. There marriages are full of pomp and show. People dress up in a very glamourous way there; and one's acceptability in the gathering increases with increasing glitz.
I feel that South-India scores over North-India in this regard. If there's any vanity involved in South-Indian marriages, it's surely not as blatant as it is in North-India.
I observed a reaffirmation of this in the food. Though, Senthil's family is a non-vegetarian family, complete vegetarianism was observed during the wedding. Contrary to this, I can't imagine a Bengali marriage without non-veg. In fact, I sometimes feel that if and when I ever marry, I will give a complete vegetarian party. But I know that it won't be listened to in my family. :( The food was heavenly. Hot rice, sambar with lots of vegetables, some simple vegetables and sweets. The message that I wrote to some of my friends after finishing one of the meals there was : 'Rice, sambar, rasam, sabji1, sabji2, kesri bath, papad, pickle1, pickle2, chutney...Grub.Grub.Grub...Burp! Blesings from a satisfied Brahmin. Happy wedding :-D '
I ate beyond all my limits, and didn't face any stomach problems. Well! Atleast while I was there.
Yes, vanity is not blatant. But it would be wrong to say that it's absent. My observation has been that dowry-system is disappearing at a faster rate in north than in south. In fact, I am quite amazed with the way people look at dowry. It's given a very noble look, and you just can't argue. Lakhs of rupees in cash and gold are transferred from the bride's family to the groom's family. It is difficult to argue why only the bride's family is so concerned about creating infrastructure of their daughter's new home, and why can't the groom's family do it. It's presented all as if it's some kind of voluntary gift for the loved one. So, it becomes a very family matter, in which others can't speak. Even if the scale at which dowrying is done is way beyond the normal scale of operation of the family, it's still voluntary! Kuprathas survive in a very clever way. In most cases, they survive not by force of the perpetrator, but the by the apparently willing submission of the victim.
Another point of vanity was regarding religious customs. They are followed to the limit here in South-India. Nothing wrong of course. But I see that they are blindly followed with a nonsensical faith. In fact I met with characters who generally chip in with a suggestion of some custom that must be followed. I feel, in most cases, their sole purpose is to attract some attention and show how much they know about religious stuff -- which in our nation is an easy substitute for being a good person. And people follow it without question. I feel, that's how Hindu rituals have got so badly riddled with rituals which lack the least bit of sense. I feel, this kind of vanity, is more a show of faith to God, as if to say: 'See! We are such staunch followers of you! How can you not bless us!'
That evening, there was a premarital ceremony. It was almost in the same scale as the marriage. And know what?! I went there in my night-dress, a pair of bathroom slippers added to that! :)
And if you are thinking, that's too much, let me tell you that it wasn't by any means. Most of the gentlemen there were dressed in some light coloured shirt and veshti. My attire was more colourful than theirs.
Well, 'Do in Rome as Romans do.' I feel, that's exactly what happened there. I didn't get any scandalised glares from anybody there.
Contrary to this, I am sure that in North India, this would have been impossible. There marriages are full of pomp and show. People dress up in a very glamourous way there; and one's acceptability in the gathering increases with increasing glitz.
I feel that South-India scores over North-India in this regard. If there's any vanity involved in South-Indian marriages, it's surely not as blatant as it is in North-India.
I observed a reaffirmation of this in the food. Though, Senthil's family is a non-vegetarian family, complete vegetarianism was observed during the wedding. Contrary to this, I can't imagine a Bengali marriage without non-veg. In fact, I sometimes feel that if and when I ever marry, I will give a complete vegetarian party. But I know that it won't be listened to in my family. :( The food was heavenly. Hot rice, sambar with lots of vegetables, some simple vegetables and sweets. The message that I wrote to some of my friends after finishing one of the meals there was : '
I ate beyond all my limits, and didn't face any stomach problems. Well! Atleast while I was there.
Yes, vanity is not blatant. But it would be wrong to say that it's absent. My observation has been that dowry-system is disappearing at a faster rate in north than in south. In fact, I am quite amazed with the way people look at dowry. It's given a very noble look, and you just can't argue. Lakhs of rupees in cash and gold are transferred from the bride's family to the groom's family. It is difficult to argue why only the bride's family is so concerned about creating infrastructure of their daughter's new home, and why can't the groom's family do it. It's presented all as if it's some kind of voluntary gift for the loved one. So, it becomes a very family matter, in which others can't speak. Even if the scale at which dowrying is done is way beyond the normal scale of operation of the family, it's still voluntary! Kuprathas survive in a very clever way. In most cases, they survive not by force of the perpetrator, but the by the apparently willing submission of the victim.
Another point of vanity was regarding religious customs. They are followed to the limit here in South-India. Nothing wrong of course. But I see that they are blindly followed with a nonsensical faith. In fact I met with characters who generally chip in with a suggestion of some custom that must be followed. I feel, in most cases, their sole purpose is to attract some attention and show how much they know about religious stuff -- which in our nation is an easy substitute for being a good person. And people follow it without question. I feel, that's how Hindu rituals have got so badly riddled with rituals which lack the least bit of sense. I feel, this kind of vanity, is more a show of faith to God, as if to say: 'See! We are such staunch followers of you! How can you not bless us!'
Sunday, January 22, 2006
Ironies
The greatest feats of a man will never be noticed. Sometimes they will go unseen even by its achiever. Because, these achievements aren't those which makes one proud. They are those which proves that man can survive against the toughest of odds. When there's nothing to be proud of; when there's nothing to rejoice about; when all that seems to be in stock is more disgrace, more disappointments, more pain. When contrary of promises of new gifts, life comes with threaths that even the meagre little things that are there are also gradually slipping away: health, happiness, wealth, youth, family...life!
And yet man marches on. On towards a death that more certain than anything else, preceded by every possible sign of its slow approach. Thank god the arrival is always sudden!
Man's biggest achievement is perhaps in wishing for something, and then going on loving the life with no hope of such gifts ever coming.
Man's greatness is not in his greatness; it's in his reconciliation with his insignificance.
(written in a mood when I was not able to figure out if I am happy or sorrowful; relieved or numbed; alive or dead! All I could figure out is that I still have the courage to see how many more dramas of life I will take part in as a clown! I have just decided to go on and find out.)
And yet man marches on. On towards a death that more certain than anything else, preceded by every possible sign of its slow approach. Thank god the arrival is always sudden!
Man's biggest achievement is perhaps in wishing for something, and then going on loving the life with no hope of such gifts ever coming.
Man's greatness is not in his greatness; it's in his reconciliation with his insignificance.
(written in a mood when I was not able to figure out if I am happy or sorrowful; relieved or numbed; alive or dead! All I could figure out is that I still have the courage to see how many more dramas of life I will take part in as a clown! I have just decided to go on and find out.)
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Addendum on Curiosity
In one of my previous blogs, Mystery and Curiosity I had made a slight allusion to the power of curiosity. Thence, I have come to know that, by many, curiosity is not always looked at in the way I had meant. Curiosity also could mean that peepy tendency, the urge to know about others' secrets.
In a very western-like society, we ought to respect the personal-space of people. By personal space, we mean a space -- in space, time,...it's difficult to define, in what -- that's completely allocated to that person. An expanse, which the person may keep completely to himself. In practical sense, we consider it acceptable that a person may have a place, possessions, time, thoughts which he doesn't share with anybody. Think of all these as coordinates in some kind of abstract space. Then there will be certain points in this space which belong only to a single person. That's his personal space.
So, it's OK for people to have a personal space. The kind of curiosity that instigates somebody to violate the personal space of someone else is negative, bad. Quite right!
But, I reiterate that it's man's basic nature to be curious. It's similar to hunger, or sleep, or sex. A person who has his hands full with food, rest or erotic pleasures is not in a position to acquire any more of these things. But, as soon as present stocks deplete, man will again start craving. But, we observe that just being hungry doesn't entitle us to any food; we have to earn it. Just being tired and sleepy doesn't make rest an obvious choice; work overrides our craving for sleep, more often than not. Just being sexually aroused doesn't make it legitimate to pounce on the object of desire; there's a way (a very very complicated way, in case of humans!) to gain access to this satiation!
Curiosity, in the similar manner, is one of our basic instincts. It's always there. It always has to be fed. If the inventive mind of ours is full of preoccupation, it doesn't crib. The moment there's some compute power available, it starts fidgeting about, looking for something new to know, to explore, to understand, to become the master of the secret of. And like all the above, there're social regulations on the ways and avenues which could be used to feed the curiosity.
Like all the above cases, our volition is usually strong enough to override this primitive urges. We know when not to eat, when not to sleep, when not to make sexual overtures. We know when not to be curious too.
In all these counts curiosity qualifies perfectly well as a basic biological instinct. In fact other species also show traits of inquisitiveness. So, curiosity, in a strict sense, is not unique to humans. However, our superior intelligence, our logical, creative, imaginative powers, combined with our urge to know and explore more, gives us that special power. I consider that power special enough that following it honestly and legitimately, we will someday be having coffee with God at His house! :D
In a very western-like society, we ought to respect the personal-space of people. By personal space, we mean a space -- in space, time,...it's difficult to define, in what -- that's completely allocated to that person. An expanse, which the person may keep completely to himself. In practical sense, we consider it acceptable that a person may have a place, possessions, time, thoughts which he doesn't share with anybody. Think of all these as coordinates in some kind of abstract space. Then there will be certain points in this space which belong only to a single person. That's his personal space.
So, it's OK for people to have a personal space. The kind of curiosity that instigates somebody to violate the personal space of someone else is negative, bad. Quite right!
But, I reiterate that it's man's basic nature to be curious. It's similar to hunger, or sleep, or sex. A person who has his hands full with food, rest or erotic pleasures is not in a position to acquire any more of these things. But, as soon as present stocks deplete, man will again start craving. But, we observe that just being hungry doesn't entitle us to any food; we have to earn it. Just being tired and sleepy doesn't make rest an obvious choice; work overrides our craving for sleep, more often than not. Just being sexually aroused doesn't make it legitimate to pounce on the object of desire; there's a way (a very very complicated way, in case of humans!) to gain access to this satiation!
Curiosity, in the similar manner, is one of our basic instincts. It's always there. It always has to be fed. If the inventive mind of ours is full of preoccupation, it doesn't crib. The moment there's some compute power available, it starts fidgeting about, looking for something new to know, to explore, to understand, to become the master of the secret of. And like all the above, there're social regulations on the ways and avenues which could be used to feed the curiosity.
Like all the above cases, our volition is usually strong enough to override this primitive urges. We know when not to eat, when not to sleep, when not to make sexual overtures. We know when not to be curious too.
In all these counts curiosity qualifies perfectly well as a basic biological instinct. In fact other species also show traits of inquisitiveness. So, curiosity, in a strict sense, is not unique to humans. However, our superior intelligence, our logical, creative, imaginative powers, combined with our urge to know and explore more, gives us that special power. I consider that power special enough that following it honestly and legitimately, we will someday be having coffee with God at His house! :D
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Researchers - Germs of An Evolved Species
PhD culminates with a very different set of experiences and lessons for each person. Perhpas, it's too early for me to summarise my set of experiences and lessons, but certain thoughts do keep churning in my mind; and they seem to be conclusively true.
Research is like life. We all come into it with our own sets of strengths and failings. Before we can find out if they good for a research or not, comes the question of whether I know about them. Much tme and energy is wasted trying to tap sources of strength which are already dry. One may face severe lack of confidence and depression due to the above mistake.
The second learning is that it's not necessarily true that people who never make mistakes, never ever get to question their capability, are better off than others. Phd can't be evaluated merely by how quickly it gets over; how prompt and steady the flow of publications is. Just like life, PhD is to be judged much on the basis of how satisfied one feels at the end of it. Learning never stops. So it's wrong o say that people who don't do their PhDs don't learn. But, PhD is a duration when one is supposedly in the prime of his youth, is still open to lessons, and during the process, is pampered enough to keep believing in higher ideals of life. A PhD is potentially the example of a higher form of life, a germ of an evolved creature. The world is not evolved enough to want to be like a scholar; but perhaps is wise enough to protect and honour a race that's the only concrete hope that a higher, more evolved form of life is possible. Well! That may sound rather egotistical! But well, that's not meant to offend anybody. :)
Research is like life. We all come into it with our own sets of strengths and failings. Before we can find out if they good for a research or not, comes the question of whether I know about them. Much tme and energy is wasted trying to tap sources of strength which are already dry. One may face severe lack of confidence and depression due to the above mistake.
The second learning is that it's not necessarily true that people who never make mistakes, never ever get to question their capability, are better off than others. Phd can't be evaluated merely by how quickly it gets over; how prompt and steady the flow of publications is. Just like life, PhD is to be judged much on the basis of how satisfied one feels at the end of it. Learning never stops. So it's wrong o say that people who don't do their PhDs don't learn. But, PhD is a duration when one is supposedly in the prime of his youth, is still open to lessons, and during the process, is pampered enough to keep believing in higher ideals of life. A PhD is potentially the example of a higher form of life, a germ of an evolved creature. The world is not evolved enough to want to be like a scholar; but perhaps is wise enough to protect and honour a race that's the only concrete hope that a higher, more evolved form of life is possible. Well! That may sound rather egotistical! But well, that's not meant to offend anybody. :)
Handwriting - the extinct art
I suppose, getting a hand-written letter from a friend manyn't be one of the very usual thngs for you now. At least that's what I get to hear from all my friends. They invariably prefer e-mails, chats, phone-calls or SMSs to writing with pen. Handwriting, now, is perhaps an obsolete craft. I too can't completely deny that compared to the amount we used to do in our school or colleges, now, handwriting has got reduced to a luxury to be enjoyed once in a while. Even my habit of diary writing has got converted to electronic: BLOGs.
But the habit of writing and receiving handwritten letters has never quite died for me. I still have at least two pen friends. And if I don't really want to write to them, and my hands are itchin, I write to my father.
The extinction of handwriting as a form of art or craft is akin to the extinction of cheetahs or tigers. They are beautiful; and everybody would like them to be there somewhere. But as a species, they have proved themselves unfit for survival. People would have them live -- in zoos and jungles. But nobody keeps a tiger as a pet (except a for a cranky few). These species will have to go, sooner or later. A few enthusiasts can't save a species for ever, if it doesn't know how to suvive by itself.
Handwriting too will become an extinct practice. With the concept of paperless offices coming into fashion, pens will be driven out of their last shelter soon. Nobody can say if this is good or unfortunate.
But the habit of writing and receiving handwritten letters has never quite died for me. I still have at least two pen friends. And if I don't really want to write to them, and my hands are itchin, I write to my father.
The extinction of handwriting as a form of art or craft is akin to the extinction of cheetahs or tigers. They are beautiful; and everybody would like them to be there somewhere. But as a species, they have proved themselves unfit for survival. People would have them live -- in zoos and jungles. But nobody keeps a tiger as a pet (except a for a cranky few). These species will have to go, sooner or later. A few enthusiasts can't save a species for ever, if it doesn't know how to suvive by itself.
Handwriting too will become an extinct practice. With the concept of paperless offices coming into fashion, pens will be driven out of their last shelter soon. Nobody can say if this is good or unfortunate.
Man - Is he temporary, or permanent?
I am sure you all must have observed a tendency in us to reuse many things. We reuse our knowledge. We reuse our cooking, we reuse the designs etc etc. We even resuse our wastes. It makes sense, since it results in saving. But, certain things which we observe about this business of reuse seems to go a bit overboard.
I could cite an example from my field: Software Engineering. There's a great emphasis placed on the idea of reusing software in all ways possible. We try to write the program in such a way that a binary executable executes everywhere. Java, and .NET are inventions which follow this maxim. Well! It always doesn't prove to be possible. So, people try to write programs in such a way that, as far as possible, the application only needs a different build for a different platform. That's called source code level portability. They don't stop only there, though. There's this of field of software design which is mostly about building the software in such a way that the parts of the program so created should serve as much purpose as possible. No two pieces of code should do the same thing. Maximum reuse. The story continues to the realms of design patterns and architectural patterns -- they are some kind of coded design solutions to frequently occuring design problems, especially in the area of Object Oriented software engineering --, analysis patterns -- which are supposed to be reusable understanding of the problems. Upto the point of source code reuse, the benefits are apparent; but beyond that, in design patterns etc., things become a bit too cryptic and abstract for a mind of normal calibre to comprehend. Would these things have been invented had the question been only for 'reuse' in practical sense? I feel, researchers working on computer architecture have been doing a pretty good and practical job in giving us with faster and more spacious computers every other day. Yes, there's this issue of software complexity; but again, the solutions that design patterns give are not comprehensible to a big body of people who do extensive amount of computer programming.
I feel, the reason for doing investigations in any form of reuse has a more basic, albiet less practical, root. That's in man's fascination with permanence.
Man sees himself in his creation. Creation is how man (a creative man) tries to leave his mark in many things. Perhaps, somewhere at the back of his mind, there's this hope that some of them will outlive him. While his body perishes, he will live on in some of his creations. In these lines, many would argue that people like Ved Vyasa, Vinci, Newton, Tolstoy etc. are not dead yet. The corresponding belief in the immortality of their leader of the followers of people like Buddha, Mohammed, Vivekananda etc. would be particularly vehement, I'm sure.
The idea of man's immense love for his creation has been churning in my mind for such a long time! The life and identity of a person extends when he creates something. A part of the life perishes as the object of creation perishes. Regarding this, I had written a short story in my final year of engineering. The name of the story was 'The Castle of Sand.' It was about how the love for his creation leads a person to criminal extents to save it.
I see the same emotion beautifully portrayed in the movie 'The Bridge on the River Kwai' where a colonel and his regiment, who're in captivity of the Japanese during the second World War, build a bridge across a river for carrying the reinforcements of the Japanese forces in Burma. The bridge gets destroyed in the end, but within the split second climax of the story, we see how the colonel hangs in a delicate balance between the irrepressible urge to save his creation, and the call of duty to serve his nation. Wonderful movie!
A similar portrayal is found in the classic 'Frankenstein.' The inventor invents a life form which turns destructive. The inventors chases the demon of his own creation to the end of the world. His clear vow was to destroy it, as it had been a cause of many losses of dear lives. But beyond all this, there's this subtle depiction of the author whose meaning of living on ends with the end of his creation. Life doesn't lose its value by a mere fulfilment of a promise, or loss of dear ones. It will happen when it knows that by going on, it has no hope of devising its perpetuation.
The point is: We all want to live forever. If not in bodily form, then atleast in some other form: as
a painting or sculpture, as a literary work, as a musical creation, as a scientific idea.
I want to draw your attention to the concept of God, and adwaita. We believe, that we -- the creation of God -- are parts of Him. I feel, this could have its roots in the idea of man searching himself and his identity in his own creation.
I was reading some of the works of Vivekananda recently. So much vigour! So much hope! That we can discover our inherent eternity from our daily chores, from acts possible within the confines of this physical existence! No wonder, seeds of hope the great man sowed a century ago, have grown into huge trees and they still bear fruits for millions of people.
However, there's another school of spiritual philosophy which argues in a seemingly conflicting line. Our old scriptures, the Eastern philosophies of Tao and Zen, all talk about change. 'The only thing that's permanent is CHANGE.' That's the maxim!
One one hand, change is evolution, change is improvement, change is a better future. But on the other hand, change is aging, change is death.
While it's easy to accept the fruitfulness of change on the entire universe, we find it difficult to accept that we are also a part of that changing universe; and we fight decay and death with all our might. We see God as one with the Nature; we see God as one with us. Somehow, it's woefully difficult, that by simple transitivity, we all are one with the nature.
The intention of pointing out the above dichotomy in human thoughts is not to ridicule the idea of preservation of life. In fact, the idea is not even to talk about the rightness or wrongness of one or another. I wish to locate the thing that associates so much pain and fear with the concept of death. I feel, it's our love for permanence. Inspite of teeming evidence of change and temporariness, we have been able to create such magnificant concept like GOD, something that defies change and transience. At least half the population of the world sticks on to their faith in God with a vehemence that could move mountains. God is their only hope that permanence is possible; and that seeking it is theoretically not out of question. Religions and mystic theses create such foolproof frameworks that protect our faith with unbelievable efficiency. That there lies something beyond this miniscule physical existence -- wonderful if it's something so beautiful as a Heaven; but even if it's hell, far more acceptable than a sudden absolute end of existence -- itself gives a win-win deal. Anything to live beyond this body!
Life is full of contrasting ideals and realities. The tussle between our seeking permanence, and our inherent temporariness, is one of the basic ones. It would be one of the greatest realisations of life if someone would be able to see the ideal hidden within the reality; when someone is able to apprepriate, and not just understand, that 'change is permanent.' I don't appreciate it. I am like million more brethen of mine trying hard to reconcile my realities with my primal ideals!
I could cite an example from my field: Software Engineering. There's a great emphasis placed on the idea of reusing software in all ways possible. We try to write the program in such a way that a binary executable executes everywhere. Java, and .NET are inventions which follow this maxim. Well! It always doesn't prove to be possible. So, people try to write programs in such a way that, as far as possible, the application only needs a different build for a different platform. That's called source code level portability. They don't stop only there, though. There's this of field of software design which is mostly about building the software in such a way that the parts of the program so created should serve as much purpose as possible. No two pieces of code should do the same thing. Maximum reuse. The story continues to the realms of design patterns and architectural patterns -- they are some kind of coded design solutions to frequently occuring design problems, especially in the area of Object Oriented software engineering --, analysis patterns -- which are supposed to be reusable understanding of the problems. Upto the point of source code reuse, the benefits are apparent; but beyond that, in design patterns etc., things become a bit too cryptic and abstract for a mind of normal calibre to comprehend. Would these things have been invented had the question been only for 'reuse' in practical sense? I feel, researchers working on computer architecture have been doing a pretty good and practical job in giving us with faster and more spacious computers every other day. Yes, there's this issue of software complexity; but again, the solutions that design patterns give are not comprehensible to a big body of people who do extensive amount of computer programming.
I feel, the reason for doing investigations in any form of reuse has a more basic, albiet less practical, root. That's in man's fascination with permanence.
Man sees himself in his creation. Creation is how man (a creative man) tries to leave his mark in many things. Perhaps, somewhere at the back of his mind, there's this hope that some of them will outlive him. While his body perishes, he will live on in some of his creations. In these lines, many would argue that people like Ved Vyasa, Vinci, Newton, Tolstoy etc. are not dead yet. The corresponding belief in the immortality of their leader of the followers of people like Buddha, Mohammed, Vivekananda etc. would be particularly vehement, I'm sure.
The idea of man's immense love for his creation has been churning in my mind for such a long time! The life and identity of a person extends when he creates something. A part of the life perishes as the object of creation perishes. Regarding this, I had written a short story in my final year of engineering. The name of the story was 'The Castle of Sand.' It was about how the love for his creation leads a person to criminal extents to save it.
I see the same emotion beautifully portrayed in the movie 'The Bridge on the River Kwai' where a colonel and his regiment, who're in captivity of the Japanese during the second World War, build a bridge across a river for carrying the reinforcements of the Japanese forces in Burma. The bridge gets destroyed in the end, but within the split second climax of the story, we see how the colonel hangs in a delicate balance between the irrepressible urge to save his creation, and the call of duty to serve his nation. Wonderful movie!
A similar portrayal is found in the classic 'Frankenstein.' The inventor invents a life form which turns destructive. The inventors chases the demon of his own creation to the end of the world. His clear vow was to destroy it, as it had been a cause of many losses of dear lives. But beyond all this, there's this subtle depiction of the author whose meaning of living on ends with the end of his creation. Life doesn't lose its value by a mere fulfilment of a promise, or loss of dear ones. It will happen when it knows that by going on, it has no hope of devising its perpetuation.
The point is: We all want to live forever. If not in bodily form, then atleast in some other form: as
a painting or sculpture, as a literary work, as a musical creation, as a scientific idea.
I want to draw your attention to the concept of God, and adwaita. We believe, that we -- the creation of God -- are parts of Him. I feel, this could have its roots in the idea of man searching himself and his identity in his own creation.
I was reading some of the works of Vivekananda recently. So much vigour! So much hope! That we can discover our inherent eternity from our daily chores, from acts possible within the confines of this physical existence! No wonder, seeds of hope the great man sowed a century ago, have grown into huge trees and they still bear fruits for millions of people.
However, there's another school of spiritual philosophy which argues in a seemingly conflicting line. Our old scriptures, the Eastern philosophies of Tao and Zen, all talk about change. 'The only thing that's permanent is CHANGE.' That's the maxim!
One one hand, change is evolution, change is improvement, change is a better future. But on the other hand, change is aging, change is death.
While it's easy to accept the fruitfulness of change on the entire universe, we find it difficult to accept that we are also a part of that changing universe; and we fight decay and death with all our might. We see God as one with the Nature; we see God as one with us. Somehow, it's woefully difficult, that by simple transitivity, we all are one with the nature.
The intention of pointing out the above dichotomy in human thoughts is not to ridicule the idea of preservation of life. In fact, the idea is not even to talk about the rightness or wrongness of one or another. I wish to locate the thing that associates so much pain and fear with the concept of death. I feel, it's our love for permanence. Inspite of teeming evidence of change and temporariness, we have been able to create such magnificant concept like GOD, something that defies change and transience. At least half the population of the world sticks on to their faith in God with a vehemence that could move mountains. God is their only hope that permanence is possible; and that seeking it is theoretically not out of question. Religions and mystic theses create such foolproof frameworks that protect our faith with unbelievable efficiency. That there lies something beyond this miniscule physical existence -- wonderful if it's something so beautiful as a Heaven; but even if it's hell, far more acceptable than a sudden absolute end of existence -- itself gives a win-win deal. Anything to live beyond this body!
Life is full of contrasting ideals and realities. The tussle between our seeking permanence, and our inherent temporariness, is one of the basic ones. It would be one of the greatest realisations of life if someone would be able to see the ideal hidden within the reality; when someone is able to apprepriate, and not just understand, that 'change is permanent.' I don't appreciate it. I am like million more brethen of mine trying hard to reconcile my realities with my primal ideals!
Sunday, January 01, 2006
Many Incarnations of Slavery
Yesterday, a discussion while taking juice at the juice centre turned towards the question of our opting to join public organisations like ISRO, DRDO etc. The usual pros -- service towards nation, direct social impact, lot of scope for creativity --, and cons -- organisational rigidity, leg-pulling, low salary, lack of motivation among colleagues --, were enumerated. I concluded that there's a lot of questions inside; and hence, at this point it's quite difficult to say if I would ever choose to join places like that. I also said that most of those problems do exist even in private organisations, but atleast they give you a fat salary. The salary is not desirable just for the money sake. It gives you an illusion of being valued by your organisation. Social progress in any form resulting from one's work is a very intangible thing. It's very difficult to feel proud of one's work targetted toward bigger benefit, unless the benefit has been indeed substantial.
One of us said that most of these MNCs are based in some other country; and what we produce goes directly for the benefit of those countries. For instance, some companies work directly for US defence. What we make goes directly to their defence. Given the the fact that India and USA aren't the best of friends as far as foriegn and defence policies are concerned, our work may in some way harm the interest of our country!
To this, I said 'slavery has many incarnations.' Earlier, the most dominant medium of power was arms and arsenal. People who had more of them subdued many other races, enslaved them, and used their labour as a means to become even more powerful, perhaps drawing freedom of the subjugated races further and further away from them.
Following are the distinguishing features of slavery:
Going by this definition, our plight could be akin to slavery. We might be benefited in a marginal way by increase in employment etc. But, perhaps, by the very fact that such precious intellectual labour being generated from our developing nation has USA and other european countries as its main beneficiaries, our second position to these nations, due to the output of our very own labour, is getting more and more strengthened. When, God forbid, there's a question of choice about which one of the two will survive, we will stand no chance. Noone can promise that such a condition will never arise. With the given trends, it looks all the more looming large at the horizon!
There are many afterthoughts; and they are deluged in confusion!
Is it not true that we all are slaves all our lives? The society imposes its rules and regulations on us, keeping in view some common good. We, people, the smallest units of society, have only vague idea about the logic behind things which are good and bad. That, even if the effect of crime is subtracted, we know that the resultant structure, the society, is not completely fine. There're many social diseases at large. We have every reason to doubt with the rules we so obediently abide by all the time. Doubt is non-identification. Non-identification + obedience is slavery. If there'd been a complete faith that we aren't, as individuals, in a position to judge what's right and wrong, and think it best to believe in whatever rules have been put in place by the ruling powers of our times, it would immediately turn our slavery into loyalty.
Perhaps, even that statement is taking it beyond the truth. Blind-faith is one of the common weapons of a tyrrant to enforce slavery. When a slave doesn't even realise that he's a slave, he is going to be really useful slave. A questioning slave is soon going to free himself.
It seems that slavery is intangible, in lines of emotions, honestry, truth etc. Whether one is a slave or a free man can't be measured by tangible things. That perhaps adds an ammendment to our definition of slavery. The fact that the master gains much more than the slave is known the master.
If (1)the hirer wants to gain much more than the hiree, and (2) makes conscious attempts to use the output of the arrangement to perpetuate the arrangement, and (3) has the power to do that, it's slavery.
In (1) and (2) is true and (3) isn't, it's a monopolistic trade.
If (1) is true, (2) and (3) are not, it's trade.
If all are false, it's charity, or love or altruism, or some such stuff.
A society which is a market-place trying to discover the bigger-good through capitalistic methods seems an urealistic method of finding the bigger-good. There has to be an explicit knowledge of the bigger good with some body with some kind of power to implement it. Only then can there be any actual bigger good. A trade-like policy will continuously increase tensions all over on the economic fabric of the society, and may result in estrangement of minorities in many form. The overall process of slavery, subjugation and estrangement being distributed meticulously over such a large expanse of time, space and agencies, and not one person will ever be stared at for being greedier, crueller, more selfish than the social norms give him the sanctions for.
Well, I guess, we are digressing. I will treat this topic separately.
Let's end this blog here.
One of us said that most of these MNCs are based in some other country; and what we produce goes directly for the benefit of those countries. For instance, some companies work directly for US defence. What we make goes directly to their defence. Given the the fact that India and USA aren't the best of friends as far as foriegn and defence policies are concerned, our work may in some way harm the interest of our country!
To this, I said 'slavery has many incarnations.' Earlier, the most dominant medium of power was arms and arsenal. People who had more of them subdued many other races, enslaved them, and used their labour as a means to become even more powerful, perhaps drawing freedom of the subjugated races further and further away from them.
Following are the distinguishing features of slavery:
- Non-identification with the purpose of labour.
- The largest benefactor of the result is someone else.
- The output strengthens and perpetuates the plight of the victim. A poor gets stuck forever in poverty.
Going by this definition, our plight could be akin to slavery. We might be benefited in a marginal way by increase in employment etc. But, perhaps, by the very fact that such precious intellectual labour being generated from our developing nation has USA and other european countries as its main beneficiaries, our second position to these nations, due to the output of our very own labour, is getting more and more strengthened. When, God forbid, there's a question of choice about which one of the two will survive, we will stand no chance. Noone can promise that such a condition will never arise. With the given trends, it looks all the more looming large at the horizon!
There are many afterthoughts; and they are deluged in confusion!
Is it not true that we all are slaves all our lives? The society imposes its rules and regulations on us, keeping in view some common good. We, people, the smallest units of society, have only vague idea about the logic behind things which are good and bad. That, even if the effect of crime is subtracted, we know that the resultant structure, the society, is not completely fine. There're many social diseases at large. We have every reason to doubt with the rules we so obediently abide by all the time. Doubt is non-identification. Non-identification + obedience is slavery. If there'd been a complete faith that we aren't, as individuals, in a position to judge what's right and wrong, and think it best to believe in whatever rules have been put in place by the ruling powers of our times, it would immediately turn our slavery into loyalty.
Perhaps, even that statement is taking it beyond the truth. Blind-faith is one of the common weapons of a tyrrant to enforce slavery. When a slave doesn't even realise that he's a slave, he is going to be really useful slave. A questioning slave is soon going to free himself.
It seems that slavery is intangible, in lines of emotions, honestry, truth etc. Whether one is a slave or a free man can't be measured by tangible things. That perhaps adds an ammendment to our definition of slavery. The fact that the master gains much more than the slave is known the master.
If (1)the hirer wants to gain much more than the hiree, and (2) makes conscious attempts to use the output of the arrangement to perpetuate the arrangement, and (3) has the power to do that, it's slavery.
In (1) and (2) is true and (3) isn't, it's a monopolistic trade.
If (1) is true, (2) and (3) are not, it's trade.
If all are false, it's charity, or love or altruism, or some such stuff.
A society which is a market-place trying to discover the bigger-good through capitalistic methods seems an urealistic method of finding the bigger-good. There has to be an explicit knowledge of the bigger good with some body with some kind of power to implement it. Only then can there be any actual bigger good. A trade-like policy will continuously increase tensions all over on the economic fabric of the society, and may result in estrangement of minorities in many form. The overall process of slavery, subjugation and estrangement being distributed meticulously over such a large expanse of time, space and agencies, and not one person will ever be stared at for being greedier, crueller, more selfish than the social norms give him the sanctions for.
Well, I guess, we are digressing. I will treat this topic separately.
Let's end this blog here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)