We are all so inherently biased. When you look at your reflection in a mirror, you are laterally inverted. But, yet you are upright. What then is being upright? Or inverted? Put in another way, being upright goes hand in hand with being inverted, laterally. Throw away the bias for direction, and the previous sentence implies that any image in any mirror is upright and inverted at the same time...
It is sad to see that most things being borrowed from the west today are unwanted or "bad" things. Glamourizing the lifestyles of the rich and the famous, upholding them as worthy of being emulated, encouraging carefree shopping, wasting resources for a reason no better than you being able to pay for them - things that India can very well do without.
The western pop-culture has led to the treatment of celebrities like gods, and this is outrageous. Why is Salman Khan still a hero after the Black buck and DUI cases? Why does Sanjay Dutt still have a fan following - after he has pleaded guilty of possessing illegal weapons and knowing personally those who bombed the commercial capital of the country in 1993? Do we need to be one of the unfortunate many who lost loved ones in those serial blasts to understand that helping a terrorist activity in the narrowest of ways makes you a terrorist, a betrayer, a traitor? The sad thing is that these incidents have given us the impression that when you become a big actor in Bollywood, ties with the underworld are inevitable, and having such ties does not mean you are a traitor yourself. Really, is this the "reality of life" we are teaching our children?
Page 3 is a sad story. But, there are other negative fallouts of economic globalization. What's the new craze for the iPhone? It is just another phone, one with good ergonomics. Haven't we always had leaders like Apple if you take every appliance we use? Wasn't Sumeet mixer-grinder supposed to be better than the other mixies people had? Wasn't a BPL Colour TV a priced possession? Wasn't a Premier Padmini truly "premier"? Everyone knew these things. But there was never a craze for buying all of these as soon as people could. This was because we used to be guided by our needs, and not our wants. We wanted a Premier Padmini, but we didn't need it, and so it could wait. We wanted the new wet-grinder, but we could use our mixie and the grinding stone, and so it could wait. This way of life has started to fade away. I completely agree that moving towards being a developed country gives you such liberties, but India is not there yet. So why this urge to buy more than one cellphone per person? Why the urge to get newer and newer versions of iPods? To get bigger and thinner TV's? Encouraging such mindless shopping will only increase the gap between the rich and the poor. We should not buy for the reason that we can afford something. What happened to our economic values? Wasn't the Indian middle class hailed as among the most economically progressive people, with a habit of saving and a practice of spending with prudence? Has the sight of money that our parents could not have dreamed of left us blinded? This reminds me of the saying by a great man from my hometown, which was aptly printed behind the passbook of the State Bank of Mysore - the place where I opened my first bank account - and it read "If you buy what you do not need, you will need what you cannot buy" - a quote credited to Sir M Vishveshwariah by the SBM. I will not get into the implications of the quote. But, looking at people today, I find it hard to believe that we were once the people guided by such principles.
"Dude, let's drive around, we still have a quarter tank to empty before we return the car" - an example of something that would piss me off. Being able to afford something, or having paid for something do not qualify as valid reasons to waste that thing, especially if it is a consumable. You do not have to empty the gas tank before you return the car just because you have paid for it. Not when you have no real use of the car. You do not have to use the AC in the hotel room when it is not required only because you got a room with AC. The west has pampered its people with such luxuries, what I would call unwanted luxuries. And thanks to Hollywood and TV, Indians are being influenced.
There are many things to learn from the west. But it is up to us to choose the good parts and leave out the bad. Sadly, we seem to be doing the exact opposite.
The western pop-culture has led to the treatment of celebrities like gods, and this is outrageous. Why is Salman Khan still a hero after the Black buck and DUI cases? Why does Sanjay Dutt still have a fan following - after he has pleaded guilty of possessing illegal weapons and knowing personally those who bombed the commercial capital of the country in 1993? Do we need to be one of the unfortunate many who lost loved ones in those serial blasts to understand that helping a terrorist activity in the narrowest of ways makes you a terrorist, a betrayer, a traitor? The sad thing is that these incidents have given us the impression that when you become a big actor in Bollywood, ties with the underworld are inevitable, and having such ties does not mean you are a traitor yourself. Really, is this the "reality of life" we are teaching our children?
Page 3 is a sad story. But, there are other negative fallouts of economic globalization. What's the new craze for the iPhone? It is just another phone, one with good ergonomics. Haven't we always had leaders like Apple if you take every appliance we use? Wasn't Sumeet mixer-grinder supposed to be better than the other mixies people had? Wasn't a BPL Colour TV a priced possession? Wasn't a Premier Padmini truly "premier"? Everyone knew these things. But there was never a craze for buying all of these as soon as people could. This was because we used to be guided by our needs, and not our wants. We wanted a Premier Padmini, but we didn't need it, and so it could wait. We wanted the new wet-grinder, but we could use our mixie and the grinding stone, and so it could wait. This way of life has started to fade away. I completely agree that moving towards being a developed country gives you such liberties, but India is not there yet. So why this urge to buy more than one cellphone per person? Why the urge to get newer and newer versions of iPods? To get bigger and thinner TV's? Encouraging such mindless shopping will only increase the gap between the rich and the poor. We should not buy for the reason that we can afford something. What happened to our economic values? Wasn't the Indian middle class hailed as among the most economically progressive people, with a habit of saving and a practice of spending with prudence? Has the sight of money that our parents could not have dreamed of left us blinded? This reminds me of the saying by a great man from my hometown, which was aptly printed behind the passbook of the State Bank of Mysore - the place where I opened my first bank account - and it read "If you buy what you do not need, you will need what you cannot buy" - a quote credited to Sir M Vishveshwariah by the SBM. I will not get into the implications of the quote. But, looking at people today, I find it hard to believe that we were once the people guided by such principles.
"Dude, let's drive around, we still have a quarter tank to empty before we return the car" - an example of something that would piss me off. Being able to afford something, or having paid for something do not qualify as valid reasons to waste that thing, especially if it is a consumable. You do not have to empty the gas tank before you return the car just because you have paid for it. Not when you have no real use of the car. You do not have to use the AC in the hotel room when it is not required only because you got a room with AC. The west has pampered its people with such luxuries, what I would call unwanted luxuries. And thanks to Hollywood and TV, Indians are being influenced.
There are many things to learn from the west. But it is up to us to choose the good parts and leave out the bad. Sadly, we seem to be doing the exact opposite.
While everyone is out appreciating the role of media in the recent "Cash for votes" scandal and the ISI findings, I think the media is also responsible for some damaging measures.
There is no dispute that decorum is the last thing seen in the Parliament today. In times like this, it is up to the media to highlight the sporadic gentlemanly gestures of the Parliamentarians and uphold them as the right way to proceed. Unfortunately, the media, at least in my opinion, is not only doing nothing like this, but also doing the opposite. For instance, when Rahul Gandhi spoke after the Nuclear deal votes, he complimented ex-prime minister Vajpayee's vision and execution of the Nuclear tests. He continued to suggest that prime minister Manmohan Singh also shared this vision and lauded his efforts to get the Nuclear deal through, which, in his opinion, would go a long way in alleviating the power shortage prevalent throughout India. This, for anyone, would be a nice gesture - a person from the ruling party praising another from the opposition, acknowledging his colleague's work. Without getting into the way the politicians should conduct themselves, I will move on to why the media was irresponsible. The news article about this was titled "Rahul 'charms' everyone after votes". What is the point of such a title? What is the point of such an article? Do they want to sarcastically remark that Rahul Gandhi was being sycophantic? This is an instance where I thought the media was cynical and went astray, shunning its responsibility. The reason why media has to police itself is that Indian politics is in a very bad shape, and everyone knows that. It is also known that media is one of the most effective ways to influence a lot of people. Given these, the media should applaud Rahul's nicety, irrespective of what his intentions were, and hold such instances as worth emulating by politicians to be, if not for the present politicians. Being cynical helps no one. And for the media, being cynical is a cardinal sin! And for the record, I am not a supporter of Rahul Gandhi.
Another article was titled - "Inflation hits 12%, but Indians OK with Income tax". I was stunned to see this as a headline. What would anyone think after seeing this headline? Are they suggesting that inflation hitting 12% is a pretext on which Indians can try to evade taxes? Outraged, I went on to read the article to see that they were actually talking about this years earnings for the government through income tax, and comparing it to the previous years, discussing the reason for the difference, the steps the government should be taking to catch people who evade income tax and reduce the tax on the middle class etc. The article as such was a good one. But the headline nevertheless was outrageous. And the headline is like the first impression. And sadly, "Don't judge a book by it's cover" is hardly followed in today's world. So, the headline really matters, and this one in particular, was a fairly irresponsible one.
Next comes Page 3. I think it is the shallowest, the most materialistic, the least ethical section, for it brings the party-sleep-shop-eat-party lifestyle of morally handicapped, rich and famous people to your home and thereby encourages you to have a similar lifestyle. Having said that, it is necessary to balance the more serious things making news. I understand. But what I don't understand is why what Darsheel Safary thinks about "girls, Kareena and six-pack abs" would be interesting to people! He might be a bunny toothed sympathy evoking kid, and he might have acted pretty well in his debut movie, but what can people get out of this?
And then there are glaring mistakes like wrong dates, like this one from a channel that won the best news channel award (In fact, this was aired on August 21st, 2008)! But this, I guess, is not as bad as the others I have highlighted.
Though the media has made it's mark with it's sting operations, citizen journalists sections, environment watch catalogues, it has to still be careful not to be carried away and publish articles or air reports with any sign of cynicism, with misguiding headlines.
There is no dispute that decorum is the last thing seen in the Parliament today. In times like this, it is up to the media to highlight the sporadic gentlemanly gestures of the Parliamentarians and uphold them as the right way to proceed. Unfortunately, the media, at least in my opinion, is not only doing nothing like this, but also doing the opposite. For instance, when Rahul Gandhi spoke after the Nuclear deal votes, he complimented ex-prime minister Vajpayee's vision and execution of the Nuclear tests. He continued to suggest that prime minister Manmohan Singh also shared this vision and lauded his efforts to get the Nuclear deal through, which, in his opinion, would go a long way in alleviating the power shortage prevalent throughout India. This, for anyone, would be a nice gesture - a person from the ruling party praising another from the opposition, acknowledging his colleague's work. Without getting into the way the politicians should conduct themselves, I will move on to why the media was irresponsible. The news article about this was titled "Rahul 'charms' everyone after votes". What is the point of such a title? What is the point of such an article? Do they want to sarcastically remark that Rahul Gandhi was being sycophantic? This is an instance where I thought the media was cynical and went astray, shunning its responsibility. The reason why media has to police itself is that Indian politics is in a very bad shape, and everyone knows that. It is also known that media is one of the most effective ways to influence a lot of people. Given these, the media should applaud Rahul's nicety, irrespective of what his intentions were, and hold such instances as worth emulating by politicians to be, if not for the present politicians. Being cynical helps no one. And for the media, being cynical is a cardinal sin! And for the record, I am not a supporter of Rahul Gandhi.
Another article was titled - "Inflation hits 12%, but Indians OK with Income tax". I was stunned to see this as a headline. What would anyone think after seeing this headline? Are they suggesting that inflation hitting 12% is a pretext on which Indians can try to evade taxes? Outraged, I went on to read the article to see that they were actually talking about this years earnings for the government through income tax, and comparing it to the previous years, discussing the reason for the difference, the steps the government should be taking to catch people who evade income tax and reduce the tax on the middle class etc. The article as such was a good one. But the headline nevertheless was outrageous. And the headline is like the first impression. And sadly, "Don't judge a book by it's cover" is hardly followed in today's world. So, the headline really matters, and this one in particular, was a fairly irresponsible one.
Next comes Page 3. I think it is the shallowest, the most materialistic, the least ethical section, for it brings the party-sleep-shop-eat-party lifestyle of morally handicapped, rich and famous people to your home and thereby encourages you to have a similar lifestyle. Having said that, it is necessary to balance the more serious things making news. I understand. But what I don't understand is why what Darsheel Safary thinks about "girls, Kareena and six-pack abs" would be interesting to people! He might be a bunny toothed sympathy evoking kid, and he might have acted pretty well in his debut movie, but what can people get out of this?
And then there are glaring mistakes like wrong dates, like this one from a channel that won the best news channel award (In fact, this was aired on August 21st, 2008)! But this, I guess, is not as bad as the others I have highlighted.
Though the media has made it's mark with it's sting operations, citizen journalists sections, environment watch catalogues, it has to still be careful not to be carried away and publish articles or air reports with any sign of cynicism, with misguiding headlines.
There is an advantage of being born into an aristocratic family - you can afford to not work and do whatever it is you want to do. But, being born into a not-so-rich family will preclude this option, and if you still choose this option, you will be called a useless hopeless loser.
While everyone realizes this, what they fail to realize is the following, which, in my opinion, is an immediate analogue to the above.
There is an advantage of being born in a developed country - you can afford to think about yourself throughout your life and still be considered a successful citizen, patriotic even. But, being born in a developing country will preclude this option, and if you still choose to not bother about your country, you will not necessarily be called a useless selfish loser, sadly...
Stated differently, being born in a developing country inherently puts you in a situation where the quality of your life, in terms of the way you conduct yourself, the way and the number of people you influence, is required to be exemplary. If I can call a developing country a worse place to be than a developed country, it is like the expectation is more from you if you are in the worse place. But then again, every place went through this period where a few generations had to stand up against their challenges and slog to push the country into the 'developed' bed so that the following generations could afford to doze comfortably.
So, I guess the point I am trying to make is that being born in a developing country, we cannot afford to put ourselves before the country, we cannot afford to be near-sighted, to not think about what we can do for the country, to just sit in our living rooms and rant about the government's flawed policies, to see the consequences of the divisive politics in play today and not do anything about it, to see the petrol prices rising and not try to brainstorm for workarounds, to see our cities being bombed and remain silent when we see the government do nothing about it, to see our institutes which were once the best schools to learn being ruined and keep quiet. We cannot afford the status quo... This is our time, we are the generation required to work hard to push our country ahead in the right direction, we are the ones required to take up this daunting task, we are the ones required to make the sacrifice, the ones required to revert to our principles, the ones who have the opportunity to do things that will make our future generations thank us, the ones who have the chance to change the way things work, the ones to push India into the 'developed' bed. We are the 'chosen ones'...
While everyone realizes this, what they fail to realize is the following, which, in my opinion, is an immediate analogue to the above.
There is an advantage of being born in a developed country - you can afford to think about yourself throughout your life and still be considered a successful citizen, patriotic even. But, being born in a developing country will preclude this option, and if you still choose to not bother about your country, you will not necessarily be called a useless selfish loser, sadly...
Stated differently, being born in a developing country inherently puts you in a situation where the quality of your life, in terms of the way you conduct yourself, the way and the number of people you influence, is required to be exemplary. If I can call a developing country a worse place to be than a developed country, it is like the expectation is more from you if you are in the worse place. But then again, every place went through this period where a few generations had to stand up against their challenges and slog to push the country into the 'developed' bed so that the following generations could afford to doze comfortably.
So, I guess the point I am trying to make is that being born in a developing country, we cannot afford to put ourselves before the country, we cannot afford to be near-sighted, to not think about what we can do for the country, to just sit in our living rooms and rant about the government's flawed policies, to see the consequences of the divisive politics in play today and not do anything about it, to see the petrol prices rising and not try to brainstorm for workarounds, to see our cities being bombed and remain silent when we see the government do nothing about it, to see our institutes which were once the best schools to learn being ruined and keep quiet. We cannot afford the status quo... This is our time, we are the generation required to work hard to push our country ahead in the right direction, we are the ones required to take up this daunting task, we are the ones required to make the sacrifice, the ones required to revert to our principles, the ones who have the opportunity to do things that will make our future generations thank us, the ones who have the chance to change the way things work, the ones to push India into the 'developed' bed. We are the 'chosen ones'...
I believe "The Dark Knight" deserves the top spot it has earned on IMDb. This post is more a testimony to the characters Batman and Joker themselves than to Chris Nolan and Heath Ledger.
Though I don't like superheroes, Batman has grown to be my favourite. The reason is his strength - his anonymity. It is the purest form of service - to fight for justice and to expect nothing in return, not even recognition. To be able to satisfy oneself with the only fact that justice is being reinforced. To be called a wealthy industrialist with no big concern for the city when actually risking one's life for the betterment of the city. He is an embodiment of service in its purest form.
And that is exactly where the Joker scores. The kind of lunatic who could do outrageous acts for no reason, commit crime not for money or power, but for the establishment of anarchy, for reigning chaos. To fight against justice and expect nothing in return. To be able to satisfy oneself with the only fact that lawlessness is the only law. To be called a lunatic, a freak, when actually risking everything for what one believed in, and rightly so, for the Joker's doctrines are those of a lunatic, a freak. He is the true 'Professor Chaos'.
As the Joker himself says, the conflict is like when an irresistible force meets an immovable object. The concept kind of reminds me of the movie 'Seven' which also has a similar theme. But, unlike there, the Batman makes the Joker lose by losing himself, by sacrificing his options to prove his vigilante image wrong - another point that reinforces the Joker's claim that the Batman 'completes' him. The underlying theme is heavily inter weaved with ironies and seemingly paradoxical situations. The whole Batman-Joker battle has been elevated to an ideological stratagem, and that is what makes the movie brilliant. And Chris Nolan has proved his genius thus. But, it would be unfair not to mention Ledger's owning of the role of the Joker. The body language, the dialogue delivery are exemplary, perfect even. A must watch. Probably more than once!
Though I don't like superheroes, Batman has grown to be my favourite. The reason is his strength - his anonymity. It is the purest form of service - to fight for justice and to expect nothing in return, not even recognition. To be able to satisfy oneself with the only fact that justice is being reinforced. To be called a wealthy industrialist with no big concern for the city when actually risking one's life for the betterment of the city. He is an embodiment of service in its purest form.
And that is exactly where the Joker scores. The kind of lunatic who could do outrageous acts for no reason, commit crime not for money or power, but for the establishment of anarchy, for reigning chaos. To fight against justice and expect nothing in return. To be able to satisfy oneself with the only fact that lawlessness is the only law. To be called a lunatic, a freak, when actually risking everything for what one believed in, and rightly so, for the Joker's doctrines are those of a lunatic, a freak. He is the true 'Professor Chaos'.
As the Joker himself says, the conflict is like when an irresistible force meets an immovable object. The concept kind of reminds me of the movie 'Seven' which also has a similar theme. But, unlike there, the Batman makes the Joker lose by losing himself, by sacrificing his options to prove his vigilante image wrong - another point that reinforces the Joker's claim that the Batman 'completes' him. The underlying theme is heavily inter weaved with ironies and seemingly paradoxical situations. The whole Batman-Joker battle has been elevated to an ideological stratagem, and that is what makes the movie brilliant. And Chris Nolan has proved his genius thus. But, it would be unfair not to mention Ledger's owning of the role of the Joker. The body language, the dialogue delivery are exemplary, perfect even. A must watch. Probably more than once!
Usually, the reason I am out of the blogosphere is because I don't have much to talk about. But, this time, it has been because I have too many things to talk about. In fact, I cannot list the things I would like to talk about - starting from the education system in India, to the traditional Indian mindset, from the Nuclear deal to Dhoni sitting out of a Test series, from coalition politics to marriage and life. But, I have refrained from writing here as I have felt the need to organize my thoughts before I scribble them here - I am thinking I should have a personal blog where I could scrap my thoughts often, organize them and put them here. But, I guess that will be too much work, and knowing me, I would rather wait till I am more organized in my mind...
When I first put up this status message, I never expected it to turn into another post on my blog... But here's the interesting thing. I came across this new word - Cyberchondriac, somewhere on the net. And I learnt that it referred to a person who suspected that he had a certain illness after reading about it on the internet. Now, the first time I read that, it rang a bell. I have done that on numerous occasions. For instance, I believe I have Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD), and the belief originated after I read the Wiki article on it. There have been other cases which I will safely omit here. But, it seemed fairly clear to me that I was a Cyberchondriac.
I took an instant liking to the word, and because I believed I was one, I put it up as my status message on GMail. And then, it struck me... I was suspecting that I am a Cyberchondriac after reading about Cyberchondriacs on the internet! And that, in my opinion, is testimonial enough to me being one... The subtle recursion, or positive feedback associated with the word left me fascinated, and so the post.
I took an instant liking to the word, and because I believed I was one, I put it up as my status message on GMail. And then, it struck me... I was suspecting that I am a Cyberchondriac after reading about Cyberchondriacs on the internet! And that, in my opinion, is testimonial enough to me being one... The subtle recursion, or positive feedback associated with the word left me fascinated, and so the post.
I was kind of outraged when I saw this news article on IBNLive। There is no doubt that this kid has had a birth not usual among her classmates. There is also no doubt that whatever compensation her parents were supposed to get (which I guess is for trying out something that wouldn't be tried normally especially in the superstitious days of the 80's) they should. I sympathize her for whatever promise has not been kept. But, does that mean this girl can proclaim herself to be "सब्से अलग"? I mean, it was courageous on part of her parents. But, how can she say since she was the first Indian test-tube baby, she expects a life out of the ordinary? I think there are a lot of people in a similar situation. It is right on part of the media to highlight this issue as an example of the government's negligence but totally unacceptable as an example of a 'special' life going awry, which seems to be the motive behind the article.
Its been a tiring quarter, and being on the other side of it makes me glad. If there is one thing I have learnt this quarter, it is that one shouldn't take four courses in a quarter.
Being jobless after a long time, I have sped through the first three seasons of 24 in record time. Have also watched a number of movies. But, two movies impressed me particularly - Philadelphia and Jodhaa Akbar.
Philadelphia was quite different from the movies I have seen recently. The story was backed by a strong theme - highlighting the discrimination against homosexuals and people suffering from sexually transmitted diseases, and was strengthened by some amazing acting by both Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington. One of those movies that would've forced me to think about Law had I seen it before I delved into Science - "Every now and again, not often, but occasionally, you get to be a part of justice being done. That really is quite a thrill..." - Inspiring!
Jodhaa Akbar was good in its own way. Though there were a few things that could have been done better, the message the story had, and its relevance to contemporary India almost obscured the shortcomings. Whether it is historically sound or not, the story reminds people of, what has today become one of the very badly needed qualities in a man - religious tolerance. That morality and humanity supersede religious formalities has been upheld finely by Akbar's character.
I like movies that teach me something, movies with morals. And both these movies reminded me that I had forgotten one very important essence of life in the diverse world I live in today - tolerance...
Being jobless after a long time, I have sped through the first three seasons of 24 in record time. Have also watched a number of movies. But, two movies impressed me particularly - Philadelphia and Jodhaa Akbar.
Philadelphia was quite different from the movies I have seen recently. The story was backed by a strong theme - highlighting the discrimination against homosexuals and people suffering from sexually transmitted diseases, and was strengthened by some amazing acting by both Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington. One of those movies that would've forced me to think about Law had I seen it before I delved into Science - "Every now and again, not often, but occasionally, you get to be a part of justice being done. That really is quite a thrill..." - Inspiring!
Jodhaa Akbar was good in its own way. Though there were a few things that could have been done better, the message the story had, and its relevance to contemporary India almost obscured the shortcomings. Whether it is historically sound or not, the story reminds people of, what has today become one of the very badly needed qualities in a man - religious tolerance. That morality and humanity supersede religious formalities has been upheld finely by Akbar's character.
I like movies that teach me something, movies with morals. And both these movies reminded me that I had forgotten one very important essence of life in the diverse world I live in today - tolerance...
No, I don't suddenly believe in God. But, there has been a sudden change, because of a series of revelations, and a serendipitous incident. I have been pained with the way I lived for the last few months (years, may be) I was perfectly fine, except for that little something that I missed. I couldn't put my finger on it. But, I knew something was missing. And now, I think it is the single biggest testimony to what Tom Hanks had to say - "Hope is a good thing. Probably the best of things."
I was not very happy with my routine. Got up everyday and cursed myself for being up so late - almost every day, except when I was driven by the enthusiasm of getting to listen to some genius in some class. Something happened yesterday. I am a fan of Ashutosh Gowariker. In my opinion, he is the ideal director - one who works on films that have a message, a message forgotten and much needed. His films have always had a positive influence on me. And the only reason why I thought he might have done a film like Jodhaa Akbar was to remind people of Akbar's tolerance to views, faiths, beliefs, ideas of people while sticking to the principle he believed in. That is one of the biggest problems in today's world - people becoming intolerant. And in a flash, I realized that that was what had changed - I had really become intolerant, of many different things. Though I backed myself to be an open-minded person, I could see that I wasn't really one. Having had this revelation, I decided to try and be more tolerant. Though the sleep had interluded my decision and the actual time when it would be tested, I stuck to it.
Today was something different. No, I didn't get up early. I got up as usual, at around 11. The strange thing was, I was not pained! I was happy, about something. I don't know what. But I was. It seemed like all my problems had somehow just vanished, and I was set free. Though my day started late, I found time to make myself a breakfast, got some physical exercise other than running to catch the bus, and enjoyed my time under the shower. It was like I was a kid again. Nothing could make my day bad. After a small snack, I decided to attend the party thrown by a lab mate, ignoring my usual instincts, which would be to send a congratulatory email and ditch it. I thought I ought to wish him in person for becoming a father. I thought I ought to be friendly, I thought I ought to socialize. So, I called up JD (my friend), and we went looking for a greeting card. The party was a nice break from the routine. And I found myself cheerful. The discussion between JD and me, that had concluded yesterday with a "One can never be truly happy", flipped over today, for some reason. It just felt right...
Another revelation dawned upon me, earlier today, that the reason I am not able to go to sleep as soon as I laid my head on the pillow was not because I had become an Insomniac, which I kind of used to boast about, weirdly, but because I was really not exhausted enough to be retiring for the day, physically. The time I had decided to take out for some exercise made me feel good, again, for some inexplicable reason.
I was pulled along to another 'Infosession' by my friends, mainly for food. Since I wasn't really hungry, I wasn't interested. And then I thought that since it was Cisco, I could drop my resume and see if I had any chance for an internship. Though I usually joined my friends in ridiculing the pitches put across by the recruiters, I tried, and was successful in being open to whatever they had to say. Though I didn't find it of much use, I stopped myself from rubbishing it. I was happy that though there was hardly any food that I am OK with, I at least got a 1GB flash drive. Little did I know that today would be the first day in my life that I would win a lottery!
Because of this series of events - deciding to be tolerant, more cheerful, and being lucky enough to beat odds of 1 : 100 - for the first time in many months(years), there was the hope that things would be right. I think it was some weird concoction of hope and luck that did the trick. I can say "I am happy" and mean it, after a long time!
I was not very happy with my routine. Got up everyday and cursed myself for being up so late - almost every day, except when I was driven by the enthusiasm of getting to listen to some genius in some class. Something happened yesterday. I am a fan of Ashutosh Gowariker. In my opinion, he is the ideal director - one who works on films that have a message, a message forgotten and much needed. His films have always had a positive influence on me. And the only reason why I thought he might have done a film like Jodhaa Akbar was to remind people of Akbar's tolerance to views, faiths, beliefs, ideas of people while sticking to the principle he believed in. That is one of the biggest problems in today's world - people becoming intolerant. And in a flash, I realized that that was what had changed - I had really become intolerant, of many different things. Though I backed myself to be an open-minded person, I could see that I wasn't really one. Having had this revelation, I decided to try and be more tolerant. Though the sleep had interluded my decision and the actual time when it would be tested, I stuck to it.
Today was something different. No, I didn't get up early. I got up as usual, at around 11. The strange thing was, I was not pained! I was happy, about something. I don't know what. But I was. It seemed like all my problems had somehow just vanished, and I was set free. Though my day started late, I found time to make myself a breakfast, got some physical exercise other than running to catch the bus, and enjoyed my time under the shower. It was like I was a kid again. Nothing could make my day bad. After a small snack, I decided to attend the party thrown by a lab mate, ignoring my usual instincts, which would be to send a congratulatory email and ditch it. I thought I ought to wish him in person for becoming a father. I thought I ought to be friendly, I thought I ought to socialize. So, I called up JD (my friend), and we went looking for a greeting card. The party was a nice break from the routine. And I found myself cheerful. The discussion between JD and me, that had concluded yesterday with a "One can never be truly happy", flipped over today, for some reason. It just felt right...
Another revelation dawned upon me, earlier today, that the reason I am not able to go to sleep as soon as I laid my head on the pillow was not because I had become an Insomniac, which I kind of used to boast about, weirdly, but because I was really not exhausted enough to be retiring for the day, physically. The time I had decided to take out for some exercise made me feel good, again, for some inexplicable reason.
I was pulled along to another 'Infosession' by my friends, mainly for food. Since I wasn't really hungry, I wasn't interested. And then I thought that since it was Cisco, I could drop my resume and see if I had any chance for an internship. Though I usually joined my friends in ridiculing the pitches put across by the recruiters, I tried, and was successful in being open to whatever they had to say. Though I didn't find it of much use, I stopped myself from rubbishing it. I was happy that though there was hardly any food that I am OK with, I at least got a 1GB flash drive. Little did I know that today would be the first day in my life that I would win a lottery!
Because of this series of events - deciding to be tolerant, more cheerful, and being lucky enough to beat odds of 1 : 100 - for the first time in many months(years), there was the hope that things would be right. I think it was some weird concoction of hope and luck that did the trick. I can say "I am happy" and mean it, after a long time!
After all, I'm working towards a Doctor of Philosophy! But, I have done this before, in my bachelors - here. And I came across a similar post, though oriented more to why Spirituality is sidelined - here (Thanks Priya!). Firstly, I'd like to commend the author for the impartial stand he's taken. A fairly well written article. I just wanted to note a few points, more for myself than anyone else.
Though I do agree that we are all inquisitive by nature, I definitely wouldn't say that the purpose is only a by-product and not the aim of inquiry. In fact, it would be a self-contradicting statement to say that the cause is a result! The example cited -that Technology is a by-product of Science, and not the reason for Science - is totally anachronistic. It was true at the early years of the development of Science - when people were asking 'why the sky is blue, why the sun rises and sets, why trees grow, why there are so many species around us, why eclipses occur'. But once man started answering some of these questions, the control freak within himself was awoken. And since he had started to understand some of the things around him, he wanted to control them, and thus was born Technology. And today, leaving out a few scientists who are not bothered about what the rest of the world is interested in, it is definitely true that Technology is driving Science, and is not a mere result of our inquisitiveness. Defining Technology broadly as man's use of things around him to help himself would allow us to see that man's discoveries weren't always because of his inquisitiveness. Many were also serendipitous, like discovering fire. The reason I am agitated is that the author compares Technology to Religion, implicitly, when he says Technology is a result of Science and Religions are a result of Spiritual inquisition and Science and Spiritual inquisition are two faces of the same coin. Though I believe in the latter, I would consider it sacrilegious to even speak of Technology and Religion as being comparable.
The comparison between learning the external world, and learning one's mind, the two complementary inquiries into reality, is neatly done. I completely agree with most of it...
Though I do agree that we are all inquisitive by nature, I definitely wouldn't say that the purpose is only a by-product and not the aim of inquiry. In fact, it would be a self-contradicting statement to say that the cause is a result! The example cited -that Technology is a by-product of Science, and not the reason for Science - is totally anachronistic. It was true at the early years of the development of Science - when people were asking 'why the sky is blue, why the sun rises and sets, why trees grow, why there are so many species around us, why eclipses occur'. But once man started answering some of these questions, the control freak within himself was awoken. And since he had started to understand some of the things around him, he wanted to control them, and thus was born Technology. And today, leaving out a few scientists who are not bothered about what the rest of the world is interested in, it is definitely true that Technology is driving Science, and is not a mere result of our inquisitiveness. Defining Technology broadly as man's use of things around him to help himself would allow us to see that man's discoveries weren't always because of his inquisitiveness. Many were also serendipitous, like discovering fire. The reason I am agitated is that the author compares Technology to Religion, implicitly, when he says Technology is a result of Science and Religions are a result of Spiritual inquisition and Science and Spiritual inquisition are two faces of the same coin. Though I believe in the latter, I would consider it sacrilegious to even speak of Technology and Religion as being comparable.
The comparison between learning the external world, and learning one's mind, the two complementary inquiries into reality, is neatly done. I completely agree with most of it...
This is another occasion when one of my status messages on GTalk is turning into a post here. But, this one is really weird. It all started when my roommate got a new set of speakers for his laptop. We were amusing ourselves with some good music until we were asked by our neighbours to turn the volume down. What's the point in having a good set of speakers and not making use of it? But, we had to oblige, for the fear of getting sued is ever-present in this country.
This made me wonder about how 'inaudible' these walls are. Now, if walls can be invisible, why can't they be inaudible? When you see the light reflected from an object, you 'see' the object. But, when you hear the sound reflecting off a surface, you don't 'hear' the object, do you? So, my theory was that if you can listen as to what is happening in the next room, the wall separating the rooms allows sound to pass through, i.e. is 'transparent to sound', or is 'invisible for sound' - thereby making it 'inaudible'. If you are in a sound-proofed room, you are 'hearing' the silence of the wall. So, in that sense, the walls of my home are inaudible.
This made me ponder about the reason why such an idea is almost non-existent, though common sense would allow such an analogy to be drawn immediately. I could zero-in on the fact that sight is the most dominant of our senses, far more dominant than the others. Dominant to an extent that such an idea is almost baloney!
Imagine the sensitivity of our sight and auditory senses swapped. You would enter your room, turn on a 'sound bulb', listen to everything in the vicinity and do stuff. Sounds like a rather boring life. The awesome blue of the sky replaced by the high frequency squeaks, the red of the stove by deep and bass tones, the pleasing green by the irritating mid-range gibberish.... Aah! I love the way things are... Or am I just not imaginative enough?
This made me wonder about how 'inaudible' these walls are. Now, if walls can be invisible, why can't they be inaudible? When you see the light reflected from an object, you 'see' the object. But, when you hear the sound reflecting off a surface, you don't 'hear' the object, do you? So, my theory was that if you can listen as to what is happening in the next room, the wall separating the rooms allows sound to pass through, i.e. is 'transparent to sound', or is 'invisible for sound' - thereby making it 'inaudible'. If you are in a sound-proofed room, you are 'hearing' the silence of the wall. So, in that sense, the walls of my home are inaudible.
This made me ponder about the reason why such an idea is almost non-existent, though common sense would allow such an analogy to be drawn immediately. I could zero-in on the fact that sight is the most dominant of our senses, far more dominant than the others. Dominant to an extent that such an idea is almost baloney!
Imagine the sensitivity of our sight and auditory senses swapped. You would enter your room, turn on a 'sound bulb', listen to everything in the vicinity and do stuff. Sounds like a rather boring life. The awesome blue of the sky replaced by the high frequency squeaks, the red of the stove by deep and bass tones, the pleasing green by the irritating mid-range gibberish.... Aah! I love the way things are... Or am I just not imaginative enough?
Hasn't it happened that you've typed in something, then you quickly read it yourself, and backspace those to say something that is usually a lot less intense than your original words? Would you prefer that you always said what you thought? Put in another way, would you want to first think about your thoughts before saying something? The IM, gives ample scope for this - thanks to our typing speeds being infinitesimally small compared to our thinking speeds. Wouldn't it all be good if the whole world was IM-ish? So you see, it's more than just being emoticonal!
With all the buzz about Harbhajan being a racist, Ponting being unsportsmanlike, the umpire's being incompetent, I'm left wondering whatever happened over the last two weeks... This is how I see it.
Harbhajan's comments - whether he's guilty or not (I saw two reports, one claiming that he is guilty, and the other that he's not!) - it's best if everyone just accepts ICC's judgment and continues with what each is supposed to be doing. It'll leave cricket less tarnished, ICC with some authority, BCCI with some shame. The only loss would be Harbhajan for three matches, which isn't much anyway! Three matches isn't a long time, especially considering that we already know the results of the next two matches, and more importantly, Harbhajan is no more the Turbanator he was in 1998.
Ponting's antics. How's that new? He's always been the fast-scoring batsman, the I'm-everywhere fielder who quite often pushes his luck on the field. He's always been the cunning mind under the baggy green. Why then this upsurge this time around?
Coming to the umpires. When have the umpires been right throughout a match? I believe umpires are biased coins with a probability of correct decision roughly 0.8, but that doesn't make a sequence of 10 roughly consecutive wrong decisions impossible. Improbable, yes. But, definitely not impossible, especially given the number of matches being played these days. Why all the hue and cry about Bucknor and Benson then?
The more I think about it, the more I feel that it is the continuing dominance of the Australian Cricket team that has made the difference this time. An Aussie victory, and an Aussie whitewash have become so common, that people have started to question other irrelevant trivialities of their games. It makes sense of the Aussie media, the Australians in general, to question these nuances in view of improving their game. But, when Indians do so, it's just a blame game. Much has been said about 'playing the game in the spirit of the game'. But, how many times have you seen an Indian walk when he's been judged not-out, and he's known he was out? Ironically, the only person I've seen doing that has been Adam Gilchrist!
This is just cricket being cricket...
Harbhajan's comments - whether he's guilty or not (I saw two reports, one claiming that he is guilty, and the other that he's not!) - it's best if everyone just accepts ICC's judgment and continues with what each is supposed to be doing. It'll leave cricket less tarnished, ICC with some authority, BCCI with some shame. The only loss would be Harbhajan for three matches, which isn't much anyway! Three matches isn't a long time, especially considering that we already know the results of the next two matches, and more importantly, Harbhajan is no more the Turbanator he was in 1998.
Ponting's antics. How's that new? He's always been the fast-scoring batsman, the I'm-everywhere fielder who quite often pushes his luck on the field. He's always been the cunning mind under the baggy green. Why then this upsurge this time around?
Coming to the umpires. When have the umpires been right throughout a match? I believe umpires are biased coins with a probability of correct decision roughly 0.8, but that doesn't make a sequence of 10 roughly consecutive wrong decisions impossible. Improbable, yes. But, definitely not impossible, especially given the number of matches being played these days. Why all the hue and cry about Bucknor and Benson then?
The more I think about it, the more I feel that it is the continuing dominance of the Australian Cricket team that has made the difference this time. An Aussie victory, and an Aussie whitewash have become so common, that people have started to question other irrelevant trivialities of their games. It makes sense of the Aussie media, the Australians in general, to question these nuances in view of improving their game. But, when Indians do so, it's just a blame game. Much has been said about 'playing the game in the spirit of the game'. But, how many times have you seen an Indian walk when he's been judged not-out, and he's known he was out? Ironically, the only person I've seen doing that has been Adam Gilchrist!
This is just cricket being cricket...
With the elections up close, I can't escape from news of Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Giuliani, Romney, Mc Cain, and the rest doing this, saying that and being the change America needs. I came across an interesting jargon in US Politics - the glass ceiling, and it's sad relevance in my case.
The explanation - the invisible boundary that separates top posts from certain people. In this context, it refers to the President's chair. A position that has been out of reach of the African American (or a minority) community and the fairer sex thus far - though it is supposed to be an open slot for anyone, with no discrimination.
Whether Obama or Clinton break the glass ceiling or not, I will definitely not be able to break the glass ceiling between me and the perfect 4! Sigh...
The explanation - the invisible boundary that separates top posts from certain people. In this context, it refers to the President's chair. A position that has been out of reach of the African American (or a minority) community and the fairer sex thus far - though it is supposed to be an open slot for anyone, with no discrimination.
Whether Obama or Clinton break the glass ceiling or not, I will definitely not be able to break the glass ceiling between me and the perfect 4! Sigh...
White rabbit?
Literally, the rabbit Alice follows, into the rabbit hole. Discovering the Wonderland.
Figuratively, delving into the blog to note the simple and complex things in life, the convoluted cosmos, this Solar system, the Blue planet, about man, his society, his deeds. Trying to question the accepted - Life is unfathomable.
An attempt to reduce the chaos in my thoughts, finding meaning in my actions, in my life...
The most important question for a believer in Science... I had asked myself this before. So I do again. I hope to articulate my thoughts here.
Had blogged before. Lost interest. Blamed it on my laziness. Partly true. This time, the blog is for a very selfish reason. I just want to store my thoughts in some place. And believe they are being shared. I won't promise anything this time. I don't believe that matters... To me, or anyone else.
Had blogged before. Lost interest. Blamed it on my laziness. Partly true. This time, the blog is for a very selfish reason. I just want to store my thoughts in some place. And believe they are being shared. I won't promise anything this time. I don't believe that matters... To me, or anyone else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)