All of a sudden, memory of a quite-funny-now-but-just-the-opposite-back-then episode, passed by my thoughts.
On one of the october evenings of 1997, during the regular evening power-cuts, me, Jawahar and two more batchmates of Intermediate-Science, 2nd year, were seated on the floor of my room, making attempts to study in the light of the lantern, but actually trying to decide whose food was less worse - bholaji's or ramnareshji's (they were the proprieters of the two food-messes of our hostel). It was a nice evening, with usual bulla sessions on full swing with no time-wastage-guilt-feeling as we had so many books lying all around us on the floor(!!!!), until two guys appeared at the door asking "Anand Gaurav kaun hai?".
The manner of asking was much too gentle to suit their appearances (its not in hindsight, but even then I could notice that) but anyway, I being the only Anand Gaurav in that room, thought of satisfying their curiosity, Though, I was not stranger to strange guys knocking at my room for some reasons or other (justified ones though), this one did make me uneasy.
When you have been studying in a college like mine, Patna Science College , which is surrounded by great(!!!!) academic institutions (where frequecnt police raids are much less commonplace than much worse regular occurrences) you get too familiar with the faces like those two which had appeared at my hostelroom-doorstep that night. The faces that makes people like me try their best to avoid. But of course you can't show you are scared so you do face them if it comes to it and face them with full confidence (your surviving-instincts is already working hard to bail you out meanwhile).
Suddenly another episode, about few months back, flashed by me. It was when a guy in white starched kurta-payjama barged in our room (we used to be 4 people in one room during that time in ISc 1st year) and sat on one guy's bed resuting which the two guys of that side of the room got up. He started talking nonsense to them with uncouth-confidence oozing out of him. Since I was getting disturbed, I started commenting loudly about useless people disturbing sincere students and kept increasing my voice till he BARKED!!!!!!!I still remember, it sent shivers through my spine. The reason is again the academic institutions which surrounded my hostel. He called me and I complied (my survival instincts asked me to do so!!). But thankfully the 'uncleji'-type-student-neta-ji gave me a BIG scolding and left me and left the room as well!!!!!
But that guy was afterall much worse in looks and appearance than these two and these two were of my age. So, it seemed all safe. They very gently formally asked me to come out for a walk till the hostel-gate while we talked. Seeing no harm, I joined. No sooner had I crossed the hostel-gate, one guy started hitting me from the back side while other held my arms.
I was TOTALLY dumbfounded!!!!!!! Who the hell wont be?????
Thanks to Jawahar's survival instints which was more customsied to Patna than mine. He sensed something fishy and started collecting few students while following me to the hostel-gate. The funny part begins here!!!!!
There got around 20-odd students gathered at the hostel-gate watching me being beaten, that too by just two guys!!!!! But thankfully, that gathering attracted the attention of Ramnareshji (the mess-owner-cum-cook-cum-cleaner-..-..) who came to the gate, gave a loud verbal thrashing to the two guys and surprisingly they left me and 'walked' off!!!!!
I still remember vividly that night. It was a big big jolt to me. Not only me and my batchmates, even the BSc seniors found it difficult to believe that I might have given somebody reason strong enough to do this. Anyway, I sometimes feel happy about this, in hindsight,that I got the experience that when you get beaten, physical pain is not that big an issue. Its other things, the scare, humiliation,feeling-of-helplessness, weakness, that eats you more.
Two days after the episode, Tinku bhaiya (son of an uncle of mine with whose family, I stayed for 2 months when I first moved to Patna and had yet to get hostel-acco) came to my room, for the first time (I frequented his place to get some nice home-food and nice time chatting with aunty and badi and chhoti di and bhaiya so there was no need of him to come to my place to meet me). He informed that a very close friend of his told him about my thrashing (and he added that the thing I got beaten with was a revolver-butt!!!! As if I was not scared enough!!!) and had asked him to ask me to keep a low profile!!!!!!
What the heck!!!!! No warning, nothing and you thrash a guy and then tell him the reason he cant comprehend!!!!! Anyway, I thought it better to leave the episode aside as it was not comprehensible and I also knew that is was way better than Pranay, a schoolmate of mine, in the same college but in another hostel, who got beaten almost every week (But everybody agreed that he gave lots of reasons to the local goons to do that. You can imagine the type of guy he was, by the fact that he quit IITKgp after two years over there just coz he didn't feel like it. (Went to Caltech for summers, stayed back for the full semester, came back, had altercation with his profs and quit Kgp!!!!)
Thanks to my many friends who gave me emotional support back then. I remember Sharad offering to get those two identified through some friends of his and then get them beaten. But then when I thanked him for the offer and expressed no desire for any such thing, the relief on his face was evident :-).
Now in hindsight, I find the episode so funny. Not an iota of remorse about it. Maybe strange, but thats the way some experiences are like. The moment they happen to you, they mean a lot to you but, once they pass and you move on, they seem to be so insignificant, you get surprised how could it ever affect you.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Thickness of a book: Should it not be proportional to the idea beng conveyed
Sounds absurd what do I mean by the title.
Well, title maybe totally uncorrelated to what I intend to write.
Anyway, presently I am reading a book called "Blink" by Ian Galdwell. Its a good book.
I really like the entirely new concept the author exposes his thoughts/logic about.
What I don't like about the book is that it puts LOT many small examples to convey what it wants to prove. I am not sure if its required. But if he doesn't do that, maybe the book wont be even quarter as thick as its now. Result, maybe we are done with reading it in 1/6th of time than now. (I agree it also depends on the target audience, majority of which needs lots of illustrations to get the message across. I myself am one though, sometimes)
The thing is that we retain the idea/messege/influence as long (or a bit longer) as the person's-work or person's-reminiscence or the person himself/herself is around us and we are able to interact with it/him/her. ("Out of sight, out of mind" types). I think I would have been a much greater fan of Gandhi ( I am already a BIG one) had I met/talked to him once than by reading so much about him. Thats what personal touch does to you. It just bowls you over. But but but, you can let your mind controlled by it if you so wish and can do the contrary as well (We are gifted with a strong mind with which we can control or drift, at will)
Same with books, unless they are in sync with the idea/concept somewhere inside you or unless they are really revolutionary. If you already have that concept, the book's effect lasts long(er) as it reinforces the thinking you aleady beleive in. If its really revolutionary (rarely books are so. There are people who can do this to you more effectively, than books), you accept the idea since it appealed to you and hence the effect last, if you put efforts to that.
But for other books which don't fall in any of these two categories, the influence lasts as long as the book takes to be finshed (or a bit more). Maybe that way it makes sense to keep the book thicker. You read "blink" and then later on if I come-up with a book called "Deliberations", written with equally strong intent of proving higher-importance of deliberation to spontaniety in decision-making, you may realise that you are now attracted towards that book.
ANYthing NEW/DIFFERENT appeals to us. But they are not lasting. They are a welcome change like innumerable revolutions which the masses later realised, were equally worse as the earlier regime. Same way, since this spontaniety-funda is new to us, we like the book. We MUST be open to new idea, but should not get carried away just becuase its different/new. Our inner-self definitely deserves more respect than this.
Well, title maybe totally uncorrelated to what I intend to write.
Anyway, presently I am reading a book called "Blink" by Ian Galdwell. Its a good book.
I really like the entirely new concept the author exposes his thoughts/logic about.
What I don't like about the book is that it puts LOT many small examples to convey what it wants to prove. I am not sure if its required. But if he doesn't do that, maybe the book wont be even quarter as thick as its now. Result, maybe we are done with reading it in 1/6th of time than now. (I agree it also depends on the target audience, majority of which needs lots of illustrations to get the message across. I myself am one though, sometimes)
The thing is that we retain the idea/messege/influence as long (or a bit longer) as the person's-work or person's-reminiscence or the person himself/herself is around us and we are able to interact with it/him/her. ("Out of sight, out of mind" types). I think I would have been a much greater fan of Gandhi ( I am already a BIG one) had I met/talked to him once than by reading so much about him. Thats what personal touch does to you. It just bowls you over. But but but, you can let your mind controlled by it if you so wish and can do the contrary as well (We are gifted with a strong mind with which we can control or drift, at will)
Same with books, unless they are in sync with the idea/concept somewhere inside you or unless they are really revolutionary. If you already have that concept, the book's effect lasts long(er) as it reinforces the thinking you aleady beleive in. If its really revolutionary (rarely books are so. There are people who can do this to you more effectively, than books), you accept the idea since it appealed to you and hence the effect last, if you put efforts to that.
But for other books which don't fall in any of these two categories, the influence lasts as long as the book takes to be finshed (or a bit more). Maybe that way it makes sense to keep the book thicker. You read "blink" and then later on if I come-up with a book called "Deliberations", written with equally strong intent of proving higher-importance of deliberation to spontaniety in decision-making, you may realise that you are now attracted towards that book.
ANYthing NEW/DIFFERENT appeals to us. But they are not lasting. They are a welcome change like innumerable revolutions which the masses later realised, were equally worse as the earlier regime. Same way, since this spontaniety-funda is new to us, we like the book. We MUST be open to new idea, but should not get carried away just becuase its different/new. Our inner-self definitely deserves more respect than this.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Saturday, August 23, 2008
faith in God brings the virtue called patience
While walking back from the bus-stop to home, after attending an all-Deutsche full-day 'kurz', I was thinking about wat else but patience.
As with many ideas, this one also struck me out of the blue.
"Faith in God teaches you patience"
(BTW, this reminds how so many times, by thinking for few minutes in quietness in restroom, I have solved my many circuit-design-problems than hours of brainstorming in front of my workstation !!!!!!)
When you don't have faith in God, you unintentionally, try to surpass your circle of influence. This is obvious since you beleive that everything that happens to you is because of you and hence everything that you want to happen to you, has to be done by you. As a result, like anybody else, you start working on any priority thing.
Let me try to be patient and explain it to you.
When there appears a wound, you try to heal it using some medication you are aware of. If it fails, you try few more times before finally visiting a doctor. Now once you are at a doctor's place, you have to patiently wait for your turn/time when doc's attention is bestowed upon you. You wait not because you are patient (you already tried curing it, remember? ) but because you are helpless and have no choice.
(I am just trying to convey my point, no offences meant to any pool of thought).
Similarly, if you have faith in God, you have the advantage that you don't try to cross your circle of influence (in fact, sometimes you don't even fully exercise it for fear of outstepping) and wait for things to happen (fact remains that God doesn't do anything but the infinite events occur which, with present tools/machines/knowledge, we can't model accurately) - some person responding, some boss coming and talking to you for your benefit etc. etc. - and it generally works out. It works out, not in the truest sense, but because you already had accepted whate'er the outcome of infinite events are ('Generation/Organisation/Destruction = GOD).
Well, to be back on track and to remain true to my title of the article, how does this still prove patience-thing.
Well, for that, I again go back to the doctor-visit analogy. Similarly, for things which you think require your immediate attention, and you think it to be under your control, you don't wait to solve, howe'er patient person you are (since it has nothing to do with patience) but start solving it. And since you are mistaken with the thought that things are under your control, you immediately act.
Result(s):
You sometimes put some people into uncomfortable situation by overstepping into their zone and they are too nice to immediately react (remember, they are patient people and they react only once they are sure you don't realize you are making a mistake and hence you may not stop unless and until told so, in clear terms). It has its own advantage ("kichar mein se kamal nikalna", i m able to find some advantage!!!!!). You force people, not with any such intent, to come clear and you don't have to work hard on deductions based on social-norms, beahvioral-patterns etc. etc.
(Got to goto some dinner now. If something to be added is felt, I'll do so later else please consider this as the end of the article)
As with many ideas, this one also struck me out of the blue.
"Faith in God teaches you patience"
(BTW, this reminds how so many times, by thinking for few minutes in quietness in restroom, I have solved my many circuit-design-problems than hours of brainstorming in front of my workstation !!!!!!)
When you don't have faith in God, you unintentionally, try to surpass your circle of influence. This is obvious since you beleive that everything that happens to you is because of you and hence everything that you want to happen to you, has to be done by you. As a result, like anybody else, you start working on any priority thing.
Let me try to be patient and explain it to you.
When there appears a wound, you try to heal it using some medication you are aware of. If it fails, you try few more times before finally visiting a doctor. Now once you are at a doctor's place, you have to patiently wait for your turn/time when doc's attention is bestowed upon you. You wait not because you are patient (you already tried curing it, remember? ) but because you are helpless and have no choice.
(I am just trying to convey my point, no offences meant to any pool of thought).
Similarly, if you have faith in God, you have the advantage that you don't try to cross your circle of influence (in fact, sometimes you don't even fully exercise it for fear of outstepping) and wait for things to happen (fact remains that God doesn't do anything but the infinite events occur which, with present tools/machines/knowledge, we can't model accurately) - some person responding, some boss coming and talking to you for your benefit etc. etc. - and it generally works out. It works out, not in the truest sense, but because you already had accepted whate'er the outcome of infinite events are ('Generation/Organisation/Destruction = GOD).
Well, to be back on track and to remain true to my title of the article, how does this still prove patience-thing.
Well, for that, I again go back to the doctor-visit analogy. Similarly, for things which you think require your immediate attention, and you think it to be under your control, you don't wait to solve, howe'er patient person you are (since it has nothing to do with patience) but start solving it. And since you are mistaken with the thought that things are under your control, you immediately act.
Result(s):
You sometimes put some people into uncomfortable situation by overstepping into their zone and they are too nice to immediately react (remember, they are patient people and they react only once they are sure you don't realize you are making a mistake and hence you may not stop unless and until told so, in clear terms). It has its own advantage ("kichar mein se kamal nikalna", i m able to find some advantage!!!!!). You force people, not with any such intent, to come clear and you don't have to work hard on deductions based on social-norms, beahvioral-patterns etc. etc.
(Got to goto some dinner now. If something to be added is felt, I'll do so later else please consider this as the end of the article)
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Is it only me!!!!!!
I have lost count of how many people suggested me to be patient. The people whom I have lots of repect for and trust on.
Well, some people think this is beacuse I act and THEN think and then act again to compensate for it. I have tried and analysed myself on it, quite a lot.
(Well, if you have read engineering, underdamped systems are unstable, overdamped are very slow and critically damped are the best choice (with some risk of instability). Same with patience/impulsiveness. If you are very patient, you act quite slowly, though mostly correct. If you are very impulsive, you act fast with the repurcussions associated with it and in status in-between, you trade-off some risk with time)
Actualy, the contrary is true. I think a LOT. I am not talking about it in positive/negative sense. For every action I am going to take, my mind has already thought N possible options about it from the viewpoint of how it may affect me, how it may affect the person it concerns and is this really what I wanna convey and many more such things . But since the other concerned person is guided by so many rules and learnings-of-their-own-which-I-have-no-inkling-about and their-own-value-systems etc. etc., I can never satisfy myself if a particular action is the right one.
Result, it has almost become my habit to act the way I think is correct. But the problem is my mind is STILL thinking. The thing is that it is now thinking with the extra enlightenment of the occurrence of the action-taken. So, the more the information you have, the higher the probability of correct decision you make. So, then I try to correct thing by reacting, which, not unjustifiably, is interpreted as compensation for something. My forgetfulness also adds to my sorry situation (perceived so by others).
But still, the most important reason why I fail (very often I do) in striking it right, the first time (or even the 2nd/3rd/4th/../..th time), is that I have yet to grow up to understanind how majority of human-minds think. I am pretty bad at it and I am surprised how almost 90% of the people are good at it. This is possibly due to my way-of-thinking being different from the majority and also my reluctance to change it (it needs some self-convincing afterall)
Anyway, somehow I have survived and survived with 100s of really great friends. So, maybe my hastiness/impulsiveness scares the short-time-acquaintainces (hope this improves sometime soon) but they themselves in the long-run, generally don't mind putting up with it with the hope that yours truly, someday, would learn and overcome this weakness.
He indeed does hope/wish/try to be/do so.
Well, some people think this is beacuse I act and THEN think and then act again to compensate for it. I have tried and analysed myself on it, quite a lot.
(Well, if you have read engineering, underdamped systems are unstable, overdamped are very slow and critically damped are the best choice (with some risk of instability). Same with patience/impulsiveness. If you are very patient, you act quite slowly, though mostly correct. If you are very impulsive, you act fast with the repurcussions associated with it and in status in-between, you trade-off some risk with time)
Actualy, the contrary is true. I think a LOT. I am not talking about it in positive/negative sense. For every action I am going to take, my mind has already thought N possible options about it from the viewpoint of how it may affect me, how it may affect the person it concerns and is this really what I wanna convey and many more such things . But since the other concerned person is guided by so many rules and learnings-of-their-own-which-I-have-no-inkling-about and their-own-value-systems etc. etc., I can never satisfy myself if a particular action is the right one.
Result, it has almost become my habit to act the way I think is correct. But the problem is my mind is STILL thinking. The thing is that it is now thinking with the extra enlightenment of the occurrence of the action-taken. So, the more the information you have, the higher the probability of correct decision you make. So, then I try to correct thing by reacting, which, not unjustifiably, is interpreted as compensation for something. My forgetfulness also adds to my sorry situation (perceived so by others).
But still, the most important reason why I fail (very often I do) in striking it right, the first time (or even the 2nd/3rd/4th/../..th time), is that I have yet to grow up to understanind how majority of human-minds think. I am pretty bad at it and I am surprised how almost 90% of the people are good at it. This is possibly due to my way-of-thinking being different from the majority and also my reluctance to change it (it needs some self-convincing afterall)
Anyway, somehow I have survived and survived with 100s of really great friends. So, maybe my hastiness/impulsiveness scares the short-time-acquaintainces (hope this improves sometime soon) but they themselves in the long-run, generally don't mind putting up with it with the hope that yours truly, someday, would learn and overcome this weakness.
He indeed does hope/wish/try to be/do so.
Friday, August 08, 2008
I love the festival fo Rakhi: As long as I am away from home
I remember, very clearly, the tension I used to have one day before Rakshabandhan.
Before I go into details, let me add that "Rakshabandhan", like innumerable indian festivals, has got a theme and the one associated with this festival is that of the relation between brother and sister. Brother is supposed to take care of his sister, protect her from Allauddin-Khilji-types-road-side-romeos or sometimes even from Rana-Rattan-Singh-types-boy-friends of his sister (even if, very probably, she may not like it that way)
Anyway, the reasons I used to get tense on the previous evening of rakshhabandhan had nothing to do with protecting my sisters - the days,when I used to get tense during the pre-rakhi(popular name for the festival "Rakshhabandhan" ) days, my sisters used to protect me from my "friends" (girl or boys, whatsoever) (it could not continue long since I moved to hostel pretty soon) -. The reason was just associated with yours truly.
Well,rakhi started with the theme of brother committing to protecting his sister, but gradually, as with everything, people realised that protection/security can also be sold/purchased as a commodity, the thing "protection" got converted to "money" for the convinience of all. When did this transformation take place, I have no idea, but I have seen it that way since the first day I remember about it. In rakhi, sisters tie a band to the brother and the brother gives her some money. Whatever the amount of money was, it always seemed HUGE to me (even if it was some money which my mom gave to me to be passed on to my sisters, once they had tied the band). This feeling of money being big-amount came probably because I was too dumb a kid back then who used to give all his financial gifts ( you get it when you meet your elder relatives like your grandma or uncles and aunts) to mom and my sisters used to keep it with them and hence any more money they got during rakhi, made me relatively poorer.
Not just the financial drain that I can avoid once I am far from my sisters, makes me like the rakhi-from-distance, but there is another much more significant advantage I gained out of being farther from home-town during the festival of rakhi.
I am so happy that I dont have to worry anymore about a particular nice-beautiful-charming-sweet-..-.. girl from my neighbourhood tying me rakhi!!!!! (remember the theme of rakhi)
When you are a kid, your emotions regarding the opposite sex is just not given any respect. Its treated with so much insensitivity, I am surprised. Anyway, what happens is that if you happen to have some girl around who is not your sister, but she is around at the time when the band (btw, the band is also called "rakhi", same name as the festival) is being tied to ur wrist, that girl would also be asked, in 'courtsey', to tie one rakhi to you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Its such a dilemmatic situation, one needs to think sometime to come up with some diplomatic answer to accept or to deny this offer of tying a band symbolising sister-brother relation between the two !!!!
Well, many guys dont mind spending money on a beautiful girl, but not this way, for sure. You give her the money for tying the rakhi on ur wrist and also, u accept her as your sister!!!!!!!!!!
So, its anybody's guess now, why all the worries and tension.
PS: I must add that I did witness some remarkable change in this hypocritic gesture of asking another girl to tie a rakhi, even if she is not your sister, even is she happens to be around. Few years back, I mismanaged my vacation-timing/place and happenned to be at a cousin sister's place during rakhi that year. But I was pleasantly shocked to find that no other girl was asked to tie me rakhi except my cousin . But anyway, I had learned how to handle such situations (you really become street-smart if you start living in a hostel (that too one like mine) since your are just 12 years old). Back then, when I didn't know, nobody helped me, rather made things worse for me!!!!!!!
Before I go into details, let me add that "Rakshabandhan", like innumerable indian festivals, has got a theme and the one associated with this festival is that of the relation between brother and sister. Brother is supposed to take care of his sister, protect her from Allauddin-Khilji-types-road-side-romeos or sometimes even from Rana-Rattan-Singh-types-boy-friends of his sister (even if, very probably, she may not like it that way)
Anyway, the reasons I used to get tense on the previous evening of rakshhabandhan had nothing to do with protecting my sisters - the days,when I used to get tense during the pre-rakhi(popular name for the festival "Rakshhabandhan" ) days, my sisters used to protect me from my "friends" (girl or boys, whatsoever) (it could not continue long since I moved to hostel pretty soon) -. The reason was just associated with yours truly.
Well,rakhi started with the theme of brother committing to protecting his sister, but gradually, as with everything, people realised that protection/security can also be sold/purchased as a commodity, the thing "protection" got converted to "money" for the convinience of all. When did this transformation take place, I have no idea, but I have seen it that way since the first day I remember about it. In rakhi, sisters tie a band to the brother and the brother gives her some money. Whatever the amount of money was, it always seemed HUGE to me (even if it was some money which my mom gave to me to be passed on to my sisters, once they had tied the band). This feeling of money being big-amount came probably because I was too dumb a kid back then who used to give all his financial gifts ( you get it when you meet your elder relatives like your grandma or uncles and aunts) to mom and my sisters used to keep it with them and hence any more money they got during rakhi, made me relatively poorer.
Not just the financial drain that I can avoid once I am far from my sisters, makes me like the rakhi-from-distance, but there is another much more significant advantage I gained out of being farther from home-town during the festival of rakhi.
I am so happy that I dont have to worry anymore about a particular nice-beautiful-charming-sweet-..-.. girl from my neighbourhood tying me rakhi!!!!! (remember the theme of rakhi)
When you are a kid, your emotions regarding the opposite sex is just not given any respect. Its treated with so much insensitivity, I am surprised. Anyway, what happens is that if you happen to have some girl around who is not your sister, but she is around at the time when the band (btw, the band is also called "rakhi", same name as the festival) is being tied to ur wrist, that girl would also be asked, in 'courtsey', to tie one rakhi to you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Its such a dilemmatic situation, one needs to think sometime to come up with some diplomatic answer to accept or to deny this offer of tying a band symbolising sister-brother relation between the two !!!!
Well, many guys dont mind spending money on a beautiful girl, but not this way, for sure. You give her the money for tying the rakhi on ur wrist and also, u accept her as your sister!!!!!!!!!!
So, its anybody's guess now, why all the worries and tension.
PS: I must add that I did witness some remarkable change in this hypocritic gesture of asking another girl to tie a rakhi, even if she is not your sister, even is she happens to be around. Few years back, I mismanaged my vacation-timing/place and happenned to be at a cousin sister's place during rakhi that year. But I was pleasantly shocked to find that no other girl was asked to tie me rakhi except my cousin . But anyway, I had learned how to handle such situations (you really become street-smart if you start living in a hostel (that too one like mine) since your are just 12 years old). Back then, when I didn't know, nobody helped me, rather made things worse for me!!!!!!!
Sunday, December 23, 2007
The MAN
Many a times I wonder who is the better of the two: Peter Keating or Howard Roark. Actually every individual (almost ALL) has traits of both the two. These are two orthogonal sets and every human being has a projection on these two axes. Unfortunately the projection on the Keating axis is much higher than on the Roark axis. And more unfortuante is that every individual would say that he/she admires Roark. Despite knowing what is that you wish/revere, people don't strive towards it but towards the easier path which just makes a hollow personality. Since the the majority is like that, Peter Keating makes much better impression than Roark, in the world.
But then, why doesn't Roark evolve and change to Keating. Because, the biggest happiness comes from within, not from appreciation/good-words from others. Hence Roarks do exist but they wonder why doesn't the world really do what it says it wants to do!!!
The world is so much used to getting impression about people by what they say about themselves, than what their actions speak for them. And this unfortunate hyprocrisy of the world, puts people who are really straightforward/honest, in unfortunate situations. But do such people care?
Yes, they do. As I said, such people do have some Keating component (a minor one, of course) also in them. That part comes because human being is afterall a social animal. Maslow's 4th level need does exist in them. And since the world really lacks Roarks, Roarks get dependent on likes of Keatings to understand, and hence appreciate them and here they yield to their human weakness :-(.
But then, why doesn't Roark evolve and change to Keating. Because, the biggest happiness comes from within, not from appreciation/good-words from others. Hence Roarks do exist but they wonder why doesn't the world really do what it says it wants to do!!!
The world is so much used to getting impression about people by what they say about themselves, than what their actions speak for them. And this unfortunate hyprocrisy of the world, puts people who are really straightforward/honest, in unfortunate situations. But do such people care?
Yes, they do. As I said, such people do have some Keating component (a minor one, of course) also in them. That part comes because human being is afterall a social animal. Maslow's 4th level need does exist in them. And since the world really lacks Roarks, Roarks get dependent on likes of Keatings to understand, and hence appreciate them and here they yield to their human weakness :-(.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Globalisation
"I am not a supporter of Globalisation", said Sven, a colleague of mine. This gave me a big food for thought!!!!!
Most of the advanced countries resort to statistics and probablity to understand/predict the behavior of the society/market and other such non-quantifiable things. We will simply follow their tradition. Not because I want to follow them but for the simple reason that they are correct here.
Isn't it more probable to find the best of brains amongst 1 billion than 200 million and much more in comparison to 8 million.
Also, isn't it more probable that more people means more capabilities, more varied interests.
Would a filthy rich country like Norway, bacause of its oil, remain so if it were to sell its oil only inside Norway?
No.
So, would Norway be worse off without globalisation or would India be. Well, if no globalisation means no trade with other countries, India would definitely be better off than Norway. But fortunately/unfortunately, its not so.
When people say No to globalisation, what they mean is no redistribution of wealth anymore, not after the polarisation of wealth occurred due to many factors, spread across past few hundred years.
I believe highly in capitalism/freedom. (Selection based on rejection criterion, there is no better option, at present). So, every country/people/individual has the right to chose the form-of-trade or economic-policy it wants.
But this works very well for already-rich nations as long as the BIG manpower nations' people are more charmed by short-term goals of geting the best in their lifetime but not concerned with longg-term goals for the nation.
For the economy to grow, recirculation of wealth is very essential, the more the cycle goes and more vigorously it runs, the more the economy grows.
If Norway and India decide to close their economy and grow with their indegenous products, who would obviously grow more and full. Of course India. with the population and size it has, and as i said, higher probability of talents, India would have much better scope.
Anyway, the law of equilibrium would make sure that there would be lots of dynamics going on, whether you hate duncan or like closed economy, things would keep moving towards the direction of equilibrium which would stop only once the whole world acts like one country with maximisation of benefit of all but of course with weightage of skill-sets taken care of.
Most of the advanced countries resort to statistics and probablity to understand/predict the behavior of the society/market and other such non-quantifiable things. We will simply follow their tradition. Not because I want to follow them but for the simple reason that they are correct here.
Isn't it more probable to find the best of brains amongst 1 billion than 200 million and much more in comparison to 8 million.
Also, isn't it more probable that more people means more capabilities, more varied interests.
Would a filthy rich country like Norway, bacause of its oil, remain so if it were to sell its oil only inside Norway?
No.
So, would Norway be worse off without globalisation or would India be. Well, if no globalisation means no trade with other countries, India would definitely be better off than Norway. But fortunately/unfortunately, its not so.
When people say No to globalisation, what they mean is no redistribution of wealth anymore, not after the polarisation of wealth occurred due to many factors, spread across past few hundred years.
I believe highly in capitalism/freedom. (Selection based on rejection criterion, there is no better option, at present). So, every country/people/individual has the right to chose the form-of-trade or economic-policy it wants.
But this works very well for already-rich nations as long as the BIG manpower nations' people are more charmed by short-term goals of geting the best in their lifetime but not concerned with longg-term goals for the nation.
For the economy to grow, recirculation of wealth is very essential, the more the cycle goes and more vigorously it runs, the more the economy grows.
If Norway and India decide to close their economy and grow with their indegenous products, who would obviously grow more and full. Of course India. with the population and size it has, and as i said, higher probability of talents, India would have much better scope.
Anyway, the law of equilibrium would make sure that there would be lots of dynamics going on, whether you hate duncan or like closed economy, things would keep moving towards the direction of equilibrium which would stop only once the whole world acts like one country with maximisation of benefit of all but of course with weightage of skill-sets taken care of.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
NATURAL FEEDBACK SYSTEM in the society and its behavior
Gandhi freed India. Had he not done that, wont it have happened?
It would have - just the occurrence might have got delayed.
The colonies got free. Not Sun Yat Sen, not Gandhi and nor Atlee were the essential reasons. They just expedited the inevitable.
I believe in the surprising stability of the god-made natural feedback system which is present everywhere - from tangible to intangible things.
Why does the good prevail generally and not the evil.
There is nothing like good or bad, truth and evil. Nothing is absolute.
Its only that in the feedback system, which evolved or was made by god, the reference input is the truth, the holy, the correct and its that which is good. rest all are evil and untrue and bad. so whatever are the reference inputs got defined as the virtuous words.
Hence its not the truth which prevails, but what prevails is truth coz the system is designed such.
If, in the system, some noise such as a murderer running free in a society, develops, the feedback system helps him nabbed. The whole system starts working in correcting that noise as the stable feedback system doesn't allow that as a valid ouput and hence suppresses it.
Now comes the question how does the society etc. become part of this feedback system. Maybe the original one, when created was one, but how does the new one, the new society formed, the new babies born , the new countries become part of this feedback system and help it.
I believe, again this arrangement has been made by god (or evolved). we learn about the reference inputs to these stable systems through the religion or moral-science which are gist of learnings from history percolated through teachings by the scholars.
Why does religion exist? Because of this very reason.Even if you dont agree to the above given modus-oprandi behind the stability of the system, this doesn't take much ignited brain to accept that religion controls extreme emotions of human beings.
It teaches us to follow those follow those virtuous values and hence, in my philosophy, help the system (social system) become stable by helping in the direction of reference input.
(PS: for the people who don't know about feedback systems, few minutes of googling would suffice to understand my logic)
Religion is the strongest of emotion. But strangely it doesn't teach people to go against the reference inputs (which you call as virutes, in common langauge). Why? Of course becuase the history has taught that going against those virtues has failed. The nature's stable feedback system has always proved too strong for those noise. So, the religion simply teaches us to go with them, simply to be in harmoby with mother nature's (or God's) will!!!!!!
It would have - just the occurrence might have got delayed.
The colonies got free. Not Sun Yat Sen, not Gandhi and nor Atlee were the essential reasons. They just expedited the inevitable.
I believe in the surprising stability of the god-made natural feedback system which is present everywhere - from tangible to intangible things.
Why does the good prevail generally and not the evil.
There is nothing like good or bad, truth and evil. Nothing is absolute.
Its only that in the feedback system, which evolved or was made by god, the reference input is the truth, the holy, the correct and its that which is good. rest all are evil and untrue and bad. so whatever are the reference inputs got defined as the virtuous words.
Hence its not the truth which prevails, but what prevails is truth coz the system is designed such.
If, in the system, some noise such as a murderer running free in a society, develops, the feedback system helps him nabbed. The whole system starts working in correcting that noise as the stable feedback system doesn't allow that as a valid ouput and hence suppresses it.
Now comes the question how does the society etc. become part of this feedback system. Maybe the original one, when created was one, but how does the new one, the new society formed, the new babies born , the new countries become part of this feedback system and help it.
I believe, again this arrangement has been made by god (or evolved). we learn about the reference inputs to these stable systems through the religion or moral-science which are gist of learnings from history percolated through teachings by the scholars.
Why does religion exist? Because of this very reason.Even if you dont agree to the above given modus-oprandi behind the stability of the system, this doesn't take much ignited brain to accept that religion controls extreme emotions of human beings.
It teaches us to follow those follow those virtuous values and hence, in my philosophy, help the system (social system) become stable by helping in the direction of reference input.
(PS: for the people who don't know about feedback systems, few minutes of googling would suffice to understand my logic)
Religion is the strongest of emotion. But strangely it doesn't teach people to go against the reference inputs (which you call as virutes, in common langauge). Why? Of course becuase the history has taught that going against those virtues has failed. The nature's stable feedback system has always proved too strong for those noise. So, the religion simply teaches us to go with them, simply to be in harmoby with mother nature's (or God's) will!!!!!!
Friday, November 24, 2006
Great Nice days of Yore
I wrote an article long back on whats the lovliest thing one finds. Its elusive. its something which you dont have.
Same applies to the best days of our life!!!!!
Ask somebody if he is having the best times of his life, he would always have days of yore to recall as the best days of his life.
If not natural, its definitely most probable answer. Its quite obvious, if people get satisfied with the present, world would come to a standstill !!!!!
But y m i writing such a serious thing when serriousness is never my forte and this thing is too bland and obvious to be written.
actually this was inteneded to convey this to somebody but if one's words and actions cannot convey, I am deadsure, writing just wont :-)
Or its not so? But nothing can be done anyway, not bacause of helplessness, but for the reason that EVERYthing possible has been done :-)
Anyway, I have definitely lost the regular readers of my blog because of suddenly going so dormant. But volcano needs to erupt just once and it agian becomes a strenght to be feared!!!!
So, i hope i need to start firing again and i'll hv new readers of my blog :-)
Same applies to the best days of our life!!!!!
Ask somebody if he is having the best times of his life, he would always have days of yore to recall as the best days of his life.
If not natural, its definitely most probable answer. Its quite obvious, if people get satisfied with the present, world would come to a standstill !!!!!
But y m i writing such a serious thing when serriousness is never my forte and this thing is too bland and obvious to be written.
actually this was inteneded to convey this to somebody but if one's words and actions cannot convey, I am deadsure, writing just wont :-)
Or its not so? But nothing can be done anyway, not bacause of helplessness, but for the reason that EVERYthing possible has been done :-)
Anyway, I have definitely lost the regular readers of my blog because of suddenly going so dormant. But volcano needs to erupt just once and it agian becomes a strenght to be feared!!!!
So, i hope i need to start firing again and i'll hv new readers of my blog :-)
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Reserving around 10 thousand seats to improve the condition of 300million!!!!!!
Isn't it the most ineffecient way for welfare of a community whihc is 300m strong!!!!!
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Panchtantra
If you want to explain to some kid , the for loop of programming,
give him the book "Panchtantra"!!!!!
give him the book "Panchtantra"!!!!!
Sunday, March 26, 2006
again heard it on tv
heard it on tv. its soo.... nice
dekh faansi ka yeh fanda
khauf se hai kaanpta (shivers)
uff. ke zalladon ki halat
bhi badi mushkil mein hai
sarfaroshi ki tamanna
ab humaare dil mien hai
I dont know if Bhagat Singh was the composer of it or not.
dekh faansi ka yeh fanda
khauf se hai kaanpta (shivers)
uff. ke zalladon ki halat
bhi badi mushkil mein hai
sarfaroshi ki tamanna
ab humaare dil mien hai
I dont know if Bhagat Singh was the composer of it or not.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
ek sher
Ae kalam zara ruk ruk ke chal
bada ghazab ka muqaam aa raha hai
teri nau(kh) ke neeche
mere watan ka naam aa raha hai.
bada ghazab ka muqaam aa raha hai
teri nau(kh) ke neeche
mere watan ka naam aa raha hai.
Friday, December 30, 2005
wen jelly met belly
belly sucked the life out of jelly and pushed it out into another long confusing alley.
balle balle balle.
heehee haahaaahoohoo
balle balle balle.
heehee haahaaahoohoo
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
Inversion
What do you feel should be the inverse of a man!!!!!!
Is it woman?
I dont have any second opinion about futility of this proposition.
Is it a man who walks in the direction of his back, who takes a 270 degree rotation to turn right and in another side 270 to turn left?
Or is it one who walks on his head and punches with his legs.
Well,for those who think at more abstract level, it can be somebody , say notnilC lliB, who sleeps in the day and gets up at night.
Or another rM rakludneT nihcaS who thinks in reverse manner. who laughs when he is hurt and who hurts somebody who loves him (dont we already have a popular term for such Man^(-1) !!! )
At very morphological level, it can be a species with heart on the right side, lever absorbing oxygen instead of providing bile juice and lungs helping in digestion. or is totally reverse. rM nihcaS eats shit and out comes Apple!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
hee hee haa haa hoo hoo.
raeY weN yppaH
Is it woman?
I dont have any second opinion about futility of this proposition.
Is it a man who walks in the direction of his back, who takes a 270 degree rotation to turn right and in another side 270 to turn left?
Or is it one who walks on his head and punches with his legs.
Well,for those who think at more abstract level, it can be somebody , say notnilC lliB, who sleeps in the day and gets up at night.
Or another rM rakludneT nihcaS who thinks in reverse manner. who laughs when he is hurt and who hurts somebody who loves him (dont we already have a popular term for such Man^(-1) !!! )
At very morphological level, it can be a species with heart on the right side, lever absorbing oxygen instead of providing bile juice and lungs helping in digestion. or is totally reverse. rM nihcaS eats shit and out comes Apple!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
hee hee haa haa hoo hoo.
raeY weN yppaH
Saturday, October 22, 2005
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Author needs to be sensitive
Thanks to KJ for reminding me why am I absent from blogging for so long.
Actually I got too busy with my work at the new place that I could not find time to write. (Actually I still am)
Writing aimlessly, I find too difficult , and hence the inactivity over here.
Thus came the thought that a regular writer must be quite sensitive who finds something or other regularly to trigger his
thought process and he starts writing on it.
But then I wonder how come I wrote so many (good or bad) articles while I was free for a month when I was to move from TI
and had not yet joined Freescale.
Does it imply that sensitivity is a function of available time.
The more time you have free with you, the more sensitive you become.
But that also might not be true.
Reason:
Today I came early from office as I was somehow not in a mood to work and then decided to write something on my blog.
I took time to think what to write on and this itself , I thought, I'll write on.
And if this article turns out to be good one on completion, the above logic would prove invalid.
Spontaneity comes by itself if one puts a li'l bit of effort for something he knows he likes/good-at but not in a proper
"mood" of doing that. So, mood is the max temporal of all which is very easy to conquer but the willingness for which is very difficult
to have.
This logical discourse reminds me of the following argument of Socrates mentioned in the book "the dialogues of Plato"
The simple way Socrates proves that there is life after death is that if even a instant-born baby feels secure when it has somebody with it.
It cries when you leave it alone, it gets scared when suddenly it gets dark, it suddenly stops crying or starts laughing if it realizes that there
is somebody to take care of it.
How does it learn all these? It cannot come out of thin air. It must have learnt it somewhere before it arrived in this world. What else that
can be but pre-birth life.
Similar (Socrates must be feeling uneasy in his grave or maybe some Nth birth of his would be cursing me!!!) approach is what I am taking to
prove my point. Logic.
Anyway, I get back to what I was trying to drive the conclusion at.
One hypothesis that fits it that somebody who is always willing to write somehow makes it his profession so that he has all the time to write
can definitely make a good author.
He has the time and the will as well, so there wont be any dearth of topic he would feel like writing about.
While writing this one, the argument struck me "sensitivity is a function of time".
I think it IS so. it is function of time you have left with you after you are done with those which you had kept for yourself.
If you are too engrossed in your work/fun/entertainment/../.. you tend to become less sensitive.
(Sensitivity is a virtue or a vice, I honestly have no strong opinion about it).
Of course there is degree of it as with all the things in the world. Our sensitivity gradually declines as we move out of our
social circle. First comes immediate family then comes relatives/friends , then comes surroundings . at some very low degree comes
country and almost at NIL comes environment/world. This is what general psychology is. Maybe this is what makes revolutions so difficult to happen.
I am lost and hope other readers also get lost in this thought as there is nothing I m trying to convey but just writing aimlessly!!!!
Cheers!
Actually I got too busy with my work at the new place that I could not find time to write. (Actually I still am)
Writing aimlessly, I find too difficult , and hence the inactivity over here.
Thus came the thought that a regular writer must be quite sensitive who finds something or other regularly to trigger his
thought process and he starts writing on it.
But then I wonder how come I wrote so many (good or bad) articles while I was free for a month when I was to move from TI
and had not yet joined Freescale.
Does it imply that sensitivity is a function of available time.
The more time you have free with you, the more sensitive you become.
But that also might not be true.
Reason:
Today I came early from office as I was somehow not in a mood to work and then decided to write something on my blog.
I took time to think what to write on and this itself , I thought, I'll write on.
And if this article turns out to be good one on completion, the above logic would prove invalid.
Spontaneity comes by itself if one puts a li'l bit of effort for something he knows he likes/good-at but not in a proper
"mood" of doing that. So, mood is the max temporal of all which is very easy to conquer but the willingness for which is very difficult
to have.
This logical discourse reminds me of the following argument of Socrates mentioned in the book "the dialogues of Plato"
The simple way Socrates proves that there is life after death is that if even a instant-born baby feels secure when it has somebody with it.
It cries when you leave it alone, it gets scared when suddenly it gets dark, it suddenly stops crying or starts laughing if it realizes that there
is somebody to take care of it.
How does it learn all these? It cannot come out of thin air. It must have learnt it somewhere before it arrived in this world. What else that
can be but pre-birth life.
Similar (Socrates must be feeling uneasy in his grave or maybe some Nth birth of his would be cursing me!!!) approach is what I am taking to
prove my point. Logic.
Anyway, I get back to what I was trying to drive the conclusion at.
One hypothesis that fits it that somebody who is always willing to write somehow makes it his profession so that he has all the time to write
can definitely make a good author.
He has the time and the will as well, so there wont be any dearth of topic he would feel like writing about.
While writing this one, the argument struck me "sensitivity is a function of time".
I think it IS so. it is function of time you have left with you after you are done with those which you had kept for yourself.
If you are too engrossed in your work/fun/entertainment/../.. you tend to become less sensitive.
(Sensitivity is a virtue or a vice, I honestly have no strong opinion about it).
Of course there is degree of it as with all the things in the world. Our sensitivity gradually declines as we move out of our
social circle. First comes immediate family then comes relatives/friends , then comes surroundings . at some very low degree comes
country and almost at NIL comes environment/world. This is what general psychology is. Maybe this is what makes revolutions so difficult to happen.
I am lost and hope other readers also get lost in this thought as there is nothing I m trying to convey but just writing aimlessly!!!!
Cheers!
Monday, August 01, 2005
I own the MOST beautiful thing (the MOST beautiful thing I own)
its ibook.
G4,512MB RAM,30GB HDD.
deadly combo. that too at 57K!!!!!!
I m so happy.
urs truly is at home at 11:00 pm at night writing this posting.
DSL modem is not that disappointing afterall.
G4,512MB RAM,30GB HDD.
deadly combo. that too at 57K!!!!!!
I m so happy.
urs truly is at home at 11:00 pm at night writing this posting.
DSL modem is not that disappointing afterall.
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Airtel beats Apple
Doesn't it sound like the giant Real Madrid being beaten by if-not-minnows but definitely not-Los galacticos, Sevilla.
Yes,
I applied for Airtel boradband connection much after my advance payment for ibook.
But ibook remains hung in mid-air somewhere (or may-be floating in high seas somewhere) while I have already got the phone installed yesternight and modem will be installed tomorrow :-(
"der aaye durusht aaye" ki ummeed karta hoon.
I went to India Gater yesternight.
It looked so good.
But I was disappointed with the adjacent BIG lawns thanks to junta's apathy.
But overall, it looks GLAMOROUS.
I am still waiting for World War III !!!!! (India Gate reminded me of it)
"You don't win a battle by dying for your country.
You win a battle by making the other son of a bitch, die for his country."
Gen Patton.
Yes,
I applied for Airtel boradband connection much after my advance payment for ibook.
But ibook remains hung in mid-air somewhere (or may-be floating in high seas somewhere) while I have already got the phone installed yesternight and modem will be installed tomorrow :-(
"der aaye durusht aaye" ki ummeed karta hoon.
I went to India Gater yesternight.
It looked so good.
But I was disappointed with the adjacent BIG lawns thanks to junta's apathy.
But overall, it looks GLAMOROUS.
I am still waiting for World War III !!!!! (India Gate reminded me of it)
"You don't win a battle by dying for your country.
You win a battle by making the other son of a bitch, die for his country."
Gen Patton.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)