It is an innate human tendency to make mistakes. In fact mistakes are such an integral part of life itself that every species on the planet makes them. Cows, buffaloes, or even monkeys, they all make their own share of mistakes. In the wild, mistakes are usually fatal. Take for example a deer that makes a wrong turn during a chase and gets eaten by a lion. I don't know how many of you watch the "Animal Planet" channel, but I never fail to see that deer keep making the same mistake over and over again, and alway ends up taking that wrong turn. If they didn't, lions wouldn't have much to eat, would they. The fantastic part about being human is that we're smart enough that we can learn from our mistakes. This ability is essential because we don't want to do the same thing over and over again and end up like the deer.
So keen are we in order not to commit the same mistakes again, that we humans came up with a subject called History. We fill Pages and Pages with the tales of human failure and misery. Thousands of scholars pore over these tales to answer that fundamental question: what went wrong? Millions of students like us are made to read the interpretation of these scholars to learn “how not to go wrong”. History is nothing but a list of human mistakes, and we are taught about it in order to learn from them. Yet time and time again we continue to repeat those very same mistakes.
Some say that you can only learn from mistakes if you commit them. However, not only can we learn from our own mistakes, we can learn from other's mistakes as well. Learning how not to commit mistakes is essential for human survival. Whether it's a child learning about why he shouldn't break the television because he'll get grounded or a person learning why he should not to jump in front of a running train, when he sees some person on television being run over by a train, they are both are learning from mistakes. Somewhere "inside" we're affected by this, and it clicks that we're not supposed to be doing this. It becomes essential to learn from our mistakes because our entire "life experience" is nothing but the knowledge gained from the mistakes we make and the mistakes we see other people making.
But this raises an important question: If learning from mistakes is so essential, why do some people not learn from their mistakes? Why do they commit them again and again? An answer could probably be found in a popular saying. The saying goes, "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it". But before you condemn these people who do not learn from mistakes as being simply bad students of history, you must consider that the statement has more abstract implications. It means that the people who commit the same mistakes over and over again do not remember when they had made the same mistake in the past, or whether they had made such a mistake at all. This could be attributed to many causes for example, poor memory, when the person simply just doesn't remember his mistake, or ignorance, when the person refuses to acknowledge that he's made a mistake or can ever make a mistake, or even callousness, when the person doesn't care he's made a mistake. These are the people who are dangerous and if placed in a position of power can cause harm to not only themselves but to thousands of others. Take Hitler for example. His mistake of creating a dictatorship in Germany led to an entire World War.
Not remembering the past, and forgetting the mistakes we have made have dire consequences. It is thus essential that we learn from our mistakes. It is essential that we remember the mistakes we have made and the lessons we've learned from them. It is essential that we be observant enough to learn from the mistakes of others, so that we do not have to learn "the hard way". This is necessary to our survival on earth or even in society. This is the responsibility of every “good” person and would make society a better place in which to live.
Wednesday, 4 November 2009
Tuesday, 18 August 2009
Alternate Lives
"All the worlds a stage and all the men and women are only players", a line made so hackneyed by the parochial aspirations of lesser writers piggybacking on the shoulders of giants, that it fails to bring the same fluttering of emotions as it once did when it was first uttered. A line denegrated into the chasms of cliche-hood by overuse. But the extent to which the statement holds true in today's world is shocking, especially in the life of a teenager.
To his parents he's the epitome of goodness, the sole light of the household. To his friends he is the average joe, great for a good time, but not that fun. But once hes online he becomes this completely different person. Whether on Facebook, Orkut, or on Myspace, the true colours of this teenager come into light, either his true self or his effort in engineering his online social image to suit what he wishes he was. Online is where you can become whatever you dream of, and social networking websites have made this possible. With his 100+ friends he shows himself to the world as gregarious, with his witty status messages he tries to project an image of smartness, with his pictures, showing him standing before some mountain or sky-diving off a cliff, he is desperate to showcase himself as "having a life".
It is quite strange that a public medium such as the internet has become a place to shed all inhibitions, a circumstance previously associated with only inebriation. People share information about their habits, their activities, their relationships, which if their parents were to find out about, it would definitely land them in the dog house. The only thing protecting such information being a flimsy password and the same phenomenon that prevents nuclear war from happening, Mutually assured Destruction, or put simply, "You tell on me, I'll tell on you".
But why are people taking refuge in such an inscrutable medium, pouring out their deepest desires which will be stored half way around the world protected by some unknown privacy agreements, which no-one even bothers reading before signing up? Because its "hep" and because all your friends are doing it. People will shy from doing internet shopping but they will readily share information on Orkut. Such a communal trust has evolved in the internet. With Indian parents repressing their youths, they seek recourse of the internet where they can vent their frustrations with all his friends simultaneously, instead of one by one through the telephone. It enables frustrated Indian youths to expand their horizons by not only hitting on Indian females online but also enabling them to hit on people half way around the world, or perhaps in the common introductory parlance, "do frandship with them". Social networking is a fantastic medium because it gives you instant gratification, with your friends immediately commenting on your status messages and "microblogs".
But what happens when suddenly, like a bolt from the blue, youre parents join up and request to add you as a friend?
To his parents he's the epitome of goodness, the sole light of the household. To his friends he is the average joe, great for a good time, but not that fun. But once hes online he becomes this completely different person. Whether on Facebook, Orkut, or on Myspace, the true colours of this teenager come into light, either his true self or his effort in engineering his online social image to suit what he wishes he was. Online is where you can become whatever you dream of, and social networking websites have made this possible. With his 100+ friends he shows himself to the world as gregarious, with his witty status messages he tries to project an image of smartness, with his pictures, showing him standing before some mountain or sky-diving off a cliff, he is desperate to showcase himself as "having a life".
It is quite strange that a public medium such as the internet has become a place to shed all inhibitions, a circumstance previously associated with only inebriation. People share information about their habits, their activities, their relationships, which if their parents were to find out about, it would definitely land them in the dog house. The only thing protecting such information being a flimsy password and the same phenomenon that prevents nuclear war from happening, Mutually assured Destruction, or put simply, "You tell on me, I'll tell on you".
But why are people taking refuge in such an inscrutable medium, pouring out their deepest desires which will be stored half way around the world protected by some unknown privacy agreements, which no-one even bothers reading before signing up? Because its "hep" and because all your friends are doing it. People will shy from doing internet shopping but they will readily share information on Orkut. Such a communal trust has evolved in the internet. With Indian parents repressing their youths, they seek recourse of the internet where they can vent their frustrations with all his friends simultaneously, instead of one by one through the telephone. It enables frustrated Indian youths to expand their horizons by not only hitting on Indian females online but also enabling them to hit on people half way around the world, or perhaps in the common introductory parlance, "do frandship with them". Social networking is a fantastic medium because it gives you instant gratification, with your friends immediately commenting on your status messages and "microblogs".
But what happens when suddenly, like a bolt from the blue, youre parents join up and request to add you as a friend?
Tuesday, 19 May 2009
Anime Bashing
Anime has to be one of the oddest forms of entertainment i've encountered, save, some Hindi soap operas of course. I had watched a few episodes of it, but I didn't really "get it", what is anime, why are so many people crazy about it? So I talked to a few people trying to resolve my conundrum. They told me that they're cartoons with great stories, stories of love and hate, and samurais, and Mobile suit Gundams (Whatever that is. Some kind of sushi perhaps?).
The last time I checked, cartoons were meant to make people laugh, not tell stories of vengeance and strife. We have enough soap operas that are doing that job. The idea of anime humor is limited to the characters suddenly making weird faces, or talking in strange accents with lag in their lip sync (Speed Racer anyone?), an act more grotesque rather than actually funny.
When I hear the word cartoon, I think Tom and Jerry, and Top Cat, and classics such as the Flintstones, and Snagglepuss. Not only do they still succeed in amusing me, it fills me with a sense of nostalgia, and childish glee. Am I to suppose that kids these days will grow up feeling the same thing about that samuraiX and of naruto.
As for the stories, there are television programmes where real actors fight imaginary battles against the forces of evil, or try to get off imaginary islands that travel through time (Lost anyone? There are some real programmes I "don't get" too), and which have ludicrously complicated plots. Then why then, when there are such avenues for amusement with real characters, are people drawn to anime. Maybe its the horribly sub-standard 2d animation, or their horrendous choice of theme songs, it will forever remain a mystery.
Then there's the spinoff of anime, hentai (if you don't know what it is already, I'd suggest you google it). Thats a subject I really would'nt want to get into here. When there are programmes with real characters(doing pretty perverse stuff), why would one want for such kind of higher level of perversion with animation.
In spite of all my efforts, I still don't "get it".
The last time I checked, cartoons were meant to make people laugh, not tell stories of vengeance and strife. We have enough soap operas that are doing that job. The idea of anime humor is limited to the characters suddenly making weird faces, or talking in strange accents with lag in their lip sync (Speed Racer anyone?), an act more grotesque rather than actually funny.
When I hear the word cartoon, I think Tom and Jerry, and Top Cat, and classics such as the Flintstones, and Snagglepuss. Not only do they still succeed in amusing me, it fills me with a sense of nostalgia, and childish glee. Am I to suppose that kids these days will grow up feeling the same thing about that samuraiX and of naruto.
As for the stories, there are television programmes where real actors fight imaginary battles against the forces of evil, or try to get off imaginary islands that travel through time (Lost anyone? There are some real programmes I "don't get" too), and which have ludicrously complicated plots. Then why then, when there are such avenues for amusement with real characters, are people drawn to anime. Maybe its the horribly sub-standard 2d animation, or their horrendous choice of theme songs, it will forever remain a mystery.
Then there's the spinoff of anime, hentai (if you don't know what it is already, I'd suggest you google it). Thats a subject I really would'nt want to get into here. When there are programmes with real characters(doing pretty perverse stuff), why would one want for such kind of higher level of perversion with animation.
In spite of all my efforts, I still don't "get it".
Friday, 8 May 2009
Baby Mortality
They are the scourge of the human race, the result of a innate foolish desire to create "family", or simply the result of an "accident" that the female is reluctant to rectify. Those cute little faces hide the face of true evil that is in man. That Thing; it would grow up to be Mussolini, or Hitler, or possibly worse, a Hitler who is politically correct this time around. That thing will grow up to be a teenage monster, a rebel, it will realize our worst fear, it will become exactly like us.
No wonder Polar bears eat their young, and for good reason. They're cute when they're small, but when that cuteness wears off with age is when it gets exasperating. Cuteness is a natural defence mechanism for babies from adults who should normally want to kill them. Think about it, they cry, they poop, they don't lift a finger to help out around the house, a condition that prevails even through teenage years, they wake you up in the middle of the night to gratify their need for attention, any rational human being would strive to silence the source of irritation for good. If only it was socially acceptable. Would it have been socially unacceptable if they weren't so cute? If they weren't cute there'd be a whole lot more infant mortality out there. In the "Omen", sure Damien was cute, but after all, he was the son of the devil on a damned quest to claim the human realm for his father, Satan. Doesn't seem so cute after all those murders, does he? Emotional torture is a fate worse than death.
There's an entire industry just selling products to placate these babies, psyhcologists who study the behaviour of babies, psychotherapists who try to counsel people with problems with their babies, authors who think babies actually say things with their burps and farts. If babies could actually say something, I think they'd flip their parents off, they're way too cute to scold anyway.
God is not without a sense of irony. He's made it so painful to propagate the genetic pool and way too pleasurable to resist doing so. That is why man invented 'rubbers'.
No wonder Polar bears eat their young, and for good reason. They're cute when they're small, but when that cuteness wears off with age is when it gets exasperating. Cuteness is a natural defence mechanism for babies from adults who should normally want to kill them. Think about it, they cry, they poop, they don't lift a finger to help out around the house, a condition that prevails even through teenage years, they wake you up in the middle of the night to gratify their need for attention, any rational human being would strive to silence the source of irritation for good. If only it was socially acceptable. Would it have been socially unacceptable if they weren't so cute? If they weren't cute there'd be a whole lot more infant mortality out there. In the "Omen", sure Damien was cute, but after all, he was the son of the devil on a damned quest to claim the human realm for his father, Satan. Doesn't seem so cute after all those murders, does he? Emotional torture is a fate worse than death.
There's an entire industry just selling products to placate these babies, psyhcologists who study the behaviour of babies, psychotherapists who try to counsel people with problems with their babies, authors who think babies actually say things with their burps and farts. If babies could actually say something, I think they'd flip their parents off, they're way too cute to scold anyway.
God is not without a sense of irony. He's made it so painful to propagate the genetic pool and way too pleasurable to resist doing so. That is why man invented 'rubbers'.
Monday, 27 April 2009
Faith and Science
Why do people put their trust in science? Why is their faith in the mathematical proof irrevocable? Why is it that it is held up to a higher standard than religion.
The discussion seems absurd, however what people don't undestand is that Science itself is a faith and Math, the mother of all sciences, more so.
The faith of Religion is based on certain axioms, that god exists and he has certain rules that we must follow. However, there are so many versions of these axioms, manifesting itself in Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, that they cannot be trusted to be right anymore, rather, people fight over whose axioms of Religion are correct, while aethists have faith their their axioms of anti-Religionsim are true. God help them if they're wrong.
Mathematics is fundamentally different. We believe that 1+1=2, and this will not change. This is what seperates the faith of Mathematics from religion. Mathematics is based on fundamental axioms and people are guaranteed these axioms will never change. This guarantee is enforced by the mathematical community. If a new proof or theory is proposed, it needs to be proved to be correct by showing it adheres to the existing axioms of Mathematics, if it does not it is rejected as false. What gives mathematics its power is this universal acceptance of its axioms and their enforcement. If I come up with a mathematical proof tommorow that God does not exist, all the religions would cease to exist.
Faith is everyone's way of searching for a universal truth. Mathematicians try to search for universal truth through mathematical concepts like String theory and the like. Religious people look for universal truth through spiritual enlightenment by following the rules of God. But the truth is that we don't need a universal truth. Our quest for the truth is simply symptomatic of human aversion to getting lied to. People feel that if they dont know the truth, all other faiths are lying to them, and conflict and wars result from human desire to crush the entity which lied to them. The measure of the truth is not in absolute, it is in to what measure the product of truth is beneficial to man. Mathematics ushered in an age of invention and a understanding of the response of nature to our actions in terms of mathematical concepts like distance and speed. That is why people trust in mathematics and science more than in religion. If tommorow, religion is able to produce a product, for example show everyone that God exists by bringing him down from heaven, then Mathematics will suddenly take a back seat to spiritual enlightenment.
Man only holds value in the product that is produced by his faith. Quantifications of product are all faiths, for quantificantion has no use unless used somewhere. If I say that 1 is 2, and if it is accepted by everyone in the world, then that becomes the new truth, the textbooks of the world are rewritten and life goes on. If half the world disagrees, this creates two sides. One of two things can happen, either side remains secular, and there's a real confusion in communication between them, or war breaks out where one side fights to make 1=1 and the other side to make 1=2. Man's avarice makes war inevitable, and this is what is happening with religion today. The only truth in the world is logic, and even that, to me, is a little absurd.
The discussion seems absurd, however what people don't undestand is that Science itself is a faith and Math, the mother of all sciences, more so.
The faith of Religion is based on certain axioms, that god exists and he has certain rules that we must follow. However, there are so many versions of these axioms, manifesting itself in Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, that they cannot be trusted to be right anymore, rather, people fight over whose axioms of Religion are correct, while aethists have faith their their axioms of anti-Religionsim are true. God help them if they're wrong.
Mathematics is fundamentally different. We believe that 1+1=2, and this will not change. This is what seperates the faith of Mathematics from religion. Mathematics is based on fundamental axioms and people are guaranteed these axioms will never change. This guarantee is enforced by the mathematical community. If a new proof or theory is proposed, it needs to be proved to be correct by showing it adheres to the existing axioms of Mathematics, if it does not it is rejected as false. What gives mathematics its power is this universal acceptance of its axioms and their enforcement. If I come up with a mathematical proof tommorow that God does not exist, all the religions would cease to exist.
Faith is everyone's way of searching for a universal truth. Mathematicians try to search for universal truth through mathematical concepts like String theory and the like. Religious people look for universal truth through spiritual enlightenment by following the rules of God. But the truth is that we don't need a universal truth. Our quest for the truth is simply symptomatic of human aversion to getting lied to. People feel that if they dont know the truth, all other faiths are lying to them, and conflict and wars result from human desire to crush the entity which lied to them. The measure of the truth is not in absolute, it is in to what measure the product of truth is beneficial to man. Mathematics ushered in an age of invention and a understanding of the response of nature to our actions in terms of mathematical concepts like distance and speed. That is why people trust in mathematics and science more than in religion. If tommorow, religion is able to produce a product, for example show everyone that God exists by bringing him down from heaven, then Mathematics will suddenly take a back seat to spiritual enlightenment.
Man only holds value in the product that is produced by his faith. Quantifications of product are all faiths, for quantificantion has no use unless used somewhere. If I say that 1 is 2, and if it is accepted by everyone in the world, then that becomes the new truth, the textbooks of the world are rewritten and life goes on. If half the world disagrees, this creates two sides. One of two things can happen, either side remains secular, and there's a real confusion in communication between them, or war breaks out where one side fights to make 1=1 and the other side to make 1=2. Man's avarice makes war inevitable, and this is what is happening with religion today. The only truth in the world is logic, and even that, to me, is a little absurd.
Tuesday, 27 January 2009
Irony of conformity
We expect everyone to talk in a certain way, and when that person does not adhere to the stereotype, we look at him with animadversions, with malice if he's somehow speaks with a foreign accent, or with ridicule when his accent carries traces of some regional dialect. It works both ways, but manifests itself more so in the former. The absolute questions that come to one's mind, 'Why is he speaking like that?', 'Does he think he's better than me?' and in more extreme cases, he is condemned before even getting to know him. The air is rife with accusations, 'You're putting on an act', 'Act Indian, Angrezi Babu'.
What's strange is that those who speak of individuality, that look to be different themselves from the mass, by wearing 'hep' clothes and buying the latest in American brands, thrust such conformity upon that poor soul trying to adjust.
The fact of the matter is that we're torn in a battle of differentiating ourselves and conforming to societal norms, the boundaries of which vary from place to place. The westernization of certain parts have brought about change in urban India, but have touched rural India in certain aspects only. They wear western jeans, listen to western music, smoke western cigarettes, but are not prepared to accept that someone can speak like one. That is how it has become. Society in one part of the country forced him to conform to one standard, a change which is looked upon in hatred by other parts. He's not putting on an act, he's become the act, it is a part of him now. He is that person. So what does it matter how a person speaks, what happened to the ideals of words are the window to the soul. Who can deny having talked to an "Angrezi", and not have changed their manner of speaking. The irony of conformity.
What's strange is that those who speak of individuality, that look to be different themselves from the mass, by wearing 'hep' clothes and buying the latest in American brands, thrust such conformity upon that poor soul trying to adjust.
The fact of the matter is that we're torn in a battle of differentiating ourselves and conforming to societal norms, the boundaries of which vary from place to place. The westernization of certain parts have brought about change in urban India, but have touched rural India in certain aspects only. They wear western jeans, listen to western music, smoke western cigarettes, but are not prepared to accept that someone can speak like one. That is how it has become. Society in one part of the country forced him to conform to one standard, a change which is looked upon in hatred by other parts. He's not putting on an act, he's become the act, it is a part of him now. He is that person. So what does it matter how a person speaks, what happened to the ideals of words are the window to the soul. Who can deny having talked to an "Angrezi", and not have changed their manner of speaking. The irony of conformity.
Saturday, 24 January 2009
Republic Day
The Republic Day weekend, one which almost everyone looks forward to for a three day respite from the drudgery of life. But this republic day is different, on I will try to open your eyes and make you see the truth behind government, why we really need it.
Rules dominate our lives, we consult rules even before taking a step to cross the road, and when the traffic light signals us go ahead, we oblige its order. Rules tell me not to watch certain television programs, since they are considered inappropriate, and rules tell me I cannot walk naked in the streets, since it will make other people uncomfortable. One begins to think, what man would choose to frame such arcane rules, and to have such arcane rules imposed upon himself. Why would he subject himself to the torture of imposition of such ludicrous procedure, when he already has his parents for that purpose, and that too from a government that he knows to be corrupt and inefficient.
That basic flaw of humans, that one emotion which dominates all other emotions that drives us to do what we do - fear- is responsible. We impose rules upon oneself in fear that others may do us wrong. We fear change, we fear betrayal, we fear poverty, we fear death, the root causes of all the laws in the world. We've seen different types of governments through the ages, autocracies, in which subjects feared their rulers, so they did not revolt, and rulers feared subjects and thus made them live in abject poverty so that they could not revolt, dictatorships, in which rulers imposed a fear of the opposition countries into the subjects, and the subjects fearing the opposition, and of course the dictator, towed the line, communism, where the people feared the gap between rich and poor would be detrimental to progress, and so they sucked money from rich and the entire country became poor, and now democracy; fear of all other types of governments drives us to this proposed, government for the people, by the people ideal, in which a group of elected people would decide what other people were allowed to do. Of course you could sugar coat democracy to make it sound like chocolate cake, Ill bet the Chinese still do that for communism, but in its raw essence, it is that you don't trust other people to make rational decisions so you elect people who seem rational to have your decisions made for you. Man is not truly a social animal, it's fear of no order that has driven him to develop society, in which uncivilized behaviour is frowned upon, and people are conditioned to conform to society from birth, to be civilized or be frowned upon.
Im not saying down with democracy, hey Im just as afraid of my crazy axe weilding neighbour slicing me up just because I walked too close to his door, as opposed to the usual head nod we share each day, laws introduce consequence, and consequnce protects me, unless he really was crazy, we should just realize that this government, that is toted to be the ideal, is nothing but the better of all evils.
Long live democracy.
Rules dominate our lives, we consult rules even before taking a step to cross the road, and when the traffic light signals us go ahead, we oblige its order. Rules tell me not to watch certain television programs, since they are considered inappropriate, and rules tell me I cannot walk naked in the streets, since it will make other people uncomfortable. One begins to think, what man would choose to frame such arcane rules, and to have such arcane rules imposed upon himself. Why would he subject himself to the torture of imposition of such ludicrous procedure, when he already has his parents for that purpose, and that too from a government that he knows to be corrupt and inefficient.
That basic flaw of humans, that one emotion which dominates all other emotions that drives us to do what we do - fear- is responsible. We impose rules upon oneself in fear that others may do us wrong. We fear change, we fear betrayal, we fear poverty, we fear death, the root causes of all the laws in the world. We've seen different types of governments through the ages, autocracies, in which subjects feared their rulers, so they did not revolt, and rulers feared subjects and thus made them live in abject poverty so that they could not revolt, dictatorships, in which rulers imposed a fear of the opposition countries into the subjects, and the subjects fearing the opposition, and of course the dictator, towed the line, communism, where the people feared the gap between rich and poor would be detrimental to progress, and so they sucked money from rich and the entire country became poor, and now democracy; fear of all other types of governments drives us to this proposed, government for the people, by the people ideal, in which a group of elected people would decide what other people were allowed to do. Of course you could sugar coat democracy to make it sound like chocolate cake, Ill bet the Chinese still do that for communism, but in its raw essence, it is that you don't trust other people to make rational decisions so you elect people who seem rational to have your decisions made for you. Man is not truly a social animal, it's fear of no order that has driven him to develop society, in which uncivilized behaviour is frowned upon, and people are conditioned to conform to society from birth, to be civilized or be frowned upon.
Im not saying down with democracy, hey Im just as afraid of my crazy axe weilding neighbour slicing me up just because I walked too close to his door, as opposed to the usual head nod we share each day, laws introduce consequence, and consequnce protects me, unless he really was crazy, we should just realize that this government, that is toted to be the ideal, is nothing but the better of all evils.
Long live democracy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
ShareThis
Subscribe via email