I just like all THIS. So I post all this just like THAT!

Take a look at the two new widgets at the top of my left sidebar.

Thanks! Not for looking, but your comments!

Of course, I am not entirely convinced by the numbers shown. Especially, TUIB's low 'score'! ;)

Whenever I look at my blog, I feel satisfied by at least one thing--comments have largely been sincere.

There have been numerous arguments and disagreements, but honestly, they have only reassured me that those thus commenting had not simply glossed over ideas presented in my posts. That those ideas had been able to stir something in the reader to induce them to engage them with at least some thoughtfulness. Of course sometimes, those very dissenting/different thoughts have given me something new to think about, and made me see the World in an altered way.

There have also been posts with comments full of frivolity. And am glad, they were expected to be like that! :)

Some might ask me, do I care for comments? Yes, I do.

I am not one of those inclined to instantaneously put pen to paper (even if so in the 'virtual' maze of electrons being thrashed around) owing to a spontaneous outpouring of my passions. This could probably be because of a high 'turnover rate' of my emotions! Meaning, new emotions keep on displacing the older ones very quickly, which would not allow any single emotion to exert sufficient influence on my ego (click; second meaning) to make me write about it! Okay, bad theory! Though some posts, to my own suprise, have been emotional outbursts as well!

So, I do not write in isolation. I do expect that my ideas find readers--not (necessarily) with same ideas as mine, but those who would have thought on the very same issues, if not before, at least after reading!

Yes, I do look forward to comments on my posts!

To end this post, I would only say that my blog has become a very integral part of my life, which I had never imagined when publishing my first few posts.

And very suprisingly, it has brought me in contact with a few people, who I could safely call my 'friends'! A few wonderful people who I truly value today for reasons more than one, and who I would have not known, had it not been for this medium. I am overwhelmed, and to them I could only say, though it would sound cliched on my blog:

Thanks for existing! And also for letting me know that you did. :)

iBubble. The Perfect Sphere. The Perfect Hollow.

Sometimes I understand others in terms of how they are similar to me. Other times I understand them in terms of how they are different from me. There is no other way to understand others. Comparisons are imminent.

If I understand myself, still I might not understand someone else correctly, for some contamination of data would distort my perception.

But, if I do not understand myself, there is no chance I can understand others.

The key to understanding others is to understand myself, first.

I am the common denominator in how the World is. If not for me, nothing would ever make sense in this World.

But understanding myself is an ongoing process. Partly because I am complex. Partly because I keep on changing. I cannot suspend the process of understanding others in the meantime.

After all, life has to go on, if it is to stop some other day.

And hence, everything I do, every thought I think has a purpose.

LOL!

Simple! Isn't it? ;)

So...

iBubble had burst?

OR

I burst Bubble?

...Would depend upon if you are a prick just like me, or if you are not a prick unlike me.

Told you, comparisons are imminent! ;)

God, Religion, Atheism, Morality and a few Links

The Moral Contrariety of Christ and State (click) is a nice write-up, which attempts to reconcile rationality with religion-based, authoritative morality (irrespective of what the title seems to suggest). Although, I do not agree with everything in it, I thought it is a good starting point for all religious theists and atheists alike, to start thinking of the bases of morality, if they have not done that before in earnest.

More important, the article points out that 'think'ing in context of morality is not bad at all, but rather is necessary, and how immutable morality sourced only in authority, can easily be manipulated to serve one's ulterior motives, which could be at odds with the Society's larger good.

There is a forum on which I landed, which to me seemed very funny, since a few dogmatic trolls had hijacked it, and could not see any good in anything beyond their own religion:

Morality and Atheism (click)

This is what happens when one gets blinded by arrogance of their own religion, only because they start equating the perceived worth of their collective identity (religion) with their personal self-worth. This is what according to me is one of the components of Communalism (click--a blog post on my blog).

I had reached the linked article and the forum through search results for 'Morality before Christ', which had led someone else to my blog. But only on removing a few external trappings, one would realize that the same fundamental issues should confront not just the Christians, but those following any other religion, or even those following none. For, morality is very fundamental to coexistence (not just in time, but even in space) with fellow humans, the future generations, and other sentient living beings. Hope, the readers will enjoy the links, as well as, be forced to think something new.

My oversimplifed views on these issues could be found here:

1. My morality (click).

2. A few responses to criticism of Atheism (click).

My flirtation with Wikipedia

While I have been keeping very busy, and am unlikely to post anything substantial for some time, I thought, I would provide link to my Wikipedia user page (click) that I had developed after lot of effort without any real knowledge of HTML. Of course back then, I had been able to develop it only by analyzing a lot of others' users pages, and tweaking them through trial and error.

Also, almost unknown to many of you, I had been a very avid contributor (click) to Wikipedia articles. But had to tear away myself from that web site, especially editing it, only since it was so very addictive and hampering my studies (not unlike blogging ;) ).

There is an article I had created and brought to its current status almost entirely on my own, including making several diagrams. On searching for 'polyclonal response' on major search engines, that article is the first result one gets. Here (click). It enjoys the status of a 'Good article' on Wikipedia, which means by quality and reliability as judged by a stringent peer review, it is 1 among every 403 articles.

Also, I had singlehandedly created an article on a very important topic called 'lymph', which a year back used to get almost 700 to 1000 hits in a day, or more! Same with articles on 'B cell' and 'lymphatic system', to which I had made significant contributions.

It has been more than a year I have made any significant edits to Wikipedia, and was feeling nostalgic. And not to forget, once a Wikipedian is always a Wikipedian. :) So, I wanted to share these things with a few readers who visit my blog. Somehow though contributing to Wikipedia has not brought me any glory or provided with career boost, I feel very content to have added something to the World's knowledge-base. I have used Wikipedia extensively, and have always felt deeply indebted to those anonymous contributors who have been enriching my life through their knowledge and writings, with no material rewards in return, except for the satisfaction of sharing their knowledge systematically.

If any of you feel you are an expert/well read person in anything under the Sun (and beyond), please do share your knowledge through Wikipedia. :)

The Monkey who sold his Fur, and became an entrepreneur <--- [rhyme alert]!

I stumbled upon a very detailed transcript of interview of Madhu Koda (click), the just 38 year-old, multi-millionaire entrepreneur, who has added unheard of dimensions to the art of portfolio management.

Those of you (unlike me), who have had some experience at wealth-generation, would know that one needs to first have a sufficiently bulky portfolio to have to manage it through innovative techniques!

But do not worry, as you get to learn from the man himself who had begun from a financial scratch, and worked himself up to a position, from where he can afford to scratch out his financial itch as and when he wants. Be mesmerized as he discusses his successful business strategies, and future plans for his 10 year-old business venture standing firmly at Rs. 4000 crore, and not at all staggering.

Since risk incurred is always proportionate to market premium, no doubt, some of you must have experienced trepidation at investing your vital noncapital assets, e.g., time expended in early days of your startup (poetically also known as 'youthful days') in risk-fraught activities. But again, Mr. Koda comes to your rescue, as he teaches a few of his imminently successful risk mitigation techniques.

Needless to say, such an inspiring and helpful manual to individual wealth-generation cannot be made available to the general public.

It is at a very *secret* place on the World Wide Web.

Basically, here (click). ;)

As the profits would be sourced in actual market events (which Mr. Koda enthusiastically explains), rather than mere speculations of future money flow, the TV interview had been aptly named as

Non Derivatives Trade Ventures' Profit

As you would learn from the interview transcript, democracy and greater autonomy in portfolio mismanagement of nation's GDP by entrepreneurs like Mr. Koda need to be promoted in a big way, if you are to employ same techniques as him and derive benefit from them, you have to promote democracy.

In my previous post, I had proposed a novel technique to do so. But if you find it tedious, you could simply take a look at the top of this page's left sidebar. ;)

Hope, you will not disappoint the well wisher in yours truly.

Direct Democracy in India: a Possibility?

While in one of my recent posts (click), I had questioned the validity of this subconscious idea that "consensus by majority is the best way to reach decisions for a huge heterogeneous community, like the Indian population", no other method that could replace populist decision-making seems plausible. So, democracy is here to stay.

But the biggest flaw in (at least) India's democractic process, is that it is of the representative kind. Meaning, the people only get to choose who will make laws and policies for the next five years, but not what they would be. It is assumed that the political parties which contribute to the formation of a government will keep their pre-election assurances. This assumption, apparently, rides on immense faith in the integrity of those thus elected, and to put it mildly, has proved unfounded. Also, there is a common perception that immense financial expenditure and covert affiliation with shady elements of the society, that winning these elections require, has largely kept out of the electoral 'race', those with genuinely good intentions for the country/constituency. I have not yet had the courage to verify for myself if this perception matches the reality.

An idea that has been doing rounds is to issue a unique electronic ID to every citizen.

Though, creating an electronic database for the entire population would take time, the extent to which the information technology (IT) has progressed, should accelerate the process, if the idea is pursued sincerely. And in my opinion, it should not take much longer than an average census (2-3 years) takes.

This, apart from improving security situation in the country, will enable us to start thinking of an almost unheard of thing in Indian political circles--DIRECT DEMOCRACY.

We, after 6 decades of representative democracy have got so obsessed with it, that it surprises me, how direct democracy is talked so little of, which was actually what democracy was supposed to mean!

Some might point out that Panchayati system, with provisions for informal consultation with all the villagers represents the very same idea. True, it does, but somehow, it has not shown results.

But an informal 'consultation' does not ever make it binding on the actual village heads to implement the popular decision. Also, I am unsure if the resources that are allocated to such bodies are sufficient to make a real difference.

An idea had occurred to me years back, as to why not have automated teller machine-kind of kiosks to effect direct democracy! Simply meaning that the common man gets to vote on the individual issues, rather than only who would decide on those issues.

This, according to me would have several benefits:

1. Individual policies would be based on majority's decision. This is the most obvious benefit. For instance, the junta would get to decide if the limited resources that are available should be used for widening a road, or adding a new wing to a hospital, or to open an orphanage, or to say, build statues to beautify a town. Likewise, analogous issues could be presented to the rural population.

2. Enhanced accountability on part of administrators. This would be a very important benefit, but not immediately apparent. The legislators would be obliged to come up with issues on which they would like people's votes! This itself would ensure that they do some work.

For instance, this degree of audacity has not yet permeated our country's polity that a politician would truly confess, "Sorry folks! I was busy vacationing with my extended family in Hawaii, so no issues for you to vote on this month!".

3. End-of-the-term assessment. When a term ends, political parties, the Election Commission, as well as the junta would get a report card on the incumbent legislator's performance. For instance, how many popular mandates did they overrule, and how many did they respect. This would automatically tell if their incumbent legislator still retains prior popularity.

4. Continuous assessment. If the common people get to decide on given issues, they also get to rate their leader! More importantly, on a continuous basis, say, every half-yearly. This would serve both as incentive and coercion for the legislators to keep the electorate satisfied.

How could direct democracy be implemented?

Of course, I am no expert on political sciences, or art of administration, or legal issues, etc, and needless to say, there would be many loop holes in my ideas, here.

But here, I will try to address a few of foreseeable issues.

1. Who will vote?

Everyone! Of course, those who are eligible to vote in general and local elections. What will allow this is a unique national electronic identity. This will prevent illegitimate voting, as well as prevent duplication of voting.

2. Where would one be able to vote?

The kiosks for voting could be built just like the ATMs, and kept at similar locations. So, could be placed at railway stations, important bus stops, outside public hospitals, even along with ATMs! For villages, they could be placed near the village dairy or post office, etc.

3. What issues would be open to voting?

Issues could be anything--right from if a city should be renamed, to where should (limited) funds be allocated to? Of course, junta cannot be consulted on all issues, but at the end of the term, when a 'report card' would be framed, none of the political parties would like to look stupid by having changing names, building statues and demolishing illegal constructions as their only achievements to brag about!

4. What would be the frequency to vote on a new issue?

This portion of the process will have to gradually evolve. I think for starters, one issue per month should be good enough. Gradually as the entire process would become smoothened, voting concurrently on multiple issues could be enabled.

Also, the same kiosk could enable voting at multiple levels--say, voting on a national issue, state level, or even local level.

5. How will the required information on the issue be disseminated?

Of course, to vote on an issue, voters need to be informed about the issue. This could be done through dedicated advertisements on TV channels, FM radio, internet, large screens installed in kiosks, etc.

6. Will it be binding on legislators to 'obey' the results?

Initially, it need not be binding. But as explained earlier, it will give a direction for new policies, and also ensure a certain basal level accountability from the legislators.

Also with progress of time, the continued rating system could make it binding on political parties to field better candidates.

It could be so provided that if an elected candidate is ejected from his seat because of abysmally low ratings, he cannot seek re-election, for say, next ten years.

7. How much financial investment would be required?

This is a question I can totally not answer! But it should only suffice to say, that whatever the investment, it would be largely one-time, save the operational costs. Of course, with some shrewdness those operational costs could be recovered through advertising at the kiosks, where, no doubt a large number of aware citizens (with good 'purchasing capacity') would throng!

Flaws of the proposed system.

In my limited assessment, fundamentally, this system would have no additional functional flaw that the current representative democracy is not suffering from.

Also, I am not suggesting that this system supplant the 'normal' representative democracy, but it can certainly supplement it.

Why was such a system never implemented?

Obviously owing to the technological limitations imposed at the time of drafting of the Constitution.

So, would such a system ever be implemented?

I doubt it. For two reasons. I am not sure if the implementation of this idea would constitute altering the fundamental structure of the Constitution.

Second one is more obvious! I am no genius, much less, well versed to any degree with ideas on politics, administration, etc. It would be conceited to think none of the able civil servants and seasoned politicians would have thought about this before. But if they implement this idea, they will actually have to work for the public's benefit! And no doubt, be clean and efficient! So, will they ever pass such a bill, that too with two-third majority? What a joke!

Wikipedia article on direct democracy (click).

A resolve to become a better quacktor

For those of you wondering, why do I keep on coming up with nonsensically dark posts (click) with even more nonsensical brutality, I tried very hard to introspect (my using this term with such high-frequency repetition used to be just another torture technique [;)]), and realized I always aspired to be one of these famous ten quacksdoctors (click).

But despite my repeated attempts at quackery, and of course, writing quack medical manuals (insinuated as 'dark posts' into my blog), I have not been able to achieve even one-tenth the notorietyfame as this famous doctor (click).

So, here on I have decided, I will not write stories, which could serve as templates and bad influence for other budding writers to kill off the characters in their stories in exemplarily psychotic manner. ;)

It has dawned on me that it is better to be one among nine doctors that agree with each other, rather than one among ten doctors with whom every other doctor disagrees (for further elaboration, you have to click on the last of the above three links [:)]).

YOU

When I'd first seen, YOU were a tall wall I wanted to scale.

YOU were too tall, too formidable.

Since long, YOU had been accumulating soot and dust, and what was contained within became invisible to the eye.

Beauty does not always inspire open eyed gawking. I became curious. I explored. I might have tickled YOU, scratched YOU, palpated YOU. YOU might have liked it, found it funny, or irritating, or plain ridiculous,

I saw, YOU were not just a wall, but had a most honest heart, and a most beautiful mind, somewhere hiding within.

And YOU stopped being a wall, though YOU look like one. And want to look like one.

People might have laughed with you, laughed at you, been bad to you, but they could never understand YOU.

My conceit tells me, maybe, just maybe, had I discovered YOU earlier, I would've dusted off all the dirt, not allowed that soot to settle heavily on YOU. Not allowed your heart and mind to go into a hiding. Not allowed YOU to start loving that soot. Not allowed YOU to just become another facade.

But still I was blind. I could see YOU were formidable. Formidable to me. But not formidable to all the things wrong with this World.

YOU are not just a wall, but the most beautiful thing I'd ever seen. Something, I had dreamed of finding. Something, I had wanted everything to be. YOU are THAT beautiful.

I don't know how come this happens. This badness that happened to YOU.

YOU showed me YOU had developed cracks. YOU told me it was alright if YOU collapse.

YOU are tearing into those cracks. Trying to deepen them lengthen them, only so that YOU could crumble?

Why? Why? Why?

I know, I've not seen every side of YOU, yet. How your foundation was laid, and if it still hurts YOU there, where I can never reach. I don't even know how many more sides YOU have!

I can't give you reasons to live, to be happy. Happiness is maybe an end in itself. And to be happy, one needs to LIVE.

Life had never promised us, that all our dreams would come true. Nor even if a single one would.

YOU are much taller than me, and can see farther. YOU know, happiness is about small-small things, and they never cease.

YOU may on reading this decide to cover yourself with yet another blanket of soot.

Or YOU may well not even read!

And the biggest lie I will tell myself is, well YOU are just a 3"x2" phone screen.

My first poem that does not rhyme. YOU made me write it. :(

PS: YOU will know who YOU is.

Majority

Majority's are the amplified views of the select, influential (manipulative) few.

Probably, that is why most of the views on any issue could be clubbed into few categories (corresponding to the number of factions pushing a particular view).

Of course, another reason could be the limited number of opinions that could be formed on any issue. For instance, response to 2 + 2? would be unique, i.e., 4. But, it is a fact, and not 'view'.

But responses to "Do you like vanilla ice cream?", fall in three main categories--'yes', 'no', and 'neutral'. Again, this is an individual taste, and one's choice would not have a significant impact on our society. Importantly, the choice does not come bundled with an 'ought' or 'ought not' ('O/ON').

But there are issues, where O/ON does get typically involved, and fall in the domains of law and judiciary, public policy, resource allocation especially when limited, etc.

Simple examples of passionate polarization of opinions would be. Should we allow:

1. Sale of alcohol?

2. Research on and sale of genetically modified food?

The 'most accepted' benchmark to reach a decision is: the fraction of all people having one view v/s other contending views. We call the largest fraction 'majority'.

The idea seems appealing. Since childhood, we are told of virtues of a majority's decision, and the power it wields.

When a child does something wrong, and if the explanation is 'he also did the same', our common retort is 'if he jumps in a well, would you also jump?' Good argument. But when the defense is 'everyone does it', we do not ask, 'if everyone jumps into the well, would you jump?'. This is owing to a deep seated prejudice that majority is always right.

Majority would be right, especially in issues of public interest, if it would:

1. Have access to adequate information to base opinion on.

2. Be ethical to place justice above personal gains.

3. Not be blinded by communal affiliations--religion, region, gender, etc,

4. Have sufficient wisdom to understand all the factors, and weigh them accordingly.

5. Be immune to influence by propaganda.

How often are all the criteria met?

I am unable to propose an alternative way to reach decisions in matters of O/ON, but we should stop considering decisions reverentially, only because they would have been reached by a majority.

Tales of Bruno and Galileo: The art of saying semi-sorry after thinking for REALLY, REALLY LONG! Like, 359 years!

Here is an article dealing with related issues of psychology, some history, arguments for existence of god(s), and their refutation :)

Why Atheism? (click)

It is easy to understand, devoid of rigorous philosophical jargon, but very lengthy.

One horrifying thing was the manner in which Giordano Bruno was executed in 1600 (click) for holding ideas that were contrary to the Church's.

Having read of many such executions, I was not affected much. What suprised me in the Wikipedia article, however, was that like modern 'professionals'--reality show judges, there used to be inquisitors! While, the former decide if a contestant deserves to win, largely based on their whims, the inquisitors would, if a person deserved to live, and if not, what kind of exemplary murder would be suitable. But, totally based on whims!

All this to what end? To shield the humanity from truth.

Truths like, Jupiter's moons orbited it, that the Earth revolved around the Sun, and not vice versa!

Galileo in 1633, when 70, was made to retract his verification of Bruno's ideas that went against Aristotle's two millenia old 'truths', which the Church had adjudicated to be, well, 'absolute truths'. Of course, citing the precedent they had set of Bruno's 'fate' only helped further.

But the reason I write is the fact that I would never lay down my life thus. I would rather take the easy path and give in to arbitrary coercion. I feel somewhat ashamed to be that way, but more importantly, dwarfed by the likes of Bruno who had in them to give up to that end, the only thing a man ever truly owns--his life, with nothing to gain in return.

Through this post I just wish to remind that each time we discard naturalism in favor of supernaturalism, what a great sacrifice we frown upon despite continuing to hypocritically savor former's fruits, e.g., reading this post! Okay I concede, some might now precisely curse Bruno for that!

Thankfully, because of God we have some humor (click)! ;)

EXACTLY 17 years back (click), the Church realized Galileo had been right all along!

A divorce... that could not last.

They had been married ever since they could remember--more than 20 years now. They did not even remember if it was out of love, or was it arranged. They were so young, it was called an infant marriage! It was thaaaat long.

They always viewed things from different perspectives, yet somehow always managed to focus on where their views overlapped.

Wherever one went, the other had to go. They even woke up together. And no doubt, slept together. But, sleeping together never brought any excitement. :( They had grown sick of the other. Totally sick.

You go your way. I'll go mine.

[Angrily, without a thought] As you wish. And don't you dare follow me. Huh!

So for the first time ever, they went their own separate ways and darted in opposite directions. But they felt intensely dizzy (click). They could not stand it, they had to unite. They realized, their fate to stay together was sealed, not by something flimsy as love, but PPRF!

<--*-->

Okay sorry folks for this crap, which I am sure even medicos would find crappy!

It is on simple eyes that mammals possess. Meaning, they always manage to look at the same object of focus, but from different angles. Yet, the brain fuses the two images into one. PPRF is one of centers involved in controlling horizontal eye movements.

Eyes show many types of involuntary and voluntary movements for proper functioning.

Saccades are jerky movements generated mainly in response to changes in visual field (what the brain 'sees'), e.g., a moving target or sudden appearance of something new in the field--a fly falling in your soup! ;) They bring the 'pursued' object just about to the center of visual focus.

Smooth pursuit movements perform the same function as saccades, but are better coordinated, with constant adjustments in direction and velocity of eye movements based on feedback from muscles moving the eyes as well as the images formed by the retinae.

The fast phase of a nystagmus is brain's attempt to keep eyes still with regard to axis of the head when eyes get 'distracted' (the slow phase of nystagmus), say following head movement, saccades or sudden pursuit movements. So nystagmus could be normal, but occurs whenever eyes try to simultaneously look at different things! ;)

Google God, this is not fair! :(

See, how Google God is misguiding my prospective-readers-and-even-more-prospectively-about-to-turn-followers into believing that my blog is not about what they want to find on the World wide Web! :(

[CLICK 'GOOGLE GOD'S VAGARIES' ON TOP RIGHT OF THIS PAGE.]

No wonder, I keep on finding excuses to try to popularize my blog through shrewd, but inefficient means. And all it manages to do, is remain a Neglected Serendipity (click)

CLICK

And since my wishes do not get fulfilled, I find excuses to turn and remain an atheist, by emotionally blackmailing myriad of purportedly True and Supreme Gods.

CLICK

&

CLICK

Aargh some angels I worshipped, also did not help me in my NobelNoble endeavor! :(

CLICK

But this once, yet again I hope, the newly suprematized Google God would take notice that this marginalized blogger is perverseperseveres, and show mercy upon his deviantdivine blog, showering it with readers and their illogicaleulogical comments.

DO NOT CLICK

So here goes a piece of sycophancysick-o'-fancy-verbiage, hence short prayer.

Google Gog is goog
CLICK