Blog updates

As few readers might notice, I have completely changed the template of this blog. I guess, I was quite obsessed with two sidebar-layout. It was making the blog look too cluttered, and a few readers had also complained of the sidebars' content being distractive.

So finally, I have overcome that obsession. This theme & layout are simpler & hopefully more pleasing to the eye. Your frank feedback is certainly welcome. :)

But most important announcement - I have updated my blog roll. I had to work very hard towards it. I have not merely enlisted the blogs, but also tried to point out what I like about certain blogs and bloggers. Also, I have tagged each blog with broad genres that the posts tend to fit in. Additionally, for almost all blogs I have added two posts that I had remembered as having impressed me the most while drafting the blog roll.

Apart from serving as a guide to readers who want to explore new blogs, through this blog roll I want to convey my heart felt thanks to the enlisted bloggers for enriching my life, giving me new things to think about or feel.

I have tried in the past, but I do not know if I could convey this clearly enough. The people I have mentioned make me think of this World as a better place to live in, and thus, this life more worthy of living.

Those who can believe my sincerity behind saying all this, and can understand what it means for a cynic like me, will appreciate that it is one of the highest compliments I can pay. :)

You can go through the blog roll by clicking on 'Blog roll' button below the header, or alternatively by clicking here. :)

If you feel like commenting on the blog roll, kindly do so on the blog roll page itself.

Thank you!

What I love about Ram Gopal Varma

This is not the manner in which I had planned to write about him, but Ram Gopal Varma's (click) style of movie making had always impressed me. No, I have not watched Ram Gopal Varma ki Aag (click), and doing so might not change my views about his abilities. Because even if I were ever to watch and dislike it, it does not negate all that I had passionately cherished in his cinema and held dear to me. Also, there are too many prominent movies associated with him that I have not watched, yet - Satya (click), Darna mana hai (click), Sarkar Raj (click), Rann (click), etc.

The way he knows human psychology, which is absolutely essential for playing with our minds is simply awe-inspiring. And when I say psychology, I do not mean that concerning easily discernible gross events or emotions, but more so, how we respond to visuals and sounds. Behind some of the most chilling and provocative sounds, camera positions, lighting and facial expressions is a very astute mind that knows how the human mind reacts, given a particular stimulus.

Here, I will mention a few small things from his movies that have always stayed with me.

1. Vaastu shastra (click).

On the whole, the beauty of this movie was that it had presented the stories in gaps. Meaning, for many episodes, just the beginning and the ending were shown, and their spookiness lay in the viewer imaginingg how exactly the gap must have got filled, and this had required a proactive viewer and not a passive one.

1.a. The opening titles. The way the opening titles had floated in free space in a dark background had made me aware of their meanness and an inescapable imminence.

1.b. The conviction of the young boy - Rohan in talking of Manish and Jyoti. His confidence in talking of them was frightening. Not for a single instance did he plead with his parents to assuage their disbelief or ridicule. His confidence was unnerving for me as a viewer. This confidence coupled with background awareness a few 'wrong' things happening in that house, in light of his parents' utter ignorance of all those things had instilled a perverse curiosity in me to know what was to happen ahead.

1.c. The manner in which the tennis ball kills the maid. Well, to be specific it was not how the maid was killed that had got impressed upon my mind, but how the ball travels back as if having a life of its own, then in the end it climbs up the cupboard and nearly comes to rest making me think the scene had "ended", when the camera frame shifts ever so slightly to the right, and shows us Manish grabbing the ball with his hand. This last thing was a most unexpected surprise. There was nothing jerky in the way the entire scene was captured, and yet the manner in which the body of Manish emerges from the right edge of the frame and his stark whiteness in contrast with the background gives the viewer that totally unexpected moment. His facial expression is not one of happiness or anger or sadness, but of unshakeable resolve - again alluding to some kind of inevitability accounted for by nothing else but his unadulterated resolve.

1.d. The ladder leading to the top of the Banyan tree. This is the prime example of the dealing in gaps that I had talked of. The camera pans upwards and a nonchalant Rohan is seen sitting cozily very high up. While movies like Exorcist would have tried to make the scene scary by showing him climb up in some unnatural manner, this movie does no such thing. All the viewer gets to see is the "end" of the scene without showing how he climbed up. Also, the way the tree house at the top looks, it has a certain alien feel to it, one of belonging not to "us" but something else. This effect was probably achieved by sheer height and also a camera angle that made the top of the ladder converge like the apex of a very long isosceles triangle.

One of the bugging elements of the movie was the sinister kid laughter. It was rather interfering with the viewer experience than adding to it. Some of the slow undulations of the camera, which had given the scenes a 'floating-in-the-ship' kind of feel were also irritating.

You can read a very detailed review of this movie at Army of Monkeys (click), which I have not read yet. ;)

One thing I would want to say about watching horror movies is that they cannot be enjoyed if one goes with a confrontational attitude akin to I dare the movie maker to be able to scare me. Rather, to completely enjoy such movies requires a proactive viewer who would try to anticipate at each step what would happen ahead, so that getting surprised would be made possible!

2. Sarkar. The thing in the movie that had affected me the most was the dull thud of dumbell at the beginnig of the movie when the alleged rapist had been killed. The dullness was again one of those devices that had scared me because of my ability to empathize. The first thing that had come to my mind was - "I would not like to be there, hit like that"! It was that effective. Some other manner of killing like liters of blood splattering all around or something involving fast, jerky motion would dazzle or excite the viewer, but not necessarily frighten.

Towards the end, the unshakable expression on Rashid's face despite his inevitable death was something that had made me uncomfortable. Here was a man, who in the context of the movie was a villain, a wrongdoer, a failure, and yet, he dies the same way he had lived, without remorse. He faces the process of death just like any other average event in his life - trying to live through his death. Though the turn of events in the movie had not given me the time to think about all these, somewhere subconsciously the scene had sown a doubt, which serves as a chink in conviction with which we lead our lives - why do we do what we do in our lives? To what end? It all ends, anyway.

3. Music in Ram Gopal Varma-movies. Though the credit for the music in his movies should most directly got to the respective composers, still it is him who had introduced in Bollywood, music with piercing quality to it. One of the all time favorite songs of mine is "Mast" (click to hear) sung by Sunidhi Chauhan (click) and composed by Sandeep Chowta (click). The manner in which the opening words like uske siva kuchh yaad nahin... start with with a subdued hushed tone, and yet end in hui, hui main mast represents the most planned yet unstoppable dissipation of energy. Again the quality that comes fore is of unstopability. "Mast" at the end of the line hits the listener with an impact.

Another song that really resonates with me is Ganda hai par dhandha hai yeh... from Company (click). It has an element of tease. The point after Sandeep Chowta utters (ganda hai) "yeh", when I would expect a drum beat, there is none! It leaves me wanting for more; the dissipation does not happen this once.

Why I mention these pieces of music is because they gel so well with his overall style of movie making. Also, I do not know why, but somehow it is certain people's vision that enables others to deliver the best stored up in them, like potential energy. For instance, Sandeep Chowta has not been able to deliver such powerful music working with someone else. Vivek Oberoi (click) has never acted as well as with Varma. Abhishek Bachchan has not been able to make his screen presence felt the way he could in Varma's movies. It took a Varma to bring out the amazing actor hidden in Urmila Matondkar (click), who otherwise would have only got dismissed as a skin revealing bimbo. This also made me realize how Ismail Darbar (click) has been able to do his best only working with Sanjay Leela Bhansali (click). So, I believe these movie directors and producers indeed have a role in extracting the best from the people they work with. So even if a lot in his movies is not his doing, he should get the credit for firstly having a desire to work with talented people, then ability to recognize that talent, and then eventually actually associating with them.

Anyway, I could be accused of reading, seeing or hearing too much where there is really nothing. But well, I could perceive those things, and I do not rule out the possibility of my deluding myself only to be able to recognize an icon.

Also, there had been a few curious coincidences. Despite my liking some of his movies very much, I had not known much about him. But then some time later I came to understand that he is an atheist, and further later (just a year back) that he is a fan of Ayn Rand (click) - another person I greatly admire.

Ram Gopal Varma is in show business. His skill lies in employing a "technique" to generate an "effect". To digress a bit, this dichotomy between insipid technique used to generate a scintillating effect was something I had become sensitized to while making PowerPoint presentations for the first time. Same effect on screen could be achieved by elegant simplicity, or through crass background technique while editing the slides. I would like to share with you a novel that heavily relies on this passion for use of techniques to yield effects - The Vanished Man (click) by Jeffery Deaver (click). So what I admire about Ram Gopal Varma is his proficiency with two strata of techniques. One, of converting mundane resources like outdoors, sounds, raw actors, camera, ideas (raw materials for "technique") into visuals, sounds, facial expressions and plot-surprises (tier 1 "effect"). Two, the very same visuals, sounds, facial expressions and plot-surprise in turn serve as raw materials for the emotions generated in the viewer (tier 2 "effect"). And he is a master of both tiers of technique. He has perfected this art, I do not believe, which would have been possible without immense passion and a basic level of intelligence.

But years and experiences have also sensitized me to the same technique-effect concept put to use by famous people. I have my doubts whether the public image he has is the "true" him, or his attempt to provoke people into hating him and talking about him, or to profess love for him only to stand out.

But there is sufficient intelligence in his words that convinces me that whatever he does, he knows very well what it is, and that he also understands the motives behind his actions. Sometimes I also wonder if the insolent attitude he reserves for most people is his method to filter out those who cannot see form from substance, or in other words, those who miss the subtle but significant and go after the conspicuous but merely a distraction. Or again, I might be wrong in thinking he thinks so much about others!

But the fact remains, I continue to be intrigued by him, and admire him in equal measures.

You can read his blog here - RGV BLOG (click), going through which was basically the precipitating factor in my writing about him.

You can read some of his quotes here (click).

How Morality is Indispensable to a Social Life

This post had started as a response to one of the comments by Darshan, whose ideas and blog-posts (click) I really enjoy and also recommend to other readers who appreciate critical thinking. The reasons I am publishing this response as a separate blog post are: because the response is too long; I would not like other readers to miss out on ideas earned after hard sessions of thinking, and lastly, because I any way wanted to discuss these issues some times on my blog. It just so happens that now this post will serve as an appropriate launching pad. So ultimately, obviously, this post does not merely remain a response to Darshan's comments, but is a post with his ideas as the backdrop.

Obviously, since this post is fundamentally a reaction rather than an essay, I am not giving a much elaborate background. Darshan's comment (click) was as follows:

"This might sound irrelevant to you.

First of all, I do not believe in the established concept of morality, which is perfectly human-centered. In my concept of morality stealing, lying, money, robbery and society, these are so petty issues that are not even visible to me. There are much much bigger issues facing existence!

In fact this entire affair is something which does not affect me. It is so HUMAN-SPECIFIC!!! As far as any such thing is concerned, I find myself in the game again. So whatever decisions I take by whim in the game, is neither right nor wrong.

I might save the one who stole in this case, for example; Or I might sometime also think that one human less is good for the planet ;) Depends on the mood I am in at the moment!"

Now I urge readers to exercise restrain in drawing any untoward conclusions about how Darshan as a person is. This discussion between him and me is at an ideological-philosophical level, and his comment must not be construed to think that he reaches decisions in his life exactly in the same fashion as might seem from the comment. In my interactions I have found him to be very agreeable and rational and not at all inclined to hurt someone deliberately. The only reason I am quoting this comment here is to put forth the context in which my post had materialized. As to what he means by a "game" would become clear from his post called - How to attain bliss without being in Himalayas? (click).

I am quoting the lines that I feel are pertinent, but yet I encourage the reader to go through the actual post for two reasons - that there should be no "loss in translation" in my quoting something selectively, and also because the post is a well thought out one and well written.

"...Now consider your life as a game. You are the main protagonist in this game. There are innumerable stages in this game like childhood, schooling, adulthood, love, work, marriage, divorce, riches, poverty etc. Through all the stages in the game there are things like making friends and enemies; pain and pleasures; love and hatred. You earn points when you make friends. Lose points when you make enemies. Earned love, earned points. Lost love, lost points. Consider points as a measure of happiness. That’s how a game works. Human life has endless possibilities of occurrences. All the things which happen in your favor add to your points and those occurrences against you reduce the points. When you succeed through the tasks you jump up in happiness with “Whoa!” and “Wow!” and when you lose you throw the joystick with “Oh fuck!” and “Shit!”"...

..."But after all, it’s a game, not the real life. What you experience in the “game world” is left behind when you are done playing the game and return in your “real world”. Happenings of the “game world” can not affect your behavior in the “real world”, unless you are so obsessed with the game that you have lost your mind and the realization that the two worlds are different."

Also, my response is not an attempt to contradict or disregard Darshan's personal views, which I do not share, but do not even disagree with. This is because, in some areas of life, what views we hold are just our personal preferences, possibly based on factors like nurture, genetics, life-experiences, personality, etc., and however hard we try, we cannot justify them on a rational basis. This in turn happens because, the fundamental axioms in life like "what is the purpose of my life?" or "what is the purpose behind the existence of the human race or the Universe?", etc. cannot be answered in fashion, which we all would agree with. It is how we (especially, in the given case, Darshan and I) answer these questions differently, that have led to the differences in our opinion, and at the outset I wish to clarify that I do not consider either Darshan or my answers to either of the above questions as more correct or less correct, because there is no established or agreed upon standard to gauge their "correctness" against. My frank confession that my views are more of preferences, rather than absolute "correct" manner of looking at the issues would, I hope, be amply visible in my response, which is as follows:

-----

Darshan,

There is no rational reason I could convince you to be more emotionally engaged with humanity and its affairs, or for me to justify my being engaged thus, but what you said was alarming! This is not to offend you, but nor to downplay what I felt reading what you wrote.

It is to your credit, you have made me think something slightly more deeply, making me reach this philosophical conclusion that yet again that there is nothing really very rational that can make me urge one to choose to be moral.

Morality (click) stems from human concepts of 'ownership' and 'rights' (as in adhikaar). So yes, morality becomes operational only when one accepts a certain framework of these human conceptions of 'ownership' and 'right'. Integrally attached with both the concepts is another human conception of "deserving", which is the most nebulous, and hence, difficult to define. And that is why we all differ in what one "deserves" - usually, we are most predisposed to feel what we 'enjoy', we deserve, and what we do not enjoy, we do not deserve. Which is what introduces the subjectivity and consequent liberal bias in assessing our own motives and actions. And, so it becomes imperative to decide upon certain mutually agreed upon criteria to delineate what is deserved by whom.

I yet again concede, I have no rational reason to assert that this framework should be applied only to humans, and why other sentient living beings (especially, mammals that are so similar to how humans are) should be excluded. Partly because, animals cannot talk back to us, as to what they want. No, this is not an excuse to be cruel to them, but the psychological reason why this "we" (humans) v/s "them" (non-humans) kind of communalism (click) operates in our minds.

My feeling greater solidarity for humans as compared to other species, or "nonliving" parts of the "nature", can be considered a form of communalism, and hence is unjustified. The best possible justification (or rather, my double standards), you could find is here:

Ball of Karma (click). Do read comment #16 onwards if you are short of time, otherwise, I believe the entire debate is entertaining, if not enlightening!

...somehow humans take precedence in deciding upon moral issues. If someone asks me why?, I would say it is a very sophisticated form of herd-mentality. That I feel greater solidarity for those who resemble me than those who do not (this line of argument is extremely risk-fraught when it comes to interhuman interactions, I know!). And animals have never really cared for us humans, or for each other (sounds stupid, but is a valid argument because only sometime back we were talking of putting animals on same pedestal as humans). They have killed us humans for their food or to protect their shelter. So we can do the same to fulfill our ‘needs’.

‘Needs’ is another contentious term. Is the desire to live a fulfilling, happy life a ‘need’? Is the desire to see one of our relatives not die of AIDS/cancer/malaria – a need? Is the desire to not suffer from painful rheumatoid arthritis and debilitating kidney disorders and diabetes – a need? Is the desire to not suffer from irritating common cold – a need?

Please see, in all the 3 examples, there is a gradual downscaling of threat to human life. While very few would disagree that we would be alright with killing of a few thousand animals, if the outcome (cure) for the said disease is able to save millions of human lives. The problem comes when discussing animal experiments for treatment of ’simpler’ disorders, which are not immediately life-threatening. But then the question would arise - what ‘level’ of threat to human life do we use to justify animal experiments?

So well, at least practicality dictates that we must not infringe on others' (humans') "rights", for instance, right to live, because then they can also attempt to do the same, and we all might suffer pain or death. Of course, I myself have stated on your blog that it would not be "bad" in 'absolute' terms if the entire human species or the Earth itself are wiped out, but in a 'subjective' sense, I want to live, and I am afraid of death! Possibly, this fear is an outcome of natural selection through genetic mutations, but then the fact remains, I am responsive and subservient to such a fear. I am also responsive and subservient to desire to feel happy [differences between 'happiness' and 'contentment' are hazy; I will have to think a lot about them]. Provisionally, I can define happiness as a mental state I would like to remain in, and not lose. So, talking of the original post that led you here, while everyone prioritizes the (self-assigned) purposes of life differently, directly or indirectly human happiness does figure somewhere at the top of everyone's 'agenda' for life. No other human-assigned purpose would be able to stake that claim - not, living for the country; nor, living for poor; nor, living for endangered species; nor, living for a single (as in, everyone devoting life to a common) religion; nor, living to set exemplary behavior. And even if someone defines something else as the purpose of their life, say, attaining salvation, they do it in belief that salvation will bring them happiness (as defined above).

But since, we humans have to co-exist in space and time, and share the same resources amongst us in our attempts to achieve our purposes (whatever they be), we have to distribute them in most pragmatic fashion possible - such that such distribution minimizes conflicts (which will cause pain, which majority of people want to avoid) and satisfy maximum number of people's desire to be happy (the way they feel it could be fulfilled). And as I said before, it is the limitation in resources and unavoidable interpersonal interactions that make us define every person's rights, authority and what they do or do not deserve.

Just as you pointed out, these concepts are merely human constructs, and hence not binding on you, and I agree. But if all actions were to depend on what one's "mood" is, for instance, what will prevent one from slapping a random person in a bus or raping a random woman in a secluded place? I am sure you must have not done either of the two things, but the questions is what prevented you or will prevent you if you feel like doing it? Or will nothing be able to stop you from doing so once you feel the urge?

So personally, I do think a lot about these (morals, ethics, justice, etc.) issues, precisely because I do find myself deeply engaged in human affairs. Though I have the option of not doing so, by two possible mechanisms - living in some secluded area totally by myself, and hence doing away with all sort of morality OR by committing suicide. I am afraid of both the options, as I pointed out in my response in the Conflusions-post (click), and moreover I have am enjoying my current mode of living; abiding to moral principles is hardly a challenge for me. So, I choose to live by the standards set by the society (morality) because I am living amidst society. Living amidst society is always following our agreeing to an unwritten contract, and that contract is what morality is. If one chooses to disregard these contracts, they instantly lose the right to live a life dependent on fellow human beings. And hence, either such people have to be removed from society because of their incompatibility in coexisting with others (death sentence) or punished (conviction by courts) or of course, the third option - that they live in some secluded place without interacting with any other human being (exile). But then, that they breach certain clauses (rules and regulations) of the contract with the knowledge that --> doing so invites the consequences they had agreed to --> by way of choosing to live in a manner they would depend on others --> they automatically become deserving of the punishment they had agreed to in the first place by breaching the the terms of the contract. For instance, a person committing rape in India becomes deserving of punishment as defined in the section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (click), because he had consented to be punished the moment he rapes a woman while being a part of India (Indian citizenship). This was all law and justice.

You might but ask, what if someone does not want to enter this contract of interpersonal interactions? Why force someone to enter interpersonal interactions? But the problem is no human being at birth is independent. The moment one accepts nurture from one's parents, and wears clothes made by another human being, or eats food prepared with another human's labor, they inadvertently put their seal on the contract of the society called morality. And hence for these "reasons" I do not think it is possible to escape consideration of moral issues.

[With this my response to Darshan practically ends; what follows is the ideas built opon what I just presented]

But of course, the next question could be who gets to decide these set of rules? And more importantly, what are the bases of such rules? It is here, the (supposedly) most widely agreed upon principle of maximizing human happiness and minimizing human pain that comes to fore. We all humans might not always agree as to what constitutes legal, ethical, moral "etiquetted", etc., but if we define some "minimum possible standards", we will at least have a rational framework to work within. These could also be termed as "moral axioms", as in they have no other underlying bases, except that (assuming and hoping) highest number of people in the World agree upon them. I will enlist the most significant moral axioms here:

1. Every human is equal and has same rights at birth.

2. Every human at birth has an equal right to live.

3. Fulfilling the desire to be happy is one of the fundamental goals, and every human at birth has equal right to be happy.

4. Fulfilling the desire to avoid pain is one of the fundamental goals, and every human at birth has equal right to avoid pain.

5. Everyone should try to reach decisions on any issue such that, as far as possible, none of the above principles are violated.

I believe, a large part of what we instinctively think of as moral or immoral (and also, legal, ethical, honorable - or not so) can be accounted for by above principles. Of course, I am no expert in philosophy of ethics, morality and law, but at least this serves as a good starting point. I also believe, if some societal impositions or government-sanctioned laws do not fit into the above framework, then they make a good case for a closer scrutiny. For instance, what in the above framework would make consensual homosexuality immoral/unethical/illegal? Or for that matter, euthanasia? Slightly more contentious would be issues like abortion. Likewise, issue of death penalty would be most contentious. The "at birth"-part finds repeated mention to allow for some other concepts like "deserving" and unequal "ownership" (say, owing to one's hard work) to apply, which could lead to subsequent inequality. Additionally for instance, if the established law punishes a convict, the punishment might go against their rights to live, be happy and to avoid pain. But to ensure practical functionality of the entire framework, we have to also admit the possibility some people will not honor point number 5, and hence this dishonor makes them eligible for predetermined punishment. And of course, a very touchy issue of what is a "right" as against what is an "opportunity" has not been addressed here. For example in our contemporary society, despite having same rights, do children respectively born to poor and rich parents get equal opportunity to healthy diet and good education? How do we tackle such moral issues? I would be discussing these issues also in one of my subsequent posts, but then they cannot be covered in limited space.

So to end this post, I just want to point out that the instinctive ideas of moral, ethical, and appropriateness of government-sanctioned laws, etc., are very difficult to scrutinize on a firmly rational bases, but the point is they can be! And at least, we have to make an attempt to do so. If we stop looking for "reasons" to regard something as moral v/s immoral, we would be entertaining moral arbitrariness (and hence, "relativism") as an acceptable criterion. Once that happens, it is only downhill course for the collective human happiness from that point. And also that reason cannot be "someone said so" (scripture-directed morality), because what would be valid reason would not be that someone said so, but the reason as to why someone said what they said. As long as we are living in the human society, it becomes binding upon us to think over moral issues. The moment we lose our commitment to morality, we lose our right to live amidst with other human beings.

-----

One recommendation:

Read this extremely well-explained and argued blog-post by Professor McCormick - Open the Floodgates (click), where he demonstrates why exclusively faith cannot be used to believe in the existence of God without committing intellectual dishonesty.

One request:

Kindly visit a copy of this blog I have prepared at Wordpress (click). This is just an experiment. I may or may not shift to Wordpress. Currently, it is unlikely that I switch over to Wordpress because it does not allow customization of CSS of blog-templates. Of course, the only attractive feature of Wordpress over Blogger is their comment-system, which might eventually win me over if I get into an 'aggressive' mode of blogging. ;)

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).

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 [:)]).

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

Rambling, as if in dreams!

I have no idea if any of the readers go through the sidebars of my blog, but there is a lot to explore there, probably more than my posts also, and much more interesting, too! ;)

On the bottom left, you will find a link to a web site that comes up with a daily miscellaneous list of ten things (usually).

Today's list is 10 More Amazing Facts about Dreams (click). It in turn, as expected, links to another original list of equally amazing facts about dreams.

I have yet not gone through the latest list, but while going through the original one, I was quite amazed by how the observations made by Sigmund Freud (click) about nine decades ago, have still held true. I have had the fortune of reading initial parts of the English translation of The Interpretation of Dreams, and the first time I had read it, I was dumb struck by the intelligence of that person. And on reading about his ground-breaking ideas (apart from those on dreams) of psychoanalysis (click), ego-defense mechanisms (click) and psychosexual development (click), I was totally floored! Each time I read about him, I only wonder, how could a person feel, observe, analyze, document, and subject to verification so much in one lifetime! No wonder, I was not surprised in the least when I came to know through some obscure web site (of questionable reliablity) that his IQ was tagged at 160!

And from the very same web site: Einstein--165, Newton--175, Darwin--180, Kasparov--180, and well the most intelligent public figures were Sharon Stone--150, Hillary Clinton--140, and Madonna--140 ;)

Here (click) is a list of IQs of famous people with figures quite different from what I have quoted in this post, but interesting (and equally dubious) nonetheless.

Those are HUGE numbers! In all likelihood, the most intelligent grown up you would have ever personally known would have it less than 160!

As you could see I have rambled a lot, leaping from one idea to the next remotely connected one. But then I had to justify post's title, also! ;)

Kya jaanoon sajan?...

I have incidentally never discussed music on my blog, and apart from this one, I do have a few other posts in my mind, which I might publish subject to availability of time!

Through this post, I want to express my unsurpassed admiration for one song--'Kya janoon sajan'. Apart from having a most hauntingly painful melody, what I like the best about this song is its sensitive, yet teasing lyrics. This song has my favorite lyrics of all the Bollywood songs that I know of.

So, I'll be largely discussing the lyrics of this song, and my interpretation of them. I'll be giving a very literal English translation of the song, so no wonder, the lyrics will sound weird! ;) Also, since I've heard more often the newer version of the song from the movie--"Dil vil Pyaar vyaar", so would be discussing here the verses in the same sequence as in the newer version, in which the order of stanzas has been changed.

क्या जानूं सजन | Kyaa jaanoon saja | What do I know
होती है क्या ग़म की श्याम |Hoti hai kya gham ki shyaam | What is a dusk of despair
जल उठे सौ दिए | jal uthe sau diye | A hundred lamps got lit up
जब लिया तेरा नाम... | jab liya tera naam... | When I uttered your name...

I believe the above stanza is quite self-explanatory!

जब से मिली नज़र | Jab se milee nazar | Since when we had exchanged glances
माथे पे बन गए | maathe pe ban gaye | have become on my forehead
बिंदिया नयन तेरे | Bindiya nayan tere | Bindi (click) your eyes
देखो सजाना | Dekho sajana | Oh see, my dear!

Since, your eyes have fallen on me, your love has become a constant presence in my conscious, and just like a Bindi can be made out by any onlooker!

धर ली जो प्यार से | Dhar li jo pyaar se | When you had held with love
मेरी कलाइयां | Meri kalaaiyaan | My wrists
पिया, तेरी उंगलियाँ | Piya, teri ungaliyaan | Dear, your fingers
हो गई कंगना | Ho gaee kanganaa | Have become bracelet

Beloved, since when you had held my hand, I can constantly feel your presence in everything I do, though not restraining me in any way.

Kya janoon sajan...

-----

काँटों में मैं खड़ी | Kaanton mein main khadi | Standing in thorns
नैनों के द्वार पे | Nainon ke dwaar pe | At the threshold of my eyes
निसदिन बहार के | Nis din bahaar ke | Every day, of spring
देखूं सपने | Dekhoon sapne | Do I watch dreams

Standing in a barren land (that is, without anyone's love), among thorns (eyelashes?), I dream of spring (your love) with utmost eagerness (at the threshold of eyes--indicating the eagerness of wait?)


The following lines are most ambiguous and difficult to interpret because of a very unusual kind of inversion:

चेहरे की धूल क्या | Chehre ki dhool kya | The dust on my face [1]
चंदा की चांदनी | Chanda ki chaandni | The radiance of Moon [2]
उतरी तो रह गई | Utari to reh gayi | Persisted, when dropped off [3]
मुख पे अपनी | Mukh pe apni | On my face [4]

The ambiguity arises because line 3 can be associated with either 1 or 2.

Clubbing 3 with 1 gives:

The moment the dust on my face dropped off, the radiance of Moon was left on my face. This can be interpreted to mean, that " O' beloved, the moment I stopped looking at my barren surroundings and thought about you, my entire being had become a reflection of, and my face reflected your radiance."


Clubbing 3 and 2 gives:

"O' beloved, the moment I stopped mooning over you, I realized my stark reality, and my entire being was covered in the thirst that the desert around has come to represent--the dust that settled on my face."


By the way, another blogger had done a post on her interpretation of this song here (click).

Doom-cast

I'm prejudiced enough to believe my esteemed readership(??) would pay no heed to doomsday forecasts unless and until they come from someone as reliable as me! But I found a nice little witty article on the matter, which will take around (okay, don't gasp this time :) ) 10 min to read.

Hope you enjoy!

Another interesting article

In one of my interactions with a fellow blogger, the issue of purpose of life was raised. Not that I can allow someone else to define that purpose for myself, except for if it's through a form of coercion I can't thwart, but it's always interesting to note others' views on the issue. Someone else's purpose could definitely be more interesting than mine(!), and I'd uninhibitedly and shamelessly borrow that purpose for myself!

I've long concluded there's no external purpose to life--as in influencing some tangible indestructible entity on whom the act of our living would've an impact. But this sterile view begs many questions--like 'why do we then feel such an intense desire to live?', 'why should we live?', 'what should we do while live-ing?'.

To the above questions I do have some crude answers, which I can of course, not claim to be applicable to all. Greatest reason being there's no measurable endpoint to the act of living. Like endpoint of using energy efficient automobiles would be the reduction of green house gases in the atmosphere, which can be measured.

Well so as usual, as a quirky idea, I searched for 'purpose of life' on Wikipedia, and this is what turned up.

I've not yet read the article completely, may not even complete it myself, but thought others might enjoy it. Reading it won't take much time, but understanding it completely, which will require one to understand concepts right from molecular biology, thermodynamics, quantum physics to abstract philosophical and logical assertions, will certainly take much longer--maybe around a week.

One thing that struck me was how the ancient Greek philosophers born more than 2000 years ago had such clear and objective view of life. They were only limited by lack of scientific knowledge. And then, somehow the world's intellect regressed, and it took mankind almost two millenia to reach their level again and progress beyond that!

Maybe philosophy will always stay ahead of science. It requires only two tools--one harbored behind the two eyes and an armchair!

Which reminds me, maybe, I've been philosophizing a lot, the indicator being creaks of my armchair, which are nothing but groans because of the abuse I subject her (it's my armchair--I get to assign the gender ;) ) to. Time to stop philosophizing so much get a new armchair!

That's all!

A very good summary of theist v/s atheist arguments

Atheism: Encyclopedia entry is the recent blog post by Matt McCormick, Professor of Philosophy at California State University, Sacramento. I'm posting this link here only because this is the most succinct summary of theism v/s atheism arguments I've found up till now. Reading it takes more than an hour. But, for those who're not professional philosophers, this post will greatly enhance their knowledge in classification of various kinds of beliefs and nonbeliefs with regard to existence of God, and also the various philosophical approaches on this issue.

But most importantly, reading this post will be nothing less than a mental workout, which I hope would be enticing for all those visiting my blog (excuse the vanity!), except for of course, if they're seasoned philosophers or logicians themselves.

Hope you enjoy the post!

My favorite blogs-I: updated on 24th June, 2009

Latest update here (click)

This might be a touchy issue--to openly declare my admiration for a few blogs. Some others might feel left out. But I also feel, I owe these bloggers whose blogs I so admire at least a token of appreciation for making my life a richer experience.

As time passes, a few more might be added to the list.

Except for the first one, sequence in which I mention blogs bear no relation with the degree to which I admire them/their blog.

1. GS' Beats by G. Saimikundhan. I had come across this blog when I was experiencing a weird kind of low. A low I can't completely explain. A low of how the world is full of people I can't remotely respect, and could easily hold in contempt. Totally bereft of people I could look up to. And in midst of such low, did I come across this blog. I had felt an instant connection. As if I would never need to explain myself. And everything I speak would be taken exactly as what was meant to be conveyed. The posts are products of such honesty, such clarity, intelligence and boldness, that I had actually thought, how this person fit my criteria for worship when I had ironically declared how it might be impossible that I ever come across such a person!
When I'd finished my post on worship, I felt, the simplest thing I'd tell to one I worship would be "Wow! You exist!". And that's what I'd even today like to tell Saimukundhan. Thanks for being there!

With a few more exchanges, I found a few differences in our opinion and outlook, which have something to do with my being (maybe) more cynical, and I felt Saimukundhan has maybe something to learn about this world (which I've already learned!), and well he was dropped from that mental pedestal, but not far below, just ever so slightly. Some might feel, I admired him only till his views were identical to mine, but no that's not the case. I have admired him for providing me with a few answers that I did not have.

But that's not all. Every post will make you think. And if you're in no mood to think, he also has some of the whackiest posts for you.


2. A Mother's A Musings... by Newbie Mommy. A blog that had just awed me, especially my writing nonskills(!) Replete with emotions--all true and genuine, wisdom, humor wit, regrets, hopes. It was like meeting a person and not merely reading a blog. Again, I felt an instant connection. Things like needless modesty and circuitous explanations had become total nonissues. Though I wish Newbie Mommy would deliver more often :)I mean the posts. ;)


3. Mad Medicine: A Dr's dose of mayhem by Dr. S. Dr. S is a community doctor in South Africa. She has a very witty style of writing--mostly dealing with experiences at her extremely busy and taxing community practice. Her blogs span a very wide spectrum of human emotions, from witty, sarcastic, insane to most poignantly emotionally wrecking that have left me speechless. How she maintains her commitment to her practice, and preserves sympathy for her patients are matters of wonder. And I truly admire her for that


4. Frustration is just the beginning of medicineby deluded. A blog by a medical student who can easily surprise you by putting a most insanely intelligently humorous blog one day, and insanely emotional, the next. I also love the fact that he doesn't play it to the gallery, so to say.


5. Life - Just this and that by Just Me. This blog was a total surprise. Discovering it was nothing less than discovering a treasure; neglected treasure, if I may, and nothing less than a serendipity. I might end up doing injustice to her ability to write in various forms by venturing to state that her specialty is poetry. But then, that's what had impressed me the most about her blog. Poetry. She writes effortless poetry. The effort of juggling words around is never visible, maybe she doesn't need to juggle around. All the aspects--construct, poetic effects, meaning and content--come together to form nothing less than poetic monuments.


6. I loved three men called Pablo. by Tangled up in blue.... A blog I discovered very recently, and yet am including it in this list must be sufficient to convey how impressed I am with her writing. Oh yes, by the way, Tangled up in blue... is a medical student. Her blog has it all--poetry, stories, diary-like entries(!) and analytical posts touching upon issues of philosphical, political and social importance. Not to mention, her rich vocabulary, making me seek assistance of dictionary not too infrequently ;)


7. On The River Bank by Manu Sebastian. Manu is a law student! This blog is a collection of short stories. And, at an age of just 20, Manu has learned so much about people, the human nature, their interactions, their dreams, aspirations, their predicaments, their foolish confident convictions. And these wonderful characters, apart from existing in his stories, interact in mundane to most unusual circumstances. I see signs of a great writer in making. Or shall I say, a writer well made, and not recognized for many reasons, not in the least, one being distraction by his studies!


Rationalist/Analytical Blogs.



Some of the above bloggers are atheist/skeptics, but am including the following blogs as a separate category for one simple reason that they deal almost exclusively with issues integrally connected to religion, dogma and rationalism. Wonderful writers, no doubt these bloggers are, but by neglecting to touch upon their own personal lives or other aspects, the scope of their blogs becomes somewhat narrow for those interested in merely lighter topics. Though, I truly wish they start writing on other lines, too.


1. Atheism: Proving The Negative by Matt McCormick. This blog is a very systematic compilation of almost all the possible arguments for and against theism. Posts also deal with social, political and economic implications of religiosity. The reader will also find some interesting experiments related largely to human psychology. He is a Professor of Philosophy.


2. Nitwit Nastik by Nitwit Nastik. A good compilation of articles related to atheism, religious extremism, superstition. Basically, everything rationalist. Some articles will also increase the reader's general knowledge, in particular, popular science.


3. The Man on the Couch by The Couch Clown. This is a budding blog, with lot of potential. The blogger, a law student has a very incisive writing style and meticulous dissection of complex issues who has up till now largely dealt with issues relevant to irrationality in India. Hope to see more frequent posts from him.


PS: First time, when I had published this post, I had made some mistakes with linking of the blogs. That has been corrected now.