Monday, January 31, 2011

A triplet of clichéd liners and their post-mortem


The last few blog posts have been so high on abstraction and the statuses on face book on frivolity that I thought of interchanging the trend. When you are as good a stickler as me, a good deal of light dawns even on the most trivial of things. So here I am doing justice to my blog again. (First paragraph of 'Doing justice to the URL of my blog)

IT ALL WORKS OUT WELL IN THE END.
I laud the bunch of people with such great levels of optimism, so much so that they defy realism. But I have one little problem here. How can you say that it will work out for good, ‘NOW’ with the ‘END’ nowhere in sight? Our reasoning power is so bounded that I cannot even say with confidence the current demand of onions in our country. (Demand at this very instant) Hell, why go so far? I cannot even say if the next coin toss will be a head or tail for sure. And yet here I am consoling a guy so deeply drenched in woes, with a line that can hardly stand on its own against some solid reasoning.  Say I miss out on an opportunity to buy a land at a very good price. And later, I realise that this one was plagued with problems of all sorts. Unless this happens, the apparent bad event, previously, will remain bad. As much soothing effect as this assurance can have, I am afraid it is one of the most poorly thought of lines. Metaphorically, the line puts the cart in front of the horse. Let the horse come in front, and then go about with your consolation.

THIS WORLD IS BUT A DREAM
This liner again crumbles like a mud-pie under the thrust of reason. Let’s try and understand the conception of a dream. I am dreaming vigorously of a date with Kristen Stewart, that she is swooning head over heels over me. Suddenly a mosquito bites me and I wake up in my wretched, pathetic bed; in a land where time stands still. How and when does one know that it’s a dream? Only when the dream has ended and when you have something ‘real’ to compare it against. By virtue of this understanding, we are in a position to call this world a dream only ‘when this life has ended and we have some concrete reality to compare it against’. Until then ours is the hopeless case of an agnostic.

 WE DON’T HAVE TOO MUCH IN COMMON.
Someone with this excuse to end a relation disappoints me. Not only is he/she not mature enough to understand the ‘Necessity of variation’; worse still, the expectation signifies the narcissism involved. I have one thing to say, if you really wanted so much in common, marry/fall in love with yourself, you narcissist moron.

The causticity in some of the lines is totally impersonal; only to blow some steam off. Cheers to the 25th blog post! A personal thanks to the followers.

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Relations, Vegetarianism and Principle of Minima

With changing social dynamics, the question of making new friends can get tricky. When exposed to a new set of people (like at your workplace, after your college), you are required to make new friends. You could, like the new age ‘practical man’ (meant in my most sarcastic tone), make friends based on utility. Pick those guys with whom you’d expect to get a lot of work done. As ridiculous as it might sound to some, it ‘actually’ happens. Ethicists might raise a hue and a cry at this idea, citing the selfishness present at its core. The other alternative is to befriend those people who make you feel good; those whom you like talking to. A philosopher, basing his arguments on pure rationale, is not happy with this either. Why? Because there is a certain amount of selfishness in the second option too. The people you’d befriend in the second case are those who make ‘you’ feel good, and this option is obviously selfish. Selfishness is inherent in either case. The solution out of this dichotomy is to choose that option which minimizes the selfishness involved. Since zero selfishness remains only an ideal, the next best thing is to minimize it. The principle of minima if you will. And clearly, selfishness is minimum in the second. Making people feel good just because it makes you feel good is the nearest that we can reach to the ideal.

This (principle of minima) is the only logical basis of vegetarianism. All those fanatics who claim zero harm by being a vegetarian are only fooling themselves. Now the concept of vegetarianism is very subjective – eggs are vegetarian to some and not so to others; ditto with onions, fish etc. Again, where is the vegetarianism in our killing at least thousands of microbes (if not more) to have a glass of clean water? There is selfishness involved in both cases (of a vegan and a non-vegan diet). The amount is lesser in the former – that is the best that we can do. Please don’t think that I want the non-vegans to turn vegans based on this post. If that were to happen, we would face an acute crisis of providing employment to the current butchers. What should/would they do? I am of the firm contention that the world is too good a design for me or you to help it. (In an absolute sense)

In an abstract frame work, knowing that a certain amount of both good and bad is attached with every activity of ours (the proof of which is  a little abstract, I will skip it) , the only way out is a minimization of the negative. If one were to think that doing nothing (neither good nor bad, a very passive morbid life) is a solution, the walls are better examples. To even arrive at this analysis, one has to do some activity. In other words, the wheel is already in motion by the time we realize it, and we are moving with it. The solution is futile because it attempts to realize that a boomerang comes back without even hurling it! Its well nigh impossible.

P.S: Another instance of Math and its applicability to daily life situations. 

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

The Necessity of Variation

Before dwelling into the post, a word or two seem(s) fitting with the latest developments around me.  I have taken the liberty of sending an automated notification for every new post of mine to a select group of my friends/acquaintances. If anyone deems it to be a nuisance, or is uninterested, feel free to let me know that and I will make the necessary changes. Any of the other visitors interested in availing of the same, please let me know. I will be honored with the knowledge of a loyal reader. The second is that some people feel an aura of haughtiness in my blog posts, especially so due to the strong persuasive tone. I am sorry but I have always believed that truth is no body’s property. That I endorse something means that there is an ideal out there and I have found it to pass all my tests of reason. I make absolutely no claim to it. Besides with very little thinking, it will be obvious to anyone that every act is in some ways or the other an imitation of a previous one.

The current post has most of its underlying ideas from the previous posts. Since the casual reader has mostly missed them, and the abstract-averse ones have misinterpreted them, another ensemble seems reasonable. It seems almost impossible to make peace with people differing from us. The orthodox and the modern, the proponents of classic rock and those of modern punk/grunge, Mahesh’s fans and Pawan’s ,(the examples are endless) have always been warring.  Expecting people to think exactly like us is dangerous on many accounts. If everybody were to like the macho man, where would the new-age metro-sexual go? Ditto with simpletons and flashy-females. You need both kinds of people- those who like the former and the others who like the latter. Expecting the same shoe size to cater to all is more of a fanatic whim based on little or no thinking. The situation that would result from exactly identical tastes of all populace is that of a moribund, stagnant equilibrium.  This is the first problem – that having identical tastes is disastrous, in that it is morbid.

The second point is that there is no rationale in a preference. You cannot deduce a preference. Mostly it is so that you ‘prefer’ something (because of sensual causality) and then substantiate it. This is "the" sequence of steps and not the reverse, i.e. you don’t reason it out first. Somehow I got used to listening to Bon Jovi and then I saw the positives in the band – good lyrics, ballads etc. Again, what can be reasons for liking something can be equally good reasons for not liking it. That Bon Jovi composes good ballads has him termed a sissy by heavy metal fans. Further, what we perceive is our own world. As much as it appears and appeals to us that there is a common basis for preferences, I am afraid there is none. The differences in perceptions are subtle for normal people; but can best be exemplified in the extreme case of a blind guy denying the existence of sun because he doesn’t see it!! The same it has been with preferences. 

It is not a’ matter of fact’ ly dynamic (like the sun rising in the east), this process of liking something, for all of us to have the same set of preferences. Knowing that it cannot be so, I request people to have greater conviction in their tastes and not rub them onto others. A step further, all these tastes are sub-sets of a super set. Like sarcasm, farce, and other kinds of humor are parts of the ‘whole’ called humor; the whole doesn’t exist without the parts. This whole and part relation is the necessity of variation.