Category: Society & Culture

  • Integral Calculations

    The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. ~ George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman (1903) “Maxims for Revolutionists”

    Now, I guess if i stretched that to Charlie Sheen, especially the last sentence you’ll think I have been swigging “Tiger Blood” too. 😀 But I did have this notion after I read Scott Adams’ post on him.

    Imagine if you stopped filtering everything you said and did. ….just try to imagine yourself living without self-censorship. Wouldn’t you sound crazy?…. Imagine you are so unafraid of consequences and the opinions of other people that you start sentences before you have a plan for how they will end……I think Charlie is fascinating because he’s living without fear. That translates into a disturbing degree of honesty……But I also think that a total lack of fear would look like insanity to the casual observer. And perhaps it is. But it’s a strangely great kind of crazy.

    When I read up about moral absolutism, I wondered what/who would decide the absolutes one would stand by, and were they really absolutes? After reading all of that, I guess moral integrity towards the self better explains what I had in mind.

    So, if Mr. Sheen has decided that no-self-censorship and no-fear are the integral parts of his self from now on, and lives the rest of his life by it, we might consider it bizarre by civil society standards, but he just might be in a better space than we are in terms of moral integrity. (not hinting at a goddesses irony 🙂 ) The alternate consensus that this is just the drugs talking is not as comforting as it should be, when I think of it from this perspective.

    Does our general dissatisfaction stem from our willingness to conform to society’s norms of moral integrity, and the lack of courage to show society the middle finger whenever warranted? The individual consciousness against the urge to belong? I’m still thinking.

    until next time, integration and differentiation 🙂

    P.S This is not sheenfluence

  • Sight, Insight

    One Saturday, when we were getting out of Forum Mall, we noticed a trio fumbling around the entrance barrier ropes. Turned out they were blind and had no idea how to get out. With two loud events happening there, I guess their requests for help might not have been heard. We managed to get them out and in less than a minute, I learned how hard it must be for them to navigate- from steps to people in a rush, everything was a potential obstruction/hazard.

    When we left them, I felt guilty, wondering how they’d reach their home/next destinations, and how I’d let my plans for the evening take precedence over the help I could’ve done them. I was also quite frustrated at the seeming injustice of it all. It didn’t help that I like perfect systems, which have a reason for being the way they are. D said that in the volunteering work she does, they are advised not to bond beyond a certain point with the people they work with. Apparently, when they get attached, it becomes difficult for both parties.

    The next week, for the third time, this book “The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying” resisted my advances. It’s not the first one, nor is it going to be the last that just stayed on the shelf and mocked my attempts to establish some contact. But it definitely had been around the longest so far.

    The signature says we bought it on a Gandhi Jayanti day in 2004. This time I got to about a third of it before I was completely fatigued. Perhaps it’s do with my inability to read multiple books simultaneously or the lure of the unread ones staring at me from the bookshelf, but I just couldn’t go on. It did give me a few interesting insights on life, death, transience etc, before we parted ways. In case it isn’t obvious, I quite hate not finishing books.

    Letting go of things is never easy, though the difficulty varies as per the ‘thing’ under consideration. And yet, we do manage to let go. Sometimes by choice and sometimes slowly moving on without even realising (like the death of someone dear). But it doesn’t come easy as a practice – it either takes an iron will or is an unconscious act. The middle path slips from the grasp easily, such is the wiring of the mind. Perhaps, when I finish the book, I will understand how, and will be able to let go of books, blind people and a fancy dinner with the same ease and understanding.

    until next time, in the dark..

  • Creature Comforts

    By sheer coincidence, the only two Stephen King books I’ve read are “Under the Dome” and Needful Things. They’re separated by a decade and a half (publication) and so, I was surprised to see a massive similarity in the themes – strange things happening in a town and then the focus shifts to human transactions, motivations and the good/evil within us. In the earlier book, it was a new shop and its proprietor  that played havoc, in the later one, it’s an indestructible dome.

    When I discussed this with a few friends, I was told that this was not surprising and there were more books with that broad theme, and many authors repeated their themes regularly. These authors and their books are bestsellers too, which means a lot of people like this arrangement?

    I have vaguely sensed this in music too – from MLTR to Bon Jovi to Bryan Adams to (even sometimes) Rahman, there seems to be a basic tune which is rendered differently at different times and released as a new track, and it sells. Which does make me wonder if even in these so-called hobbies, many of us have become creatures of habit, just like most other spheres of life – including food, people and so on. Comforts are easy that way, keeps the mind away from thinking. Of course, it could be subjective, and you could be on autopilot on some things, and not on others.

    Meanwhile, all this is not to say that others, who are always pushing themselves out of the zone, can get all judgmental about it, but I do wonder whether its a conscious decision to stick to a comfort zone, an inability to break out of it, or not even realising you’re in one. Etymologically, ‘comfort’ means ‘make someone stronger’, but by building that fort around the self, do we become stronger or weaker in the face of life?

    until next time, comfort knocks

  • Playing God

    So, a few days back I had this rather scary thought. What if ‘God’ or ‘collective consciousness’, was a variable?  Depending on the notions and mores of living beings, it would change, continuously. That would probably explain how everything went downhill from whatever is believed to have existed as utopia or paradise, and how it works in cycles. Like a game that adapts to you and your moves.

    Meanwhile, I came across a link that I am yet to fully explore. Maybe you can, and write about your experience in the comments/ your blog. It is titled ‘Ten games that make you think about life‘, and the synopses do make it seem promising. Coincidentally, the first one in the list is ‘Immortall’!

    And while I was writing this, and scanning Google Reader, I came across this link, which talked about a game where Augmented Reality, a new technology that offers a “direct or indirect view of a physical, real-world environment whose elements are augmented by computer-generated sensory input, such as sound or graphics”, was mashed up with “Conway’s game of life“. Though I’m familiar with AR, I’m still reading up on Conway’s Game of Life and it’s fascinating!!

    From the wiki entry “The game can also serve as a didactic analogy, used to convey the somewhat counter-intuitive notion that ‘design’ and ‘organization’ can spontaneously emerge in the absence of a designer. For example, philosopher and cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett has used the analogue of Conway’s Life ‘universe’ extensively to illustrate the possible evolution of complex philosophical constructs, such as consciousness and free will, from the relatively simple set of deterministic physical laws governing our own universe.” Essentially, the game of life could’ve been played out without the designer – God.

    Meanwhile, the new game lets users create their own artificial life and then, through augmented reality, see it ‘live out’ in the real world. We have become creators. Does it go from here to a point where in the far away future, a new strange species looks back and wonders who created them, and gets no answer? Is that how the game is played out?

    until next time, a level playing field?

  • Roleplay

    Jagathy Sreekumar, in my opinion, is one of the finest comedians actors to grace the screen. Probably THE finest. Since he’s acted only in Malayalam movies (over 1000 of them), he’s relatively lesser known to non Keralites. But you don’t have to go away, this is not about him or even Malayalam movies or even movies.

    Contrary to his usual on-screen characters, he’s a very serious person in his media interviews. He was once asked why he accepted all the roles that came to him, and why he wasn’t more choosy, especially since he could afford to. Pat came the reply “I’m a professional. Do you think a doctor should be allowed to choose which patients to accept?”The interviewer predictably moved on to easier pastures.

    This was sometime back, but I was reminded of it during the debate on Tendulkar ‘walking’.  (he walked away despite the umpire signaling ‘not out’) Both Jayawardene and Ponting were clear that they’d walk only after they were declared out. Though I have not always been a Tendulkar fan, I have been an ardent admirer for quite a while now, of the player on the field and the person off it.

    So it was quite a difficult question – the morality of a professional (?) ‘walking’ without considering his responsibilities to the team. (forget the expectations of a nation for now) Was he being selfish – keeping his ‘fair play’ image intact? (though Ganguly claimed Sachin hasn’t always ‘walked’)

    While the moral question lingers, I thought I got an insight into Sachin’s behaviour from this amazing article I read thanks to Roshni. It says that Sachin is a bridge, between two eras of cricket, and he realises the responsibility. As a sport, today’s cricket, both on and off the field, is vastly different from what it used to be, and yes, it is no longer just a sport. As the author quotes “The team’s rabid popularity, is a reflection of rising national ambition, of pride in national achievement.” Maybe Sachin realises a bit beyond this too, and is doing his bit to ensure that in the pursuit of success, a right set of ethos is also kept in mind. Playing the game to win, and playing it fair.

    Jagathy, legendary though he is, perhaps has it easier. There are bigger stars around him who are expected to be role models. He can get away with moral absolutism.  Tendulkar probably has the tougher job – as he charts new territories in terms of matches played, runs scored, centuries made, he also has to navigate new grounds in moral integrity, balancing his own stance with the expectations of a team, a nation and still ensuring that he’s a worthy icon in all respects.

    until next time, Godlike