29 December, 2010

Exception to the case of 'Repellent likes'

Physics being the denominator of all science, is based on the fundamental fact that 'likes repel', whereas 'unlikes would rather attract', when put in a very blunt manner. Without trying to repeat the obviousness of the presented factual statement, and presuming that my audience is able to comprehend it in full context, I would be already delving to the point of contention in this post: Exceptions to the case of 'Repellent likes'.

The exception being dealt with is not necessarily bound by the laws of Physics as we know today. And this makes this case of exception abstract in nature to a certain extent, as it operates at the intersections of the mental and social spaces.

Quite many of my posts and conversations would regularly aspire for, and invoke a sect of like-minded people. In one such interaction with one other like-minded friend, I happened to state "Like minds do not repel". But, even before I had completed saying it, I felt necessitated to justify 'the almost grueling friction' which is so inherent to the interactions amongst, for instance within my own limited diaspora of resonating minds.

With some extra contemplation on these lines, although I was convinced of the friction prevalent, I did realize it was no repulsion that is manifested. It is more of the inherent attribute of such a diaspora, which culminates to become a process of refinement. If i were feeling poetic right now, I could go on to use the simile, and say,
Like the tough abrasion necessary to bring out the luster in diamonds

Apart from this friction that yields betterment, such interactions facilitate freducheying, churning out some of the most wonderful by-products, in the form of sparkling ideas bouncing off each other's adamant convictions.

The seemingly repellent interactions amongst like minded people are actually synergistic in nature, and churn out ideas: Ideas that are immortal. 

25 December, 2010

ಪಂಚರಂಗಿ ಮಾತುಗಳು

ಬಹಳ ಅಂತರದ ನಂತರ, ಒಂದು ಆಹ್ಲಾದಕರ ಕನ್ನಡ ಚಿತ್ರವನ್ನು  ನೋಡುವ ಅವಕಾಶ ದೊರಕಿತು. ಯೋಗರಾಜ ಭಟ್ಟರ 'ಪಂಚರಂಗಿ', ಒಂದು  ಸರಳವಾದ ಮನೋರಂಜಕ ಚಿತ್ರ. ಇದರಲ್ಲಿ ಬಹಳ ಗಂಭೀರವಾದ ವಿಷಯವಾಗಲಿ, ವಸ್ತುವಾಗಲಿ   ಪ್ರಸ್ತಾಪಿಸದೆ, ಸಣ್ಣದೊಂದು ಕಥೆಯನ್ನು ಒಳ್ಳೆಯ ಸಂಗೀತ, ಸಂಭಾಷಣೆಗಳ ಅಭಿರುಚಿಯಿಂದ ಸೇರಿಸಿಸಿ ನಿರೂಪಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ.

ಇಂದಿನ ಕರಾವಳಿ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕದ ಕಲಾಚಾರದಲ್ಲಿ  ನಡೆಯುವ ಎರಡು ದಿನಗಳ ಘಟನೆಗಳನೂ, ಎರಡು ತಾಸುಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಅತ್ಯಂತ ಸೌಂದರ್ಯವಾಗಿ ಸೆರೆಹಿಡಿದು ಆಹ್ಲಾದಕರವಾಗಿ ನೀಡಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಭಟ್ಟರ ತಂಡ.
ಹಾಡುಗಳಿಗಿಂತಲೂ, ಚಿತ್ರದ ನಾಯಕನಟ ನುಡಿಯುವ ಸಂಭಾಷಣೆಯು, ಆಧುನಿಕ ಕವಿತೆಗಳಂತೆ ರಂಜಕವಾದ್ಗಿದ್ದವು. ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಮಾತುಗಳಿಗೂ 'ಗಳು' ಪ್ರತ್ಯಯವನ್ನು ಸೇರಿಸಿ ಆಡುವ ಸಂಭಾಷಣೆಯು ತೀವ್ರ ಕಲ್ಪನೆ, ಹಾಗು ವ್ಯಂಗ್ಯದ  ತುತ್ತತುದಿಎನ್ನಿಸುತ್ತದೆ. ಇದು, ಈ ಚಿತ್ರದ ಬಲವೆಂದೂ ಹೇಳಬಹದು.

ನನಗೆ ಇಷ್ಟವಿರುವ ಸಂಭಾಷಣೆಯ ತುಣುಕುಗಳು:
"sslc-ಗಳು, puc-ಗಳು, cet-ಗಳು,
ಇಂಜಿನೀರಿಂಗು,  ಪಂಜಿನೀರಿಂಗು,  ಮೆಡಿಕಲ್-ಗಳು,
ಹಲ್ಲು ,ಕಿವಿ,  ಮೂಗು,  ಬಾಯಿ,  ಡಾಕ್ಟರಗಳು
ಕೈ ಬೀಸಿ  ಕರೆದು,  ಕೆರದಲ್ಲಿ  ಹೊಡೆವ syllabus-ಗಳು
ಪಾಸು  ಮಾಡಲು  ಮನಸೇ  ಬಾರದ  ಕೋರ್ಸುಗಳು;
ಕಷ್ಟದ  ಸೀಟುಗಳು, ಗುತ್ತಿಗೆ donation-ಗಳು ,
ಸತ್ತರು parents-ಗಳು, ಇದ್ದರು  students-ಗಳು ."

"ಕಣ್ಣು ಹಾಯಿಸಿದಲೆಲ್ಲ ತೆಂಗಿನಮರಗಳು, 
ಅಪ್ಪಿ ತಪ್ಪಿ ಕೆಮ್ಮಿದರೆ ಕುಸಿದು ಬೀಳುವ ದೊಡ್ಡ ಮನೆಗಳು, 
ಹಾಗು ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ ಬದುಕುತ್ತಿರುವ ಜನರು;"

"ದೀರ್ಘ ದಂಡ ನಮಸ್ಕಾರಗಳು,
ಅದೇ ಲಂಗ-ಬ್ಲೌಸುಗಳು, ಕುಂಕುಮಗಳು-ಬಳೆಗಳು,
ಭಾರತೀಯ ಹೆಣ್ಣು ಮಕ್ಕಳುಗಳು, 
ಆವಾಗ ಇದ್ದರು, ಈವಾಗ ಇಲ್ಲ "

21 December, 2010

The ever eluding change

Most of us profusely talk about change. It has come to be inherited in our social behavior. We feel compellingly necessitated about change, or at least to talk, or to be part of a talk about change. The problem herewith is the extent, quality and feasibility of the change we are envisaging, and how we intend to accomplish it?

Before answering these questions,let us try to be honest:
Most of the times, all of the talks we hear about 'Change' end up being merely self-approving, and/or pretentiously show that we are somehow concerned about the events around us. With some help from deep introspection, we would easily arrive at the cognizance of it being plain superficial.
Unfortunate as it is, we cannot afford to disregard this behavior, as there is a huge section of the society affiliated to such a school of thought.

When change is what we aspire for; be it within or outside oneself, it eludes us. It is the nature of change to be elusive. To bring about the change we really want to, beyond the captivating speeches and obscuring ideas, it takes a clear vision backed by immense efforts:
Focussed efforts directed towards a clear vision.

Talking is good, but only talking is catastrophically bad.
We need to transcend from the monotonous monologues of the verbal sphere to the actual action sphere. We need to firstly, and most importantly dissect our own belief system, to see what we aspire for.
If we are able to endorse ourselves to an already existing like-minded sect, very well. Else, we need to necessarily build one such sect. The power of individually identical but conforming thoughts, coupled with synergistic actions have never failed to shake up the world.

Aspirations to bring about change come as a reaction to the extremities we impulsively observe in our daily life. Without grooming our understanding and/or without equipping ourselves with the quintessential implements to enable us in persistently holding on to our convictions, there is no hope of bringing any substantial change. To counter the elusiveness inherent to change, we need to strengthen our convictions as well:

Focussed efforts directed towards a clear vision emanating from strong convictions, 
else change shall continue to elude the pseudoers...


16 December, 2010

IDE-Ideating Development Environment

Well, the title might seem a little unnatural to the post, as has been the case for the recent few posts. Nevertheless, the content of this post does converge really well with my thoughts right now. I am contemplating the infrastructure and dependencies for an individual to ideate.

A frame of reference derived from the society, to gauge any work we do is the measure against which the society values our work.
Everything is relative when seen outside us. On the contrary, the value we give to our creations such as ideas/art/work from within is 'absolute', and at the zenith of the self evaluation scheme, unless, someone is bitten by an inferiority complex-inducing bug. 
Once these creations from within are let out, away from the creator, to the outside world, that is when the societal evaluation either degrades or betters the value of it, in a manner relative to the external frames of reference.

The challenge for an individual is to be immune to this external evaluation, both during the creation and after outputting the same.
There might be some instances when we do seek such references, and these must be in congruency with the quality and depth of the individual's mind and character. Charlatanry would be the obvious weed, and one must grow to recognize and differentiate it.

Personally, I try never to look for, or look at the external frames of reference, while I churn out the best in me. Seeking inspiration from outside the individual is different from seeking recognition, even before creation. Always, I presume that any external frame of reference would stand intimidated within the realms of my ideation.
This mustn't be interpreted as ego, or over-confidence: I can go on to say that there is nothing called as over-confidence; Confidence is one thing, we either have or don't.
Never mind, talking further I have inculcated this trait in me consciously - To be oblivious of the frames of reference, and output my ideas in an independent manner.

I must admit that most of the times, the result is far superior than in comparison with the rest of the frames of references, whereas, there are a few instances which due to the inherent lack of multitudes of perceptions within one mind, end up being trivial. And, these are the conditions which seldom necessitate that we do consider the other frames of references, but restricted to a trusted diaspora.

PS: To understand this post better, think of the external frames of refernces as 'mental apparatus' of (people) minus (the individual).

11 December, 2010

The Corruption Saaku Campaign - Bengaluru

Bengaluru is witnessing one of the peak periods of protests and campaigns as a result of the reckless attitude of the Government ,here in Karnataka by the BJP, and then at the Centre by the UPA-2.

While Karnataka is being branded the 'Most Corrupt state of India', from being the 'Haven for IT and development', Citizens seem to have finally started bothering about it beyond their coffee discussions and newspaper reads.

Manifesting their concern today, a whole bunch of e-networked tax-paying professionals, students from a set of colleges, few NGO's and the organizers together held the "Corruption Saaku Campaign", as a part of the National Campaign Against Corruption.

I came across this initiative in a mailing list, and was following up their developments for the past week.
Today, I did participate in the Corruption Saaku Campaign to voice my opinion, and more so to see what solutions were being churned and presented in this initiative.

The turn out was really good: There were about 400-500 of us, and the Walk from Kanteerva Stadium to Shantinagar Grounds did make the rest of the public attend to. The T-shirts, posters, stickers, handouts, slogans and banners did convey the intentions of the rally in an attractive manner. The walk lasted about an hour, and at the end of it all of us gathered at the Shantinagar Grounds. I was more keen on the propositions that would be presented at the venue by the Organizers of this event, to get insight into the future actions.

Before analyzing the objectives and measures, and their feasibility presented here, it would be of interest to analyze the variety of people gathered for this campaign.
As mentioned earlier, major portion of it were tax-paying professionals and students, with a few activists from the various NGO's organizing this event. It definitely did not represent all the sections of people who are being affected by this "Multi-headed and tentacled demon called Corruption", as put by one of the participants.
Given that this is the start of a prospective mass movement as portrayed by everyone, it would have been appropriate to include people from all sections of the society. As for today's proceedings, I see no initiatives on those lines happening.

Further, the course of actions, future objectives, which are of more import did end up disappointing me.
The speakers were hinting at empowering the vigilance institutions, increasing the powers of Lokayukta, citizens abstaining from giving bribes, and other measures which I believe would only act at the superficial level. There were no clear measures discussed as to how the "Rotten system"could be cleansed.
It appears that the inherent flaws in the system which invite Corruption to breed would be left untouched,  as a temporary solution the weeds would be chopped off only from the surface.

And no agenda or course of actions were presented which would guide this movement to grow and take a better shape in future.

I am not complaining about the efforts put today. These were genuine enough, but without the long term vision of eradicating a deep rooted parasite like Corruption entirely, it wouldn't bring about any real and permanent change in the system. Attempts to tackle such perils from the surface will only give temporary solace and will be infested again.

All the passion shown today by the concerned citizens should be enveloped together, bringing together people from all sections of the society.
They must be guided with a vision to cleanse the system from its roots. That is when protests, campaigns and attempts to bring about movements such as today's can sustain, and, at the least embark upon the path of salvaging people from the current hostile conditions of the society.

07 December, 2010

Dawkins dawns Darwin upon me

Of the few important people who have had substantial influence on me, Professor Richard Dawkins is the latest addendum. He comes late, but will certainly have (had?) a profound impact on my frame of thought. I am the most and wholly conformed to him than any other intellect I revere. And I have reached that state of conformity after checking up all the arguments he presents in a convincing manner, as encouraged by him.

I am yet to read him ( will soon start to), but have watched almost all of his talks and certainly all of his documentaries. While watching him talk in the convincing attempts of elucidating obvious facts about life and nature, which are easily ignored under the blanket of religion and other correlated fallibilities; And also while tackling the absurdity spilled by ignorance; I can recognize a portion of my own longing and aspirations in him. Prof.Dawkins has already inspired me to take up the cause which he has worked his entire life: To stand up for the truth, substantiated by reasoning and evidence.

Personally, I have gradually grown to be an ardent atheist in the last few years. The obvious conflicts of reasons like the supernatural, destiny, after life and miracles were long conquered by my own attempts of understanding, facilitated by Science all along. But, the usual conflict any atheist would have to face: Hurting the 'feelings' of the believers in quest to cognizance, was keeping me from taking a strong public stand.

Prof. Dawkins has guided me through this process of equipping myself to take a strong stand, even if I supposedly hurt the feelings of others. These 'feelings' weren't to be there at the first place; People who realize it and shed the carapace of irrationality would not feel hurt.But, the adamant and reluctant ones who fail to understand and comprehend the grand truth professed by Science ought to be brought out of the delusion, and if it takes to hurt their unreasonable feelings ,then better we shatter those.

Facts, sometimes are obvious with all the evidence scattered all around us. We still fail to recognize them and stay blind. This sort of voluntary blindness, would transform to become the foundation for a deepening state of ignorance. This is a peril which would not only affect the individual, but will go on to hamper the entire society.
Tackling such atrocities from the root would require the activated ones, or the atheists to spread their religion of truth and reason; And as Prof.Dawkins calls it, we need to endorse Militant Atheism, by which he implies that we go out and speak up, take a stand and counter the religious fanaticism with loud truths, facts and reasoning of Science.

Clarification: I was a Darwinian even before Prof.Dawkins happened to me. The post title seemed better put the way it is.

PS: Some of the best things ever said, and here's all of my favorite by Prof.Dawkins

“After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with color, bountiful with life. Within decades we must close our eyes again. Isn’t it a noble, an enlightened way of spending our brief time in the sun, to work at understanding the universe and how we have come to wake up in it? This is how I answer when I am asked—as I am surprisingly often—why I bother to get up in the mornings.”

"Religion is about turning untested belief into unshakable truth through the power of institutions and the passage of time."

“Dawkins’ Law of the Conservation of Difficulty states that obscurantism in an academic subject expands to fill the vacuum of its intrinsic simplicity”

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

"By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out."

More on http://richarddawkinsfoundation.org/

06 December, 2010

Blinding power of solidarity

I was lucky enough to witness the sheer magnificence and grandeur of Music Choirs yesterday, in Bangalore. It was scintillating, and  a sublime musical experience. Live music is always more powerful than the recorded counterpart, and this was manifested to me in full strength in a reputed institution's annual Christmas event.

While the music was intoxicating, I was also witnessing an undercurrent of a very very powerful human devised tool - Faith.

Not only in yesterday's event, but all the grand religious and spiritual events of Hinduism,or Islam, the power exalted by the solidarity and  bonding, centered around the unrealistic Hope as the reason is mind boggling.
It is almost unfathomable to me, to understand how people are convinced beyond doubts about the hope they exhibit in the divine powers! Although, it is very pleasant to witness such events of solidarity, with bubbling love and hope, I am forced to think of the consequences of such activities, which drift people away from the reality, deluding them all life.

Not to mention the narrow mindedness and seclusions which are inherent to religions. Although, each boasts of secularism and coexistence it has been evident in various points of time in the history, till the present day how faith and religion ultimately take up the shape of fanaticism, hampering the society in a profound manner.

At this juncture, I find it timely to clarify a standpoint which a certain few of you have been asking me:

I am not 'for' any of the religions, but against all of them. 

People must be able to live lives which are not fake based on lifelong hoaxes!
We, being the so called 'rational' beings must exhibit this trait not individually, but as a combined entity. In this direction, we have lot of work to be done.

Finally, not to  blame the music; Music is an intoxicator, and an efficient one.  To use such a beautiful thing to convey permanent unrealism is disheartening.

02 December, 2010

Focussed to distract

Focus and distractions are another pair of coexistent conflicting opposites, I should concur.

It must have been a few minutes since the post title, and while trying to contemplate content for jotting down here, I find myself wandering in the cyberspace, away from my draft board.
This has been the case with me for all the time I remember about myself,with respect to all the work I have done. It might seem that my activities emanate out of strict or near disciplined focus. But, seldom has that been the case. Intermittent, but regular impulses of involuntary focus is what I can attribute myself with.
By which I mean,

Personally, it has been tough to get me to do what I do, for, all i want to do is not always what I get to do. 

This seems quite natural, and correlative to most of our mindsets.

Inculcating focus and attention is subjectively relative. As in, it is absolutely independent of individual and the subject, but has all to do with the relation between the two. The intrigue or, the incentive an individual aspires out of the interaction with the subject is what would decide the extent of focussed attention he/she would allocate to all the entities around.

Nevertheless, if one wants to analyse the psychological algorithm behind the switching mechanism from being focussed to distracted, or vice versa, a personal, ironical experience might help:

The moment I get conscious of either being focussed or distracted, I am involuntarily found switched to the other mode. 

PS: Focussed to distract, and vice versa


Related Posts with Thumbnails