Dasvidaniya

This Hindi movie raised some thoughts in me:

Amar the terminally ill patient displays the character of a man who is ready to give up those things that he loves most, to keep others happy. And yet, he has to be the one who has to suffer and die. As we have all heard before, good people usually die young. Maybe this is the way God rewards good people - by taking them to a better place than this bad, bad world, which is not the ultimate reality.

What disappoints me is those people who believe in actions more than in words, are the ones who aren't ultimately understood properly. They are the ones who don't get to enjoy the small things that make normal people happy. Like movies, like a game of ping pong, with the people they really love selflessly. It maybe a convoluted argument, but I am not interested in logic. What saddens me is the way some people make very important judgment calls in life, based on small things, but not big things.

I believe in equilibrium. The very thing that looks beautiful to you when you are happy, will look extremely ugly when you are angry and frustrated. So, what is the truth? The truth is in you, not the thing you are looking at. Base your judgments on things like this - yourself, not on things that aren't real. True happiness comes from transcending yourself. Like the psychologist Maslow said, you can go beyond self-actualization to self-transcenence when you see others enjoying the fruits of your selfless hard work. Like your kids and relatives. But when you dig deeper, you begin to think why you should be happy only when you see YOUR people happy? Doesn't unconditional love dictate that you want everyone, and then moving on to all life, every creature, to be happy? I believe that is when you visualize the solution to the mind-body problem, your soul gets liberated, and you become one with God.

What on earth is Godlessness?

By definition, God is omnipresent. (God is everywhere)

How then, can anything be Godless? That would only point to the irrationality of the subject, wouldn't it?

What do you need in life?

"What is the most important thing that every human being needs?" I guess that's an important question every one of us have asked ourselves at some point in our lives. "What do I want in life? What do I need? What do I do to get what I want? How do I become great?", are all questions we have all posed to our inner minds right before we fell asleep.

I have thought about these things for a while, and I came up with a theory about needs and wants. For every human, there is a fine line that divides his needs from his wants. Once these needs are fulfilled, he goes on to get what he wants. And that line is subjective - ever-changing with time, space, thought and emotion. So, what is that we all need that is never changing? I came up with a hypothesis. Just like any other idea we have already had we but never published because it's not our field, this has already been published by some domain expert decades ago.

Abraham Maslow's "Hierarchy of needs" is strikingly similar to my theory of human needs and wants.



If you read the Wikipedia article about it here, and look at the criticism section, you will find that, surprisingly, it didn't receive any logical or rational criticism. Someone said there exists no such hierarchy and our needs are non-hierarchical, and dismissed it saying it cannot be proved. "So narrow-minded", I thought. Maybe he should have just said "That theory is not falsifiable, hence not scientific." Unfortunately, that guy didn't provide any alternative hypotheses that ARE falsifiable. And he says poverty is any of these needs being unfulfilled. I thought the definition of poverty was the inadequate availability of fundamental human needs like food, water, clothing and shelter.

It's very interesting when Marlow says that self-transcendence exceeds self-actualization, and that too, near the end of his life. Reminds me of our duties to do something about global warming, it does.

Good = 3, bad = 11

Lorenz's Law of Mechanical Repair:
After your hands become coated with grease, your nose will begin to itch.

When your hands don't get covered with grease and your nose begins to itch, you scratch the itch and then forget about it. How many itches that you scratched in your life do you now remember?

Anthony's Law of the Workshop:
Any tool, when dropped, will roll to the least accessible corner.

If the tool drops right next to your feet, you pick it up and go on with your job. Do you commit that to memory?

Kovac's Conundrum:
When you dial a wrong number,you never get an engaged one.

If you DO get an engaged tone, you wouldn't notice if it was a wrong number.

Cannon's Karmic Law:
If you tell the boss you were late for work because you had a flat tire, the next morning you will have a flat tire.

You will remember your previous day's lie because it turned real today. Would you remember it if it didn't?

O'brien's Variation Law:
If you change queues, the one you have left will start to move faster than the one you are in now.

You will go on to buy your ticket if the queue you just moved into moves faster. Will you notice the queue that moves slower than yours?

----------------
Why am I doing this - asking if you remember? I want to prove that people forget the good that happen to them much more easily than the bad that happens to them. I read an NYTimes survey that found that on an average, a person tells 3 people about a product he liked, but 11 people about a product he didn't like. See? This is why right is harder and wrong is easier much more often than not - in fact, 11/3 times more often.

The coolest way to handle terrorism

This is in response to my previous posts, Inward and Outward Terrorism, and The importance of humanization. I have found the answer to my questions. The Saudi government has a rehabilitation facility for convicted terrorists that follows the same principles that I have been advocating in those posts. Look at this BBC article here about that facility. Do you know their ideology?

"You cannot defeat an ideology by force. You have to fight ideas with ideas."

Isn't that amazing? I am a thousand percent for it (I will even donate if I can), if India or the US implements something like that to combat terrorism from outside and within.

Of what use is culture and religion?

I came to discuss this in one of my peer groups in an email thread, and I thought it would be more useful to post it on my blog.

Of course, religion is an important part of any culture. I concur. As with any aspect of human life, every religion has its own huge or minor peccadillos. And from the mere existence of multiple forms of cultures and religions in the world itself, we can logically infer that no culture or religion is inherently better than or superior to another - the same argument again - better is logically meaningless. Religion is part of a culture, but culture by itself is mostly defined by the symbolism followed by its people. Culture helps shed ignorance among people and helps them get onto to "higher and better things".

Vivekananda explains this concept using an example of a sage demonstrating it to a him. Link here:

"Many years ago, I visited a great sage of our own country, a very holy man. We talked of our revealed book, the Vedas, of your Bible, of the Koran, and of revealed books in general. At the close of our talk, this good man asked me to go to the table and take up a book; it was a book which, among other things, contained a forecast of the rainfall during the year. The sage said, "Read that." And I read out the quantity of rain that was to fall. He said, "Now take the book and squeeze it." I did so and he said, "Why, my boy, not a drop of water comes out. Until the water comes out, it is all book, book. So until your religion makes you realise God, it is useless. He who only studies books for religion reminds one of the fable of the ass which carried a heavy load of sugar on its back, but did not know the sweetness of it."

So, my point is this: until your culture/religion makes you realize God, it's useless. After you realize God, it's then also useless. Its only use is when it's put to its intended use. That is what I mean when I say religion is useless. For example, take the bindi on a married woman's forehead. It's intended use is to symbolize the sacred connection between husband and wife. For people who don't know its intention, it's an important aspect of mockery and comedy in other countries. "The dot", they call it. "It's a camera!" "Scratch it, you might win something" are their ways of making fun of it. And most young women in this generation no longer see its intended purpose, and thus they don't wear it anymore.

And coming to the discussion of the European origins of Hinduism and the Indic languages, it's very useful to notice the roots of our languages: Sanskrit, Hindi, Telugu, etc - they are categorized in the Indo-Iranian branch of the tree of the Indo-European languages (tree image here). Linguists have believed for over a century that all the Indo-European languages originate from one common language that they call the Proto-Indo-European language (link here). This supports the Aryan migration theory.

Inward and Outward Terrorism

As far as I know, there are two kinds of people when it comes to dealing with adversity. Ones who turn inward and ones who turn outward. The ones who turn inward hang themselves or jump off a cliff, and the ones who turn outward get a gun and start shooting students in classrooms. We all know that the casualties are much more for the outward-turning people. And it's a pretty good estimate of the paap they committed. And most of them are what we call terrorists, right? We call them that, but that is not what they call themselves.

The inward turning guys do think a little about turning outward and doing random killings, but they couldn't live with the shame of atrocities they would have committed. Because in their world, they will be lonely after that. Their life won't improve, because they will either go to jail or lead a life of eternal anonymity from thereon, and this won't be any better than the one they have already been living before they self-destructed.

The outward-turning guys - they don't care about the shame. They feel the shame, maybe too little to be ever admitted even to themselves, but they feel it. It's masked by feelings of victory and achievement. It's masked by a sense of contribution to their race or ethnicity. It's masked by the sweetness of revenge. And they get addicted to it. They do more of it, because they need it to protect themselves and their family, and they want it, because they are soldiers now. Soldiers of peace, or holy soldiers. Or warriors of god. They portray themselves in a positive sense. Not just positive, but the highest sense of self there is. But they drown themselves in this ocean of feelings of success, and eventually they don't notice that what change they wanted from other people didn't come.

Both of them are wrong, and stupid.

The ones who turn inward and self-terminate - they need self-discovery and they need to learn about themselves. They need another chance. Because complacency is what they couldn't live with. They want to achieve something, but they don't have the resources. They can't think of anyway to change their life. Some do - they give up everything and run away from home. They will be free and happy - even for a short while, because their life is in their own hands now. Nobody is around to tell them what to do all the time - even if they lead their life on the lowest rung of the social and economic ladder.

The ones who turn outward and exterminate the "traitors" and harm-doers - they too need a chance. And you know what the difference is? People are too scared of being hurt, that they don't even give them the chance to learn from their mistakes and do something good. We see cases where some of them learn that this a wrong way to lead a life, and give it up and surrender. They enter what resembles "witness-protection". This is also a life of anonymity, but it's not filled with shame. It's now filled with a sense of lifelong achievement. This is mild and positive. Everybody is scared to give them a chance. And this is where the government must step in - because the government exists to do what people cannot do by themselves. Give them a chance and a different spatio-temporal identity forever, and they will (surprisingly more often than we expect them to) CHOOSE IT.

This would be my way of dealing with adversity. Of course, there will be those who won't listen. There will be those who will continue to do what they believe in, even if everyone in their little world thinks it's wrong and despicable. For the inward-turning half of them, let God give them a better existence either in their next life, or after life. For the remaining outward-turning, adamant guys, harsh action is the way to go. And this must be the last option in the list.

The importance of humanization

http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/example/heim6314.htm

Read this article about humanization and de-humanization. It explains why negotiation with the "bad guys" is important. It explains why it's extremely important to see their human side.

I have an idea, a vague idea about a hypothetical talk show:

The President/Prime minister (P) versus a supporter of harsh action against the "bad guys" (S)

P: Take this philanthropist X. do you think he loves this work?
S: Yes
P: Take this normal guy/your relative/you/. do you think he loves his wife/children?
S: Yes
P: Take this drug user/acquitted murder suspect/similar personality. Do you think he loves his family?
S: Yes
P: This character X: do you think he does? X must be a person whose activities must be in controversy that have never been proved/disproved.
Do you think he does?
S: Yes, I know where you're going.
P: I am glad you're intelligent enough to know/not stupid enough not to know.
Now , take this Guantanamo bay detainee who was falsely detained. Do you think he does?
S: Yes
P: Take this convicted felon - do you think he does?
S: Yes
P: Do you think this convicted terrorist does?
S: Yes
P: So, you agree that all these people have a human side and are capable of experiencing both positive and negative human emotions and rational thought?
S: Yes
P: So, what makes you think they are not open to negotiation, logical arguments and rational discussion?


The character of S looks very dumb here, while most S's are very clever or they argue like one.

This piece needs a lot more work for a final draft to come out, but i may never have that time in my life, so, this might be it :)