Slow Down!!!

WARninG: Probably a really crappy post, about all my doubts and insecurities, so I will understand perfectly if you guys skip this one. But its’ better to have these thoughts down here, in the blog, rather than roaming around in my head and ruining all my [few] attempts to study tax.

First off, I set up this blog for one thing, but I have gotten something else from it, altogether. I wanted to see for myself, if I could keep up with the rigour and discipline of regular posts…and apart from two [big] breaks in-between, I think I managed to make time for it, et al. More important, I found that I could actually think of things to say, and write, and communicate, hopefully without completely boring you all.

The subject of this blog, obviously, is not about what I did today, or what dishes I have tried to cook (aka Julie & Julia!), the news of the day, or even exclusively the books I am reading. I wanted to pick one and all of these, arbitrarily, to hold them up to “the cold light of scrutiny”. (Don’t ask me who said that, but its’ a really nice quote; my regards to whomsoever did say it…)

I always, always, have wanted to be able to add that little something to ordinary discussions. For instance, it makes no sense, to me, to say for example, that the GDP of a country is phenomenally high, if you don’t also add that 20% of people hold 80% of wealth. Or vice versa.

And it certainly is no fun, to say that GDP is xxxx billion dollars, but to not use the word “phenomenal”…I bet no one has ever used those words in the same sentence before! :-P

But the one thing I’ve learnt since beginning this blog, is that, that “little something” remains extremely, irrelevantly negligible, if you just keep looking for new “somethings”. My Oxford essay talks about a big potential breakthrough in some theoretical models, because finally, theorists are moving away from a “frenzied race to maximize utility”, and accepting that perfection is impossible in a social science, and imperfection is an acceptable compromise. Oddly, that essay has as much to teach me, as it has, to convey to the rest of the world.

Does this mean my post frequency will come down??? I hope not. Because what I do receive from this blog, is the perfect opportunity to vent all these stupid thoughts, on my hapless, captive (*really sweet smile*) audience. Leaving me free to study for my tax exam.

Bibliophilia: II

I am not even going to attempt to explain my absence. It was inexcusable, but I just couldn’t drag myself to the front of the computer. But I have been reading, instead…and really good books. Anything to keep away from application work!

For one, I read Terry Prachett again, and was disappointed, yet again. As you might remember, I said he was a little erratic – turns out, he only shows isolated flashes of brilliance. The more I read, the more I am let down. I read this book called Pyramids, got through nearly three-quarters of it, seeing as it kept holding out the promise of better reading ahead. Just a thought to the content which was so intriguing…

First, it continues on Prachett’s fictional creation, Discworld. This is a great way to explore what our world could be, if things were just a little different. For instance, theives and assassins are coherently unionized, working in perfect harmony. Something like Godfather, but with a sense of humour as well as honour.

In this book, a frustrated Prince of an undeveloped, insular, desert kingdom, goes out into the urban metropolis, joining the elite assassins. His dad dies, on the eve of graduation…the book follows the newly-crowned assassin-King. When no one in the bureacracy listens, the new King initiates his own system of rescuing condemned prisoners, using the skills of an assassin. Full marks for plot.

But then he ruins it, with math and physics and accounts. The King appoints pyramid builders to build the largest pyramid in history, but the building requires “quantum” calculations to meet deadlines. This backfires, ending with the kingdom itself disappearing into a “crack” in a rock.

Why??? How does this contribute to the plot??? Existential questions of being a microscopic part of a macroscopic world demand a full, separate book. They have nothing to do with mutiny-in-Yes-Minister. The cherry on the cake is, the conversations of the pyramid builders are the funniest, most innovative part of the book.

Bibliophilia - I

I hope to regularly review the books I’m reading in this blog. Of course, that presupposes that I am actually regularly reading something worth commenting on. The reading habit I had in school, has experienced a prolonged Near Death Experience, and it is still touch-and-go…

Anyway, I’m halfway through around 4 different books right now. Reading multiple books simultaneously is another habit I’ve picked up in the last two-three years. It usually means I don’t finish reading much, and I usually can’t figure out which one to read, so I watch TV instead!

The combination I’m reading is pretty great, however. Ernst Hemmingway, The Sun Also Rises, is supposed to have a “terse” writing style, which has “done much for English prose”. It chronicles the lives of the expat community in Paris, don’t remember the time period. It actually has quite a great effect: for instance, there is this one place where the guy is walking back home fast, eager to go to sleep – he sees someone waving at him, but is too much in a hurry to notice who it is – and then, as he nears his flat, he admires a statute. He reads the inscription, but again, doesn’t bother to remember the exact words. And then, he is speaking of how every room in Paris, probably the world, is furnished the same way…

Then I’m reading The Reluctant Fundamentalist. This applies what I like to call the Indo-Pak style of English writing. It is the sort of roll-in-the-back-of-your-throat, meandering style – it takes you from the gullys of Karachi to the skyscrapers of New York, all in the same amused, almost snobby (but not quite), tone. So while the first book is terse, this book is all about long sentences, and rather gentle comparisons. The comparisons, paradoxes, and all other devices of the English language are stark and in-your-face in the first one.

Lastly, I’m reading Shashi Tharoor, India: From Midnight to Millenium. I had read his The Great Indian Novel before, or atleast attempted to do so. It was fantastically written, but at some level, the analogies he was drawing were escaping me. I knew that such-and-such character resembles a certain person in India’s freedom struggle; I knew that such-and-such situation is supposed to be funny – but I didn’t know why. So I’m trying out this book instead.

I’ve not got very far with this book, but the first page was enough to give me some hope! He speaks of an article he wrote when he was nineteen – he actually reproduces three paragraphs – and criticizes the “love for big words” and “over-developed vocabulary”. Sounds like someone you know?

Dusshera

Saraswati Puja is one of the most symbolic Hindu festivals. Which is saying something, because Hinduism is steeped in symbolism.

The whole process of putting chandanam-kumkum on everything in the house – a pretty thankless task which always gets dumped on me – is like an enumeration of the things which matter to you. For theists, it gives god a clear mandate of what to protect. For atheists, it reminds you of what matters to you.

And then, for one full day, you aren’t supposed to touch your work. Socially, that has always been one of the best ways to ensure the health and adequate resting of labour forces. For example, Sabbath. But this, once-in-a-year hands-off rule is a little different. It is an insidious, sleight-of-hand method of making a new years’ resolution, without having to contend with the party-hangover the next day. It literally gives you the permission to turn a new leaf.

You can tell yourself, I might have flunked every single exam in the past year, or maybe even the past 10 or 15 years; but I pray to God today and I can do something different from tomorrow. The one-day no-work rule lets this idea kind of seep into your brain, and breaks the habit of flunking. It is a scientific fact that this is the best method of breaking a habit.

(The psychologist WILLIAM JONES said “Accumulate all the possible circumstances which shall reinforce the right motives; put yourself assiduously in conditions that encourage the new way; make engagements incompatible with the old; take a public pledge, if the case allows; in short, envelop your resolution with every aid you know.” http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/tt8.html)

Someone once told me that this is a stupid practice. “Ayudha” in ayudha puja means weapons – conventionally, prayers were limited to weaponry. Not to the fridges and electrical switches, TVs, books, tennis racquets (!)… let alone cars and cycles. But I think this expansive definition is a good thing. It means that we are moving with the times.

Plus, I like the idea that the Pen can now be mightier than the Sword!!!!

The Profound, the profane, and the personal

This is a long overdue post – I planned this around the beginning of this month, but went into recharge-mode (read: hibernation) as soon as I got home. But I’m back now, and all’s well with the world again. Yay.

Basically, this post is about three things I (had, back then) wanted to vent about. Which one is which, profound, profane or personal, is for you to figure out. In fact, its’ probably going to tell you something about your character, your approach to life – I would love to compare your reactions - but I’m too lazy to psychoanalyze them right now, at 3 AM (again!).

This is also a reeely long post. In my defense, it is basically three posts in one.

Firstly, I’m really glad someone (in my opinion, J.S.MILL!!!! But no need to go into my own issues reg. him, for the sake of non-law readers J) once upon a time decided to bestow all of us with rights. Seriously. The idea that there are some things which are out-of-bounds for me, which, no matter how irritating a person gets, and he/she cannot be deprived of these rights. Because, really, I don’t want to have the responsibility of depriving you of your rights, though I’m not too far from actually doing so.

That was probably a little confusing. What I mean to say is, there are times when I am *this close* to losing my patience with people – slapping sense into them, or shaking them up HARD. In other words, if you are going to frisk me in public, and make me turn out my pockets, (if you had not had rights) I would have certainly done serious damage to you.

Of course, this is a logical fallacy, because if they didn’t have rights, then I should have no moral issue with depriving them of the same. But I doubt if I would ever want to carry with me the responsibility of slapping someone. So, I’m glad they have rights, and I have a legitimate reason to not carry through with my instincts. To just sit back, and hope they eventually spontaneously-combust under the weight of their ignorance.

Now, we come to my second point. There are times when people make you feel sooo small, probably when they are itching to deprive you of your rights. (Yes, that does occasionally happen, even to me!) And this resolves the other great debate – Cats v. Dogs.

Why? Because the Dog is the one you would turn to, when you are feeling so small. It doesn’t matter that you’ve been a complete fool, that you’ve loused-up an important meeting/presentation/whatever; its’ still going to lick you and make you feel better. Cats are just not that altruistic. For the mere moral superiority of the actions of the dog, its worth loving and emulating. Therefore, in my book, being called a “dog” is not disparaging at all.

On the other hand, I know for a fact that much of the conventional stereotype o cats as cold and aloof is not fully substantiated in reality. If an animal finds its way up four floors, and selects the one specific room out of 25 on the floor, mews outside till the person opens up, all at 4 AM…that kind of changes forever your perception of that animal.

Nevertheless, if a ferocious mother-cat can scare the daylights out of a cowardly dog, then anything is possible in this world.

Finally, I painted my room!!!! I first painted the door, and laid the pain on waaay too thick. But that was a good thing, because I still have loads of extra paint, and the door now shines like a mirror. It’s a nice red – probably deep pink, but then I’m colour blind. No more gagging-yellow!!!!

Then, I didn’t manage to clean the brush properly, so when I attempted the wardrobe doors (also had been painted in the yellow, so…) the brush was all stiff and pretty nearly useless. No matter. We are a fearless and careless lot. I went right ahead and scooped the paint onto the door, the best I could.

One door now has a nice air-brushed look to it. The other one came out a bit thicker, almost globb-ier. I don’t yet fully know how they’ve turned out, after they’ve dried. But worst case, I’ll paint over it, or take the turpentine to it.

A vision to carry with you.

I don't know why, but I'm always at my most productive in philosophizing (and, consequently, on the blog) when I have deadlines sitting on my head. Maybe its' my version of procrastination. Whatever.

I was thinking: each of us has our own way of depicting the way we view our world. There is a certain picture which we can always visualize, about each and every interaction we have: almost an undercurrent of cartoony figures living in a parallel universe. I don't think I'd be adequately able to draw an analogy for the whole of my life...I don't think anyone would be able to do that, and that would kinda defeat the purpose, right?

But I can draw one simple analogy - whenever I take up something new, attempt something when I don't quite know how it will work out in the end. Earlier, I used to see this as a fishing expedition; I cast bread in the water, and wait with my fishing-line, ready to reel in the fish which bites. But then, I recently realized that this is a depressing analogy. I mean, fish don't always bite, do they? I suspect all of us entertain an inner fear along these lines - to be unable to come back with fish after our much-touted expeditions.

So, now I'm trying to visualize a new analogy. One really interesting option before me is something I picked up from the Terry Prachett book, Mort. (Btw, Prachett is an absolute must-read!!! Mind-blowing!!!) The analogy is based on this parody of Tibetan philosophy, of a Llama sect which calls itself the "Listeners". They believe energy is never destructed - so the repercussions/remnants of the original energy, responsible for creating the World, must still be in existence. So, if you can find and identify the original energy, you then know the secret to creation.

So, my formulation goes something like this: if energy is never destructed, then if I am thinking on the right frequency, the energy I thereby create cannot be destructed. So, the energy must materialize in the way I want it to, without being affected by any obstacles. My process of attempting something new is nothing but an attempt to find and identify and actually reach the right frequency of thought.

A much more hopeful option, don't you think??? But I'm still open to suggestions on a different visualization!

the source and travails of genius

So, to continue from the previous post - there is something undeniably, intuitively appealing about "pure" genius. As I mentioned earlier, genius can be the great tool for mass emancipation, or it can be the enigmatic tool for class suppression. But what is this notion of genius?
I am seeking to follow singular moments of geniousness - the eureka moments - back to their roots. Its really more of a continuous process, because I've been thinking about this for some time, but still....
Its' very easy to slog for an exam, or mug answers, and then get some apparent success. Case in point, it really gets my goat when some hot-shot asks a standard question in class - for instance, why a certain assumption was made, or why someone would support a certain policy, or when someone gives a really lame counterfactual - I mean, these are certainly important questions to answer, and really fiurther the discussion of the class et al...but its like, you saw someone asking it in some class, and realized the teacher really liked the question...so you parrot the question in every other class you go into. (And the teachers still appreciate the questions, though they must've heard it a million times - not something I'll ever understand.)
But this is clearly not what we mean by genius. Genius is, therefore, in my definition, what hits you when you're not trying too hard. It has to be almost natural, flowing from a fact situation or problem or debate (in this, Ayn Rand lovers would probably agree with me); but it should be distinguishable in that it is the unique interpretation or spin which only the originator of genius can contribute. I mean, it need not be that no one else in the history of this universe has ever come up with that thought; but even if it is concurrent discovery, the independence of thought must still be perceivable.
And lastly, a point which most people forget: practicality. Abstract genius is something which only goes to show that the genius isn't good enough to find a practical manifestation for itself. Abstraction to the point of futility is not evidence of scholarly attainment, but of sub-standard thought. (Of course, in my defense, what amounts to futility is a flexible definition. If the futility is combined with hope for eventual practical manifestation, then it might not be futile anymore.)
When you follow genius to its source, the eureka moment really consists of de-tangling an inconsistency perceived sub-consciously. If I'm reading a certain book, and this seems to disagree with some other book - genius consists in reconciling the two positions: at the very least, understanding where both come from, so practical conversation between the conflicting positions might be enabled. This is something which anyone can do, and genius, therefore, is not something unsurmountably seperating the Mensa-potential and the Dumb population in the world.
My own pet theory is, given the layers and layers of psychosis which each of uys carry around with us, the only substantive difference between the Mensa-potential and the Dumb, is the fact that the Dumb don't actually want to be smart. Or their perception of what is smartness, or what they want from their lives, is different; so they don't try hard enough.
Superficially, this seems an extremely snobby, elitist theory. But just give it a shot - watch the Dumb people (we all know tre types I'm talking about), and their reactions and thought processes. They would rather just fit in, or rather give out the standard question/answer for assured social acceptance of the same. This is what actually happens around you.
And then try to work, in the privacy of your room, perhaps in the middle of the night, or the crack of dawn. When you are working for yourself, and not for anyone else. And you'll find that thinking smart, thinking genius, is not that difficult after all. I don't, of course, refer to things like vocab or formulae, which need months to be absorbed into the brain - just try disentangling a conundrum of any sort. A mental challenge.
I am actually thinking that doing one GRE practice test a day is really stimulating, and even fun: maybe I should stick with it even after the exam tomorrow. Such atypial activity help your brain remain active - I think it has something to with exercising unused meural pathways.
But the downside of this philosophy is, its a heavy obligation to carry individually. Your mind doesn't mind working for long hours everyday, but your body definitely protests. You might have a brilliant idea in the middle of the night - but your body DOES NOT want to get out of bed, cut into sleeping-time, and follow up each and every idea you have.
Finally, we are left with the age-old question of just how much pace you can sustain in your life. Is it worth it to you to spend every waking moment, and then some, in the furtherence of some chosen cause? Or, like me, do you want a little bit of everything? Can you juggle a personal life and a challenging career, and make time for genius as well? Better still, can you integrate all of this into one stunning mosaic????
Make no mistake, genius is exhausting and demanding. But it is fun, and is well worth the effort.
Knowing its worth the effort, for some reason, is not sufficient incentive for me to take up and make good all the diversity and experimentation I had planned for this blog. So, you are stuck with my philospohizing, atleast for the time being.