A stormy night... the perfect backdrop for a story to begin.
She looked out and had a slightly sinking feeling. There was no way she could go out. She looked around helplessly, trying to evaluate all the methodologies for escape. None seemed viable.
She was stuck. It was one of those things that are difficult to digest, but nonetheless, have the signs for a potential adventure. She sat on a chair. Around her were others who felt just as helpless. Not much could be done except make light talk and stare at those talking on phone to the 'outside world'.
It was quite a scene in the office building on 26/07 - the day Mumbai got flooded.. the primary reason being that no-one (no BMC, weather dept, Bejan Daruwala) could forecast that there would be such rains. And not being able to forecast before the showers is still somewhat acceptable. But what about the forecasts after the torrential rains start pouring? 'Probably 2 more hours', 'is it only in this area of Mumbai?', 'how many inches do you think this is?'.
No one in the office had a clue. All communication channels were severed.
The building being a fancy glass-cladded building, it was ensured that there could be no leakage of the conditioned air.. which in turn implied that there were hardly any windows.
So, stuck on the 14th floor with several other employees in darkness at mid-night, with the cell-phone serving no more than a paper-weight, and sweating and smelling within the suffocating shut-window area, I sat happily.
After the initial sense of confusion and turbulence, comes the stage of excitement for the ensuing adventure.
What is it about adventure? What was it that I felt that night that I have treasured since then? Why do I wish that at least once in my lifetime I get to see the oxygen mask drop on me in an airplane (if not get to use the life-jacket)?
Contrary to what the media has to say, I believe that we live in an inherently safe society. We have come a long way in dispensing off the thrills of the dangers faced by our ancestors. And this lack of thrill in an 'aam aadmi's' life makes his/her life a wee-bit incomplete. And that's what gets us excited when we read 'sensational' news. We take vicarian pleasures in our fellow 'aam aadmis'' more thrilling lives. We get rather excited when we hear tales from the eye-witnesses of crimes, catastrophes, scandals.
There is a certain amount of thrill that is desirable. We would certainly not like it to cost us our health or peace of mind. However, an uneventful life pushes one to take extreme steps to feel the thrill.
The movie "The Game" is a wonderful story based on similar grounds.
I wonder what it would feel like to be caught in war, in a revolution, to be part of a military organization, to hold a fire-arm, or have one placed on the forehead?
How would one react? It seems that one cannot know oneself completely until one is exposed to a variety of situations. It is tempting to envy those whose lives are at greater risks, of course, with the greater 'rewards' of adrenaline-pumpings.
In any case, the night stay at the office on 26/07 was brilliant, with random people chatting animatedly about random topics under candlelight. Not all storms are bad.
Sunday, November 08, 2009
Friday, October 30, 2009
Shares of life?
A Company is owned by share-holders who nominate a 'management team' to manage the company for them.
What is the aim of the management team? Is it to run the company smoothly, ensure the brand-name is created/maintained, keep the employers happy? Perhaps.
What are the financial aims of the management, or more appropriately, the corporate finance team/dept?
Is it to increase profitability? Increase Sales? Increase volumes? Increase Profit Margin?
It is tough to make any of these as the aim. For instance, increasing profitability seems like a sound goal, and a seemingly innocuous one. But then, it has to be quantified. Profitability for the next year, or the one after that, or all years? Can they use inferior raw-material and sell at the same price to increase profits? Increase Sales? A statement like: "The goal is to increase profitability" leaves a lot of room for misinterpretation or misrepresentation of the motives of the share-holders (the guys who own the company).
A beautiful and strikingly clear goal for the Finance team is to "Increase the share value".
This takes into account everything. The increase in share value implies that the 'worth' of the company has increased. The share-holders cannot help but be happy with this.
It might seem obvious (what-was-so-ooh-lala-about-this) to someone. But any other goal is tainted with un-clarity. Once you have such a goal (and of course a set of ethical codes), it simplifies the decision-making process.
I can almost imagine the guy (guys? team? reasearch group? confederation?) that came up with this idea that all the finance group had to do was try to legitimately increase the share-value. They would have solved a deep-rooted question of corporate finance. And made it, at least coming up with a target, a cake-walk for the rest.
I wish a guy (guys? team? blah blah) come up with a similar rule for living life. There are many theories to what would make a 'successful liver', just like what would make for a 'successful' finance team.
One can say that a desirable goal of life is to increase happiness (similar to increasing profitabilty). But this statement is un-clear, just like 'increasing profitability' is unclear. You could cheat through a test and score high and the high score might make you happy... and the cheating may not necessarily make you that sad/guity. The classic question is that would you try to be happy at the cost of someone else's happiness, just like would you try to make profits by harming the competitor's product?
You could. And you could justify that the statement 'increasing happiness' didn't have any clauses.
But is there an equivalent of 'increasing share-value' for the conundrum of life?
The thrill is in making profits.... but in different ways - taking the challenge of making a non-performing assets profitable, finding a niche market for your product and booking profits, positioning yourself to make profits, obtaining cheap loans and making profits, making a loss in your debut venture and yet seeing the profit of knowledge in it.
And similarly, the thrill is in being happy. And that is, similarly, through different avenues - participating in an adventure and being happy, laughing madly at a joke, feeling thankful, being appreciated, and even getting stressed for an interview would constitute happiness. You would want to make the most of all of these channels for happiness.
But what would be that one line - one phrase that could sum it all up, make a clear goal and make life 'easier' for the rest?
What is the aim of the management team? Is it to run the company smoothly, ensure the brand-name is created/maintained, keep the employers happy? Perhaps.
What are the financial aims of the management, or more appropriately, the corporate finance team/dept?
Is it to increase profitability? Increase Sales? Increase volumes? Increase Profit Margin?
It is tough to make any of these as the aim. For instance, increasing profitability seems like a sound goal, and a seemingly innocuous one. But then, it has to be quantified. Profitability for the next year, or the one after that, or all years? Can they use inferior raw-material and sell at the same price to increase profits? Increase Sales? A statement like: "The goal is to increase profitability" leaves a lot of room for misinterpretation or misrepresentation of the motives of the share-holders (the guys who own the company).
A beautiful and strikingly clear goal for the Finance team is to "Increase the share value".
This takes into account everything. The increase in share value implies that the 'worth' of the company has increased. The share-holders cannot help but be happy with this.
It might seem obvious (what-was-so-ooh-lala-about-this) to someone. But any other goal is tainted with un-clarity. Once you have such a goal (and of course a set of ethical codes), it simplifies the decision-making process.
I can almost imagine the guy (guys? team? reasearch group? confederation?) that came up with this idea that all the finance group had to do was try to legitimately increase the share-value. They would have solved a deep-rooted question of corporate finance. And made it, at least coming up with a target, a cake-walk for the rest.
I wish a guy (guys? team? blah blah) come up with a similar rule for living life. There are many theories to what would make a 'successful liver', just like what would make for a 'successful' finance team.
One can say that a desirable goal of life is to increase happiness (similar to increasing profitabilty). But this statement is un-clear, just like 'increasing profitability' is unclear. You could cheat through a test and score high and the high score might make you happy... and the cheating may not necessarily make you that sad/guity. The classic question is that would you try to be happy at the cost of someone else's happiness, just like would you try to make profits by harming the competitor's product?
You could. And you could justify that the statement 'increasing happiness' didn't have any clauses.
But is there an equivalent of 'increasing share-value' for the conundrum of life?
The thrill is in making profits.... but in different ways - taking the challenge of making a non-performing assets profitable, finding a niche market for your product and booking profits, positioning yourself to make profits, obtaining cheap loans and making profits, making a loss in your debut venture and yet seeing the profit of knowledge in it.
And similarly, the thrill is in being happy. And that is, similarly, through different avenues - participating in an adventure and being happy, laughing madly at a joke, feeling thankful, being appreciated, and even getting stressed for an interview would constitute happiness. You would want to make the most of all of these channels for happiness.
But what would be that one line - one phrase that could sum it all up, make a clear goal and make life 'easier' for the rest?
Friday, October 23, 2009
Current Happenings
Over the years I have come to realize that the most overwhelming fear I have is that of appearing 'foolish'.
No matter how confident I grow, the fear constantly lurks like an annoying fly one can't get rid of. I remind myself that there is no such thing as a 'stupid' question, repeatedly. And just when I think I have gotten over the fear, a situation comes up to test me. I bump into an acquaintance. I try hard to recollect but fail. I know I am supposed to know her... of course I know her. Why can't I place her? What was her name at least? And then, she goes on talking without doubting my knowledge. And after 5 minutes of conversation, I get painfully restless. Now it's too late to prop a question along the lines of 'how do I know you?'. I want to escape instead of confront it... and I keep thinking, what if I bump into her again?
The problem is that such situations should be resolved at the earliest. One must take that extra step of courage instantly, instead of hoping that it will resolve on it's own. Such problems simply get compounded with time.
(PS: The trick I follow if I don't remember someone's name is that I ask for their cell number and then ask them how they exactly spell their names :-) (courtesy Monil) )
Apart from that, things have been smooth. It's a good life. Work takes up most time and the rest is divided between gymming, dancing and singing.
On weekends, the songs I invariably hear are "I gotta feeling tonight's gonna be a good night" and "I wanna make up now now now" and a song that goes something like "blah blah blah... go down down'. I really like going down on that song :-)
I liked the latest research that said men aren't 'real men' anymore or something like that! Hehe... the average women not too long back were 'stronger' than men today. The Fair&Handsomes are not doing themselves too proud. And what with artificial sperm (or something) being discovered recently, the men might find themselves rather useless in the evolutionary battles. I mean, they've never been great at understanding women, not made themselves useful in household chores, women are matching (or moving ahead) men in their primary job of providing food and shelter to family, men might not be needed in procreation if the artificial sperm is anything to go by... and then, most of the times they are getting in the way of some useful task or getting on the nerves of a useful woman.
It's going to be a woman's world soon...
No matter how confident I grow, the fear constantly lurks like an annoying fly one can't get rid of. I remind myself that there is no such thing as a 'stupid' question, repeatedly. And just when I think I have gotten over the fear, a situation comes up to test me. I bump into an acquaintance. I try hard to recollect but fail. I know I am supposed to know her... of course I know her. Why can't I place her? What was her name at least? And then, she goes on talking without doubting my knowledge. And after 5 minutes of conversation, I get painfully restless. Now it's too late to prop a question along the lines of 'how do I know you?'. I want to escape instead of confront it... and I keep thinking, what if I bump into her again?
The problem is that such situations should be resolved at the earliest. One must take that extra step of courage instantly, instead of hoping that it will resolve on it's own. Such problems simply get compounded with time.
(PS: The trick I follow if I don't remember someone's name is that I ask for their cell number and then ask them how they exactly spell their names :-) (courtesy Monil) )
Apart from that, things have been smooth. It's a good life. Work takes up most time and the rest is divided between gymming, dancing and singing.
On weekends, the songs I invariably hear are "I gotta feeling tonight's gonna be a good night" and "I wanna make up now now now" and a song that goes something like "blah blah blah... go down down'. I really like going down on that song :-)
I liked the latest research that said men aren't 'real men' anymore or something like that! Hehe... the average women not too long back were 'stronger' than men today. The Fair&Handsomes are not doing themselves too proud. And what with artificial sperm (or something) being discovered recently, the men might find themselves rather useless in the evolutionary battles. I mean, they've never been great at understanding women, not made themselves useful in household chores, women are matching (or moving ahead) men in their primary job of providing food and shelter to family, men might not be needed in procreation if the artificial sperm is anything to go by... and then, most of the times they are getting in the way of some useful task or getting on the nerves of a useful woman.
It's going to be a woman's world soon...
Friday, September 25, 2009
Koop Mandook
The potential topics I could write on:-
1. Navratri and all the fanfare and Falguni's trance
2. Current life conundrums... something typically reflective in third person's voice.
3. Observations and conclusions regarding Mumbai life (or it's junta).
4. Some incident/event of recent time that triggered a debate in my head.
That's it!
All these are too redundant. It is strange that almost everything I can think of falls within one of these broad topics... and that I can't think out of this 'box'.
And everyday, when I read the editorial of Times Of India, which invariably has an article by Jug Surraiya or Bacchi Karkaria, I am in awe. Their writings mostly have a radical perspective, compelling humor derived from a very cool insight, and generally a clear point.
It's admirable that they can achieve that. They are my personal heroes.
Saying in a shop: To see the entire picture, you have to step out of the frame.
That was brilliant. To be able to write about things that are beyond one's personal predicaments, one needs to be willing to accommodate other view points irrespective of how futile/indigestible they might seem. Stepping out of the frame is rather important (at least) for being able to write well.
1. Navratri and all the fanfare and Falguni's trance
2. Current life conundrums... something typically reflective in third person's voice.
3. Observations and conclusions regarding Mumbai life (or it's junta).
4. Some incident/event of recent time that triggered a debate in my head.
That's it!
All these are too redundant. It is strange that almost everything I can think of falls within one of these broad topics... and that I can't think out of this 'box'.
And everyday, when I read the editorial of Times Of India, which invariably has an article by Jug Surraiya or Bacchi Karkaria, I am in awe. Their writings mostly have a radical perspective, compelling humor derived from a very cool insight, and generally a clear point.
It's admirable that they can achieve that. They are my personal heroes.
Saying in a shop: To see the entire picture, you have to step out of the frame.
That was brilliant. To be able to write about things that are beyond one's personal predicaments, one needs to be willing to accommodate other view points irrespective of how futile/indigestible they might seem. Stepping out of the frame is rather important (at least) for being able to write well.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Mythya-ology
These days I happen to attend certain lectures/sermons on The Bhagvad Geeta and that has re-ignited my dormant desire to gain insight into mythological/spiritual stories.
What I understand of the Geeta currently is largely (or perhaps entirely) dependent on the interpretation of the speaker ('Guru'). And so, some of my contentions may be more with the interpretation rather than the actual context.
My chief complaints (some against the story of Mahabharat and others against Geeta) are probably stemming from my agyaan. Some of them are:-
1. It is difficult to understand why Pandavas 'deserved' the throne. The original heir (older son) was Dhritarashtra and the kingdom belonged to him. However, due to his blindness his younger brother Pandu ruled (almost like Dhritarashtra handed over certain Powers of Attorney... but thats it). That certainly didn't imply that Pandu's sons would inherit the kingdom. So why the whole fuss about Pandavas (Pandu's sons) wanting to rule the kingdom _rightfully_?
2. In the story, a highly foolish, weak and (I would say) immoral man is worshipped. Weak because he was not strong enough to resist the temptation of gambling; foolish because he could not see through a devious plan; immoral because he had the nerve and the heart to stake his wife as a gamble. Now if such a man made such a crazy move, and consequentally lost his wife to (say) Mr.D, who should be the villain? Should the wife get mad at her husband, or at Mr.D?
Its unbelievable that very few (if any) versions of the story criticize Yudhisthir for staking Draupadi, and almost all of them demonize Duryodhan (and Dushasan) for misbehaving with Draupadi. It seems totally uncalled for the Kauravas to get a bad name for this!
3. Duryodhan's name was Suyondhan. Not a good thing to change a 'su' to 'du' simply because a 'majority' (Pandava's side, who eventually wrote the story!) thinks he is a 'bad guy'.
4. My biggest complaint is against Krishna. Honestly, I don't get it. It is too twisted to make sense. On one hand, he plays the role of a mortal (a friend, a cousin, a naughty kid etc) and lives as if he is one of the mortals. But on the other hand, he is The Divine. Now if he kept these two things separate, it would be easier to make sense of things. But he confused some (and me).
a) Krishna tells Arjun that he must fight the war, even at the cost of the death of Arjun's teachers, uncles and brothers.
b) When Arjun is still confused, Krishna takes on his Divine Self and shows him the future - how the Kauravas and Drona and Bheeshma etc are being chewed in Krishna's mouth... which signifies their death.
So, Krishna tells Arjun the result of the war and also conveys that whether Arjun chooses to fight the war or not, and whether he slays the Kauravas and Drona etc or not, they are dead. Arjun is only incidental to their death. He is not the cause of their death. Their death is predetermined, and Arjun simply has to perform his duty and shoot the arrows.
Methinks this is getting into tricky realm! Does that imply that Krishna implies that the future is predetermined? If so, what determined it? Was it their karma?
c) When Arjun wants to kill Jayadrath and there seems to be no way to find Jayadrath (who must be seen and slain before sunset), Krishna creates a pseudo-sunset. He pulls a cloud in front of the sun.
Krishna had promised be a part of the war as a simple charioteer (just a mortal). It was unfair to use his divine powers of moving clouds around, tricking the enemy, and then assisting Arjun in aiming at Jayadrath.
d) In another incident (almost at the end of the war), when Duryodhand is single handedly fighting the Pandavas... and Bhim in particular, Krishna knows that Duryodhan's weak spot was his thigh /9this weakness of Duryodhan was also due to Krishna's trickery). So he instructs Bhim to attack there, and then Duryodhan succombs to his pain.
e) Krishna is Time, he is the Past, Present and Future. In him reside Brahma (as was seen in the Geeta). This Brahmaand where we all exist, comes from Brahma. The entire Brahmaand is seen within him. So who is he? How can he be talking to Arjun on the lands of Kurukshetra which is in the Brahmaand which is in Krishna? This is why he can't be a charioteer and the Divine at the same time.
Mahabharat is simply a dramatic story of how a 'God' can convert all the wrongs to right by simply being 'God'... and how you can win a battle if you can convince that 'God' (who has no qualms about indulging in deceit, renege, immodesty) to be on your side. All the rightness/goodness of the Pandavas seem to be a deadly whitewash over their not-so-right motives.
Phew! Some things are too unsettling to let go.
:-)
Also, an interesting insight on 2 characters of Mahabharat :
What I understand of the Geeta currently is largely (or perhaps entirely) dependent on the interpretation of the speaker ('Guru'). And so, some of my contentions may be more with the interpretation rather than the actual context.
My chief complaints (some against the story of Mahabharat and others against Geeta) are probably stemming from my agyaan. Some of them are:-
1. It is difficult to understand why Pandavas 'deserved' the throne. The original heir (older son) was Dhritarashtra and the kingdom belonged to him. However, due to his blindness his younger brother Pandu ruled (almost like Dhritarashtra handed over certain Powers of Attorney... but thats it). That certainly didn't imply that Pandu's sons would inherit the kingdom. So why the whole fuss about Pandavas (Pandu's sons) wanting to rule the kingdom _rightfully_?
2. In the story, a highly foolish, weak and (I would say) immoral man is worshipped. Weak because he was not strong enough to resist the temptation of gambling; foolish because he could not see through a devious plan; immoral because he had the nerve and the heart to stake his wife as a gamble. Now if such a man made such a crazy move, and consequentally lost his wife to (say) Mr.D, who should be the villain? Should the wife get mad at her husband, or at Mr.D?
Its unbelievable that very few (if any) versions of the story criticize Yudhisthir for staking Draupadi, and almost all of them demonize Duryodhan (and Dushasan) for misbehaving with Draupadi. It seems totally uncalled for the Kauravas to get a bad name for this!
3. Duryodhan's name was Suyondhan. Not a good thing to change a 'su' to 'du' simply because a 'majority' (Pandava's side, who eventually wrote the story!) thinks he is a 'bad guy'.
4. My biggest complaint is against Krishna. Honestly, I don't get it. It is too twisted to make sense. On one hand, he plays the role of a mortal (a friend, a cousin, a naughty kid etc) and lives as if he is one of the mortals. But on the other hand, he is The Divine. Now if he kept these two things separate, it would be easier to make sense of things. But he confused some (and me).
a) Krishna tells Arjun that he must fight the war, even at the cost of the death of Arjun's teachers, uncles and brothers.
b) When Arjun is still confused, Krishna takes on his Divine Self and shows him the future - how the Kauravas and Drona and Bheeshma etc are being chewed in Krishna's mouth... which signifies their death.
So, Krishna tells Arjun the result of the war and also conveys that whether Arjun chooses to fight the war or not, and whether he slays the Kauravas and Drona etc or not, they are dead. Arjun is only incidental to their death. He is not the cause of their death. Their death is predetermined, and Arjun simply has to perform his duty and shoot the arrows.
Methinks this is getting into tricky realm! Does that imply that Krishna implies that the future is predetermined? If so, what determined it? Was it their karma?
c) When Arjun wants to kill Jayadrath and there seems to be no way to find Jayadrath (who must be seen and slain before sunset), Krishna creates a pseudo-sunset. He pulls a cloud in front of the sun.
Krishna had promised be a part of the war as a simple charioteer (just a mortal). It was unfair to use his divine powers of moving clouds around, tricking the enemy, and then assisting Arjun in aiming at Jayadrath.
d) In another incident (almost at the end of the war), when Duryodhand is single handedly fighting the Pandavas... and Bhim in particular, Krishna knows that Duryodhan's weak spot was his thigh /9this weakness of Duryodhan was also due to Krishna's trickery). So he instructs Bhim to attack there, and then Duryodhan succombs to his pain.
e) Krishna is Time, he is the Past, Present and Future. In him reside Brahma (as was seen in the Geeta). This Brahmaand where we all exist, comes from Brahma. The entire Brahmaand is seen within him. So who is he? How can he be talking to Arjun on the lands of Kurukshetra which is in the Brahmaand which is in Krishna? This is why he can't be a charioteer and the Divine at the same time.
Mahabharat is simply a dramatic story of how a 'God' can convert all the wrongs to right by simply being 'God'... and how you can win a battle if you can convince that 'God' (who has no qualms about indulging in deceit, renege, immodesty) to be on your side. All the rightness/goodness of the Pandavas seem to be a deadly whitewash over their not-so-right motives.
Phew! Some things are too unsettling to let go.
:-)
Also, an interesting insight on 2 characters of Mahabharat :
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Dhan te Nan
Kya majaa aaya!
Discoing with insanely loud moozik with colorful lights spanking your face at odd times and downing the fifth nectar... and dancing till either your feet are numb, or till you realize you HAVE to visit the washroom and vacate one forcibly if all are occupied... aaahaha!
What is it about 'clubbing'? After one is sufficiently into it, it seems that no relaxation can beat the surreal feel of swaying thru your own universe. It's like finding that perfect spot for acupuncture... and pressing it with the right pressure.
I think the trick is:-
1. You are generally much more fancily dressed and hence more confident
2. If you are a girl, your sexiness quotient goes a notch higher because of all the oomph you carry suddenly. That makes you feel nice!
3. You are free in terms of time... you don't have to reach anywhere... you don't have deadlines or targets swaying over your head like an unwanted bubble.
4. You see other good looking people who are laughing and dancing... that makes you infer that there is so much happiness available here for grabs. So you grab it... tee hee!
5. You dance. You are awkward. Of course, immaterial of what House, Soft rock, Hip hop means, you know no more than 3 different steps . Which means within some time, you have mastered them. You down a few drinks. You get creative enough to come up with variations in them. You like it that you are creative and the newly conjured step totally fits with the music. You are so convinced of that that your face reflects it. This convinces the others and they do that step. Ah! Now you are a leader of the pack... for some moments.
6. The music is too loud for any kind of conversations. That eliminates those meaningless and mindless conversations... or even the pressing need for a conversation to diffuse the airs of awkwardness. You dance with all and sundry. If you are graceful, you can do a full turn and take a quick preview of those around you. Next time, take a half turn and dance with the oh-so-cool dood behind you.
All in all, it really is such a good way to unwind, exercise, grow, re-affirm self-worth, go-all-out.. that there should be a serious effort by the NGOs to promote such a state of well-being.
Really really really. And what with Bollywood hip hop entering the scene? We finally found our panacea in our utopia!
Discoing with insanely loud moozik with colorful lights spanking your face at odd times and downing the fifth nectar... and dancing till either your feet are numb, or till you realize you HAVE to visit the washroom and vacate one forcibly if all are occupied... aaahaha!
What is it about 'clubbing'? After one is sufficiently into it, it seems that no relaxation can beat the surreal feel of swaying thru your own universe. It's like finding that perfect spot for acupuncture... and pressing it with the right pressure.
I think the trick is:-
1. You are generally much more fancily dressed and hence more confident
2. If you are a girl, your sexiness quotient goes a notch higher because of all the oomph you carry suddenly. That makes you feel nice!
3. You are free in terms of time... you don't have to reach anywhere... you don't have deadlines or targets swaying over your head like an unwanted bubble.
4. You see other good looking people who are laughing and dancing... that makes you infer that there is so much happiness available here for grabs. So you grab it... tee hee!
5. You dance. You are awkward. Of course, immaterial of what House, Soft rock, Hip hop means, you know no more than 3 different steps . Which means within some time, you have mastered them. You down a few drinks. You get creative enough to come up with variations in them. You like it that you are creative and the newly conjured step totally fits with the music. You are so convinced of that that your face reflects it. This convinces the others and they do that step. Ah! Now you are a leader of the pack... for some moments.
6. The music is too loud for any kind of conversations. That eliminates those meaningless and mindless conversations... or even the pressing need for a conversation to diffuse the airs of awkwardness. You dance with all and sundry. If you are graceful, you can do a full turn and take a quick preview of those around you. Next time, take a half turn and dance with the oh-so-cool dood behind you.
All in all, it really is such a good way to unwind, exercise, grow, re-affirm self-worth, go-all-out.. that there should be a serious effort by the NGOs to promote such a state of well-being.
Really really really. And what with Bollywood hip hop entering the scene? We finally found our panacea in our utopia!
Friday, August 07, 2009
Disturbances
Couple of points and questions (some raised after watching some of 'Zeitgeist Addendum')
1. Money
Money is primarily required because there is scarcity of resources. We pay a higher price for diamonds, and much lower for bananas... and much much lower (zero) for air. That is because diamonds are very scarce, whereas bananas are more abundant... and air is highly abundant and everyone has access to that abundance.
Given this premise, if all that a human needs for existence (his bare necessities) are made highly abundant and accessible, will there be a need for money?
There might be a need for money for barter of the non-essential utilities, which he uses for pleasure and/or recreation.
But what if even that is in abundance?
Since everyone has their basic needs fulfilled (you can have as much food you want), one doesn't really need to 'work to make a living'. Now one works to do stuff one likes.
And that might translate to A loving to make computers that B uses... So A makes a lot of computers and gives (not sells) them to others who want it.
B on the other hand makes other valuable things and gives it. If there is enough variety in people's desire to make 'value', then the system might work... isn't it?
2. Education
Should we teach students skills that make them better at their job (specialized learning) or should we teach them skills to enjoy (kill?) time when they are not at their job (generalized learning)?
In most cases in real-world scenarios, people claim to learn more 'on-job' than in school. This is confirmed by salary hikes for 'experienced' people, even if they lack the requisite academic degree for the job. If people anyway learn more on the job, what is the job of educational institutions (apart from imparting super-basic mathematical/language skills for basic communication and reasoning)?
3. Crime
Given that a majority of crimes are committed by poor people, is there any differential judgment/treatment meted out based on the economic background of the criminal? If fairness is sought, isn't it necessary to have such a differential treatment?
4. Religion
Why do many religions (at least the popular ones) penalize certain natural instincts in order to attain salvation (or its equivalent)? And also, reward or champion the not-so-natural instincts? For instance, giving alms to the needy seems to be totally un-natural, given that it is difficult (naturally) to unnecessarily part with that which you have 'rightfully' earned. It might be that most of us have seen it being done by parents/those-we-look-up-to and hence think it 'natural' of us to want to donate.
It seems that the basic foundations of religions - to be based on 'tennets' or rules to be followed, is flawed. That leaves very little room for evolution of these rules. Societies (governments, law systems, religion) ought to be evolving rather than establishing. And if that is not the case, sooner or later they will be overthrown by a more evolved rule-book, when there is enough nerve in enough people to challenge the established norms even at the cost of salvation.
5. Human Nature vs Human Behavior
Is there such a thing as human nature? Are greed, desire to compete, desire for happiness and all those other things that we call 'human', wired into us? Or is it that as soon as we are born, we are placed into a society that invariably inculcates this in us, making it a human behavior and not human nature?
This seems to be a pretty basic question, one which might have an answer to in an introductary psychology book.
But yet, one wonders, what (if any) proofs can be provided to convincingly argue one case over the other. Somehow, basic psychological conundrums run deep into most of us... and it is difficult to know the answers because there are too many varied 'results' thrown out to us, and all with different force. So it gets tricky to give each result its due importance without bias towards a personal belief.
Sometimes it really seems tempting to shun all attempts to know more about anything that can lead to a change or disturbance in one's personally held belief system. This inertia against change in one's beliefs is perhaps something that nature provides to humans... as a tool for self-preservation?
1. Money
Money is primarily required because there is scarcity of resources. We pay a higher price for diamonds, and much lower for bananas... and much much lower (zero) for air. That is because diamonds are very scarce, whereas bananas are more abundant... and air is highly abundant and everyone has access to that abundance.
Given this premise, if all that a human needs for existence (his bare necessities) are made highly abundant and accessible, will there be a need for money?
There might be a need for money for barter of the non-essential utilities, which he uses for pleasure and/or recreation.
But what if even that is in abundance?
Since everyone has their basic needs fulfilled (you can have as much food you want), one doesn't really need to 'work to make a living'. Now one works to do stuff one likes.
And that might translate to A loving to make computers that B uses... So A makes a lot of computers and gives (not sells) them to others who want it.
B on the other hand makes other valuable things and gives it. If there is enough variety in people's desire to make 'value', then the system might work... isn't it?
2. Education
Should we teach students skills that make them better at their job (specialized learning) or should we teach them skills to enjoy (kill?) time when they are not at their job (generalized learning)?
In most cases in real-world scenarios, people claim to learn more 'on-job' than in school. This is confirmed by salary hikes for 'experienced' people, even if they lack the requisite academic degree for the job. If people anyway learn more on the job, what is the job of educational institutions (apart from imparting super-basic mathematical/language skills for basic communication and reasoning)?
3. Crime
Given that a majority of crimes are committed by poor people, is there any differential judgment/treatment meted out based on the economic background of the criminal? If fairness is sought, isn't it necessary to have such a differential treatment?
4. Religion
Why do many religions (at least the popular ones) penalize certain natural instincts in order to attain salvation (or its equivalent)? And also, reward or champion the not-so-natural instincts? For instance, giving alms to the needy seems to be totally un-natural, given that it is difficult (naturally) to unnecessarily part with that which you have 'rightfully' earned. It might be that most of us have seen it being done by parents/those-we-look-up-to and hence think it 'natural' of us to want to donate.
It seems that the basic foundations of religions - to be based on 'tennets' or rules to be followed, is flawed. That leaves very little room for evolution of these rules. Societies (governments, law systems, religion) ought to be evolving rather than establishing. And if that is not the case, sooner or later they will be overthrown by a more evolved rule-book, when there is enough nerve in enough people to challenge the established norms even at the cost of salvation.
5. Human Nature vs Human Behavior
Is there such a thing as human nature? Are greed, desire to compete, desire for happiness and all those other things that we call 'human', wired into us? Or is it that as soon as we are born, we are placed into a society that invariably inculcates this in us, making it a human behavior and not human nature?
This seems to be a pretty basic question, one which might have an answer to in an introductary psychology book.
But yet, one wonders, what (if any) proofs can be provided to convincingly argue one case over the other. Somehow, basic psychological conundrums run deep into most of us... and it is difficult to know the answers because there are too many varied 'results' thrown out to us, and all with different force. So it gets tricky to give each result its due importance without bias towards a personal belief.
Sometimes it really seems tempting to shun all attempts to know more about anything that can lead to a change or disturbance in one's personally held belief system. This inertia against change in one's beliefs is perhaps something that nature provides to humans... as a tool for self-preservation?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)