I'm not alone. I'm just lost. I know where I am. I know where I'm going. I know this way, I've walked these paths before. I know where they lead. But I'm lost.

At a familiar crossroad again. Been here before, taken all the forks, gone the full distance, come around full circle and back to square one. Moved over, settled down, played around and even took the detour - from there to here and back. But my heart whispers that somewhere up there, is there a path I skipped, which takes me away and hides me away.

A way forgotten, in haste or carelessnes. There must be a way - I need to find a way to cut a path across the hills and valleys of life. Passing the crests and troughs like a rough rollercoaster ride of emotions. Travel alone, but arrive together.

Or maybe just pass by. In this vastness of our lives, we pass each other by - a look and a voice. A light and a signal, then the darkness and a silence. And yet again. Crossed paths and meandering routes marking our journeys across this lanscape of existence. There must be a plan, a map to consult, a compass to travel with and the stars to guide you by.

But this is not the map I need. Directions are not what I need, I need a destination.

--
Predestination was doomed from the start.

posted at: 21:12 | path: /philosophy | permalink | Tags: personal, me, philosophy

You are disconnected, you live in your own shell. The world exists for you only when you wish it to be. Your world is one of your own, independent from those around you. And you learn to enjoy the silences, they carry their own sense of meaning, peace and serenity.

And one day you forget how to feel. Caught up as a spectator to your own life, watching, taking apart and doing what's rational. Being successful, but completely unsatisfied with your own success. It's not that you don't crave for meaning, but it's like a tango with the world in lead. You realize that you've lost purpose, drive and emotion - but it's been taken care of.

Of all the things you miss in life, that's what you miss the most - emotion. Pure indiluted irrationality has leaked out of your mind, leaving a completely rational automaton behind. Every action you take is followed by a Why? and one day the answer "just because" stops answering it. And it feels like it's never been enough of a reason, anyway.

Living in the present. A pitiable existence, a slave to your senses. Never nostalgic about the good times of past, never looking towards anything in particular. You eyes, ears and intellect guiding your hands. Doing what's needed - no more, no less. Somehow rationalizing to yourself, that you're just waiting for something. Something that signals the end, turns the page. You know you need something, but not knowing what you need. Spending your days, waiting for your real life to begin in full earnest, with a happily ever after.

Comfortable. Sane. Numb.

Sun rises one day and something in you awakes. Trapped in a perfectly logical box of thought, it tries to break out. Illogically, it seeks to renounce everything that makes you comfortable. Seek pain, not enjoy it - but need it to break out, start feeling alive again. The veil that is laid over your emotions is torn to bits in a fit of anger and desperation. You hurt yourself, you want pain, for the lack of anything better. You hurt others, perhaps you run away from those whom you might. But most of all, you cut yourself open & bleed.

Understanding it was hard. Pain - it's only catharsis. The puff of smoke as you cauterize your endless haemorrage of reason, to be human again. Deal with it, learn to live again, love again; laugh again.

Wait, did I say "again"?

--
Never look back, the view is never as good.

posted at: 07:47 | path: /philosophy | permalink | Tags: public, me, philosophy

Ashamed I'm not to borrow the words of te inimitable Jerome K Jerome.

We are but the veriest, sorriest slaves of our stomach.  Reach not after 
morality and righteousness, my friends; watch vigilantly your stomach, 
and diet it with care and judgment.  Then virtue and contentment will 
come and reign within your heart, unsought by any effort of your own; and 
you will be a good citizen, a loving husband, and a tender father - a 
noble, pious man.

But as someone remarked "nobody starves anyone else".

It is very strange, this domination of our intellect by our digestive 
organs.  We cannot work, we cannot think, unless our stomach wills so.  
It dictates to us our emotions, our passions.  

How good one feels when one is full - how satisfied with ourselves and 
with the world!  People who have tried it, tell me that a clear 
conscience makes you very happy and contented; but a full stomach does 
the business quite as well, and is cheaper, and more easily obtained.  
One feels so forgiving and generous after a substantial and well-digested 
meal - so noble-minded, so kindly-hearted.

I always thought it was just me...

--
Man doth not live on bread alone;
but philosophy baketh no bread.

posted at: 02:47 | path: /philosophy | permalink | Tags: public, me, philosophy

Sometimes discussions go offtopic. The starting points don't matter, neither do the goals (as if they exist !) - but it is the path it takes that needs to be recorded for posterity. One such philosophical debate happened yesterday, ending up rather more off-track than usual. Repeated here, from memory (i.e mostly what I said) & in condensed form.

S:  An argument for the sake of itself actually diverts away from the 
    original opinion to merely counter the other argument (no, not opinion).

Me: No, but an argument is actually productive in the sense that it feeds 
    the internalized argument inside you by offering new arguments 
    for/against your own bias.

Me: There are no convictions bereft of argument, but those that have 
    completed a debate with yourself about the pros and cons of itself,
    to arrive at a conclusion with both residing in the same mind at the 
    same time.

And since the discussion started off about patriarchal meddling, it went on into some more interesting topics.

S:  How will people learn if they don't make their own mistakes

Me: You *can* learn from other people's mistakes.

S:  No, you learn to avoid them - not to deal with them. Ending up
    in the established beaten path of safety which leads nowhere 
    in particular. Making mistakes and experiencing it first hand
    is an important part of growing up.

Me: Experience is not learning. Learning is when you internalize it,
    analyze it.

Me: Learning is not a goal by itself. What's important is to develop
    good judgement so that you can make smart decisions based on 
    lessons from past experience.

To put it mildly, it was enlightening for me to have to think that hard and come up with words for abstract concepts which I assume have always been there in my head. I just had to write them down somewhere before it all evaporated from my memory. I would've never done this without help - on the other hand, I've never had to explain anything to myself with the poor tool that is the English language.

After all, what is the sound of one hand clapping?

--
In most instances, all an argument proves is that two people are present.

posted at: 03:12 | path: /philosophy | permalink | Tags: personal, philsophy

Man's unique agony as a species consists in his perpetual 
conflict between the desire to stand out and the need to 
blend in.
                -- Sydney J. Harris

It is a trade-off. Everybody needs their own personal rebellion and to be welcomed back into the herd - like the prodigal son of the fables.

Some people get stuck half-way. Some people don't even start.

--
Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of want of heart;
to be one at thirty is proof of want of head.
              -- Georges Clemenceau

posted at: 04:05 | path: /philosophy | permalink | Tags: public, philosophy

Q: What are you rebelling against ?

A: What've you got ?

But I understand.

--
Rebellion lay in his way, and he found it.
                -- William Shakespeare, "Henry IV"

posted at: 17:01 | path: /philosophy | permalink | Tags: personal, philosophy

 
We have bigger houses but smaller families;
more conveniences, but less time.

We have more degrees but less sense;
more knowledge but less judgment;
more experts, but more problems;
more medicines but less healthiness.

We’ve been all the way to the moon and back,
but have trouble in crossing the street to meet our new neighbour.

We built more computers to hold more copies than ever,
But have less real communication;

We have become long on quantity,
but short on quality.

These are times of fast foods but slow digestion;
tall man, but short character;
steep profits but shallow relationships.

It’s a time when there is much in the window,
but nothing in the room.

              -- The X IVth Dalai Lama

There's much on the mind, but little in the heart.

--
A paradox is merely a wedge into reality's fractures

posted at: 20:12 | path: /philosophy | permalink | Tags: public, philsophy

As authors both George Orwell and Aldous Huxley were masters at the task. But as visionaries (yes, for the last time 1984 is a warning, not a guidebook), they differed in a very fundamental way. Orwell has always rooted for an external oppressor who shall conquer us and rule our thoughts, lives and the world in total - the infamous Big Brother. On the other hand, Huxley had portrayed an even more outlandish concept, where the people accept and in fact, love the thing that incapacitates them from rational thought. In the Brave New World, there is no necessity for an oppressor to deprive us of our autonomy, individuality or maturity, we would gladly give that up for the security and convenience the oppression offers.

Orwell dreamed of a future where information would be denied, kept hidden from the masses and handed out in small enough parcels. A totalitarian regime where information is the currency and control was achieved by denying it. Huxley feared the opposite, where the important information is drowned in a mass of irrelevance. Where nobody picks up a book because there are far more convenient distractions to choose from.

1984 controlled people by pain, hurt when you try to enter the forbidden corridors of knowledge, while the Brave New World enslaved you with pleasure. Given you so much that you have no desire for anything more, perfectly content to watch the feelies and drink soma. Reduced to passivity and egotism, ever fearful of any disruption which would destroy the comforts that were traded in for free speech and thought, yet oblivious to their own slavery.

Yet, when the year 1984 came, there were those who rejoiced that the world hadn't fallen to a Big Brother. But the Brave New World couldn't be denied, the quest for a happy living strays too close to the ultimate paradise of ignorant bliss. As you watch an everyman sit in front a TV, sipping whatever gets him high and wondering about what exactly is happening with Paris Hilton's latest boyfriend, you do have to wonder is this a Brave New World ? The critique on the free press and its role in oppression is contrary to common belief, but some corner of my mind it is happening today (ok, pickup a Times Of India).

Huxley's message is chilling in its content and cynical in its perception. The fact that people will sacrifice essential liberties of free speech and thought to enjoy a comfortable life sits in opposite to the loss of paradise that the Adam & Eve suffered. In our deepest psyche this is a holy grail we yearn for, even at the cost of our individuality, history or autonomy.

1984 ends the same way the Brave New World began, love instead of hate.

He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was
hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed 
exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But 
it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory 
over himself. 

He loved Big Brother.

The golden cage that we built for ourselves, the only way these two differ is how we got into the cage. So who is right ? I'd say Huxley, but 1984 is yet to pass.

--
If society fits you comfortably enough, you call it freedom.
               -- Robert Frost

posted at: 18:12 | path: /philosophy | permalink | Tags: public, philosophy, books

The question of which came first, the chicken or the egg, exists because an egg is clearly not a chicken.
#15486106

Simple, indubitable and unequivocal.

--
A chicken is an egg's way of producing more eggs.

posted at: 18:37 | path: /philosophy | permalink | Tags: public, slashdot, wisdom

People are sheep. They move in herds, believe in numbers (look at democracy) and avoid solving anything in person. This is, contrary to common sense, perfectly normal and how the world should be - read it through and then let me know, if you think otherwise. Before I can explain to you exactly why people are so timid, I'd have to explain why the Original Hero in our particular story wasn't the Go-Getter Hollywood crafts its dreams around. And it all starts out pretty normally [1].

So, I'm sitting around at my parents', munching on some easily munchables in front of the idiot box. Tuned in at the moment is one of the new cartoon channels which is reinventing Tarzan for the youngster of today. So there you see Tarzan telling his ape friends that the new evil leader (complete with silver back, huge fangs and red eyes) is weaker than the entire family combined. After hearing that motivational speech from somebody hanging upside down from the arms of the giant ape, the entire family drives the bullying big male out. And they all lived happily ever after, at least until the next episode.

Now, to pick out where this particular story diverges from stated 'real' world into a more fictional human world. But first, I want you to marvel at the sophistication of the tool at my disposal now - language. Sure, a cat call in the night or a howl in the distance is communication too. But our chatter possesses something unique in itself. We talk about things that could be - we talk about the future as if it were real. The first time your mother told you don't do that, or else $bad_thing_could_happen.... was when you were introduced to the very possibility (that word itself speaks volumes) of things that could be. In other words, the animals could understand what could be done if they joined forces.

Now, human society is very peaceful compared a lot of other social mammals. In almost every other primate society there is a lot of bullying and fighting at lower levels than the alpha males. Even in a stable society there are always some murmurs of disapproval and fights happen in the background. So what's different in our world that stops this from happening ? While I ponder about such important questions an advertisement for clean teeth (uhmm... I mean toothpaste) pops up.

*CLICK*. Yet another soap on some other channel. *CLICK*. Same story of a family broken by something. *CLICK*. Ah, it's a veritable cat fight between two women with bindis large enough to cover Switzerland (you *know* that I stole that analogy). Oh wait, they're just stopping at name calling. I guess language comes up as a winner yet again in this story - so where are the sheep people that I started talking about ?

Language is merely the tool. You might think the real clincher in the deal is how language helped organize things (like the Tower of Babel for instance). Well, before mankind was big enough to start dividing ourselves over language, religion, caste and creed, we lived in tribes. The organization there needed to kick some ass more than the mot juste and language was hardly (yet) the way to get your average cave-woman interested.

Even with philosophy running in parallel, daytime soaps are boring. *CLICK*. Oh, its some mafia gangster flick and some guy's getting shot because he ratted out some 'brother' to de cops. And he did that because the other guy made eyes at his sister. Seems fair, I think. If I were in the same posish, I'd be wiping the blood off my knuckles too. Wait, he didn't stand up and fight, he merely went to the Big Brother and squealed like the family pig (George Orwell is a genius). Language has its advantages for the weak and oppressed.

But didn't evolution stick up for the 'Fittest' or something ? So, if you are weak and oppressed, you'd do good to the species to stay out of the gene pool. Then why does human society discourage bullying and stick up for a very unnatural concept called fair play. Because long back during the dark ages of human evolution, language helped the weak to team up and beat up the bullies. That's just a prediction and this movie's getting way too bloody to have a happy ending.

*CLICK*. It's one of the 24x7 news channels and it's showing a strike in some factory plant somewhere. The union is demanding special protective masks and compensations to the families of its employees who have succumbed to halitosis. The basic co-operative skills mankind developed in the distant past for hunting large animals of the last ice age have been subverted to bring a factory to a grinding halt. On the other hand, the weak worker class have no way to fight the system other than uniting. And it looks like they're coming out winners.

The critical combination of language and co-operation form a very sharp tool in the arsenal of the weak and the timid. The call goes out - All for one and one for all. Such coalitions and brotherhoods must have picked off every one of the stereotypical aggressive alpha males when the species was passed through an evolutionary pressure like a famine or disease. Of course, you can't blame the mob - dying out was hardly a worthy choice. The badass alpha male just didn't Fit in with the times of crisis.

Even today, our society runs on the basis that its combined might is significantly bigger than is in possession of any one individual. This is why democracy is so popular, because aggressive individuals do not survive in a majority of their own - this town isn't big enough for the both of us. But we still need the risk taker, adventurer and explorer - they deny society and are labeled mavericks, become recluses in old age. You know the examples. We're not like them, as much as we admire them.

Still, somewhere in our primitive brains, we crave for an absolute leader to settle our disputes, punish the wicked and reward the good deeds. The all powerful, ape lord of our own tribe, that we used to see and obey everyday in those dark and distant days when we had hardly climbed down from the trees. We worship him, live our days in awe of his awesome power, sleep nights under his protection and follow him across hades if necessary. Oh, my God, what am I talking about ? (*heh).

Us humans, we are such a coalition of the timid, where decisions are by consensus and where politeness overrides correctness. That's the way it is and short of mass genocide there's nothing you can do to fix it. So quit cribbing.

  [1] - Nothing except loud music or talking women seem to snap my brain out of overdrive.

--
Let the meek inherit the earth -- they had it coming.

posted at: 12:09 | path: /philosophy | permalink | Tags: public, philosophy, observations

Rebellion is inevitable. I don't mean the political kind with weapons, leaders and death. I am talking about the much more intrinsic outpouring that most of us associate with teenage angst. The basic instinct that metaphorically makes us feel happier running into the darkness with eyes shut rather than walk into the tunnel of future groping and feeling the walls.

Rebellion is the first side effect of a growing mind - shaking off the training wheels carefully tied on your life cycle by your parents. Consider it the original sin if you want, but the first act of your free will is hardly likely to be an act of good. There are many who have said that the truth shall set you free, but for generations told to tell the truth, lies are what really sets them free from the apron strings.

The first kiss, the first cigarrette, that first mug of beer - they all change more things than their immediate effects. They are things looked upon quite badly by them and therefore become things to do to spite the world with. The basic thread of "I do what I want" drives people to do what they don't want as well.

Then one day, as quickly as it began, rebellion dies. Like a phoenix, it is reborn into what we prefer to call purpose. Same thing, new bottle - but Purpose needs no strutting or posing, it acts. Cause and effect comes into play - the word consequences creep into your mind and the clock of the human life clicks into the doldrums of young adulthood, where nothing much happens but everything important seems to be revolve around that fact.

I've walked around a couple of colleges in the last year. I miss the rebellion that used to thrum underneath the seemingly calm veneer of college day-to-day. Maybe I'm tuned to a different wavelength of a past. Maybe they changed what the rebellion means and forgot to tell me. But I just don't feel the vibe - I just get a disturbing sense of obedience from these future adults. The world's going to be really strange for me if people just obey without threat of consequences or reward for keeping in the lines. No stick or the carrot, merely orders and obedience.

The seeds of rebellion are planted deep. They are watered by the tears of everything denied to you and rooted in all your potential. Pass through the gates and join the club.

--
Humanity has advanced, when it has advanced, not because it has been sober,
responsible, and cautious, but because it has been playful, rebellious, and
immature.
       -- Tom Robbins

posted at: 15:12 | path: /philosophy | permalink | Tags: personal, philsophy

Do you think you are competent ? I mean do you really *know* that you are competent to do what you are actually supposed to do ? I ran into this fundamental question on thursday night - I had to interview someone on friday morning and this thought just bubbled up. What if *you* were wrong about your competency ? Would that automatically disqualify you from judging other people's competency. This was a quite disheartening thought - I had always been very doubtful about my abilities and have often gone farther than I would've to prove to myself that it's all good.

The problem with having a mind like mine is that it doesn't care what it is doing as long as it is doing something. Like the proverbial genie out of the bottle, it has to do something productive to keep itself from turning back on the body that feeds it. I'll talk about the Stimulus Struggle some other day. But right now, I had this thought eat through my brain for nearly twenty four hours till I found an an answer.

Let us first postulate the predictions that we need to verify about incompetent induviduals :-

• overestimate their ability
• are unable to see competent people when they trip over them
• never realize they have screwed up

These were the three things I had in hand to compare myself against. I will not judge myself or others - but feel free to use them on me. After all proper social feedback is one defence against bad meta-cognitive skills - if only you are willing to accept criticism (back to square #1).

I remember reading the following off a 1996 calendar hanging near our TV at home. I am not sure it was from Confucius or not, but it does convey what I want to point out.

He who knows and knows that he knows, he is a master; follow him.
He who knows and knows not that he knows, he is asleep; wake him.
He who knows not and knows that he knows not, he is a student; teach him.
He who knows not and knows not that he knows not, he is a fool; shun him.

Before I wander off into depth, I found out that there is indeed a real word for knowing what you know - metacognitive skills. Apparently it is a vicious cycle problem where people who are not aware of their shortcomings never work towards fixing them and as the proverb advised are shunned by those who can see.

So the first thing an interviewer needs to develop seems to be a clear awareness of his or her own limitations. There may be people who are secure about their own skills because they have proved themselves - but it is difficult to actually measure the skill of someone who is confident and competent versus someone who is merely confident because of a total lack of metacognitive skills. Turning a blind eye towards your own deficiencies can actually pay off very well when you are dealing with an interviewer with bad metacognitive skills. Quite appropriately, Charles Darwin said that "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" .

One of my classmates once said something very insightful about the true value of a man.

The numerator being what he really is capable of and denominator 
being what he thinks of himself - the best always come up above 
one.

So the conclusions I reached were basically :-

• the more competent you are the more flaws you'll find in yourself
• it takes one to know one
• humility is to be valued

Too bad the modern management values visibility over humility - being self-effacing is just not a good idea. When I have another weekend to waste, I'll ponder over the gray area that we all live, in terms of these. You have to feel incompetent to be remain competent - That is the Zen of Competency.

Nothing worthwhile gives all the answers, so I'll leave you a question to chew on. Does knowledge make you less confident ? Some of my friends seem to think so ... but I can't be certain .

References:

1. Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments -- Justin Kruger and David Dunning, Cornell.edu
2. Coming to terms with failure: Private self-enhancement and public self-effacement. -- Brown, J. D. & Gallagher, F. M
3. The "below-average effect" and the egocentric nature of comparative ability judgments. -- Kruger J
4. Managerial myopia: Self-serving biases in organizational planning. -- Larwood, L. & Whittaker, W.

--
Luke Skywalker: Your overconfidence is your weakness.
Emperor Palpatine: Your faith in your friends is yours.

posted at: 23:12 | path: /philosophy | permalink | Tags: personal, philsophy

Those who meet me, mistake me for a nice guy. Of course, I am a good guy by nature - but I can be evil by choice. I don't believe in religion, but I believe in the essential justice. In spite of what you might think, justice is still a human concept. But for a universe that came out of nothing, it has to all add up to zero sometime (though the discussion about the end of days as such is discouraged). So in a moment of emotion, I decided to be fair to this world. More particularly I decided to be fair to this world induvidually. The decision sprang from the first moment in this century when I lost my temper. The decision to never again sleep in the home of my ancestors was one of the riders of the same moment. The resolutions stand as made.

There are instances when I'm not fair to someone. Distinction must be made between the moments of rage from the cold decisions. Anger has no rationale and I haven't lost my temper since 2001. But still I've been unfair to a lot of people - from the cold comfort of sanity. There have been times and places where my job was to snub and pour cold water.

It is my right. If somebody is headed towards a difficult situation by mistake, I often consider it my right to hurt the person before the world acquires a right. It is as much of my right as it was the right of my elders who snatched knives from my hand when I was a kid. I can't claim to have made the same mistakes - I didn't drink, I didn't smoke, I didn't stay out with friends till midnight without a ride back, I didn't end up in strange cities without a hotel booking. I haven't done any of that, which to some people removes all right I have to advise them. I am sure they'd have said But, you had your fun when you were my age. Why don't you let us ? if I had taken a sip or a puff.

In a fair world, intentions do not matter. What I do out of perfectly good intentions is still hurting someone. It is only perfectly fair that I get hurt in the process. For example, my sister has probably forgiven me for not letting her go to Delhi last year. She has probably forgotten all that she said to me on the phone. I haven't. I got what I deserved for crushing her first few attempts at breaking out of parental control. Hearing "you are only saying that because I'm a girl. " or "why are you taking their side on this ?" isn't pleasant with a girl who can pronounce words in italics. She will probably admit that I was right if I ask her today but kaye vitta ayudhavum, vaay vitta vaakum ... (translation won't do).

They say that we hurt those whom we love, but little do they know that we can only be hurt by those ...

--
Justice? Who asks for justice. We make our own justice. We make it here on Arrakis -- win or die. Let us not rail about justice as long as we have arms and the freedom to use them.
                            -- Leto I

posted at: 12:12 | path: /philosophy | permalink | Tags: personal, philsophy

I went to a party yesterday night. I don't drink. And generally I am asked why ? - because I look like a dopehead with red blurry eyes. I don't drink, because the word Moderation does not make sense to me. If I drink, I will end up a drunk.

I came up with the quote 'Moderation knows no limits' while walking to office today. It must've been the heat or something, but I was just replaying the conversations at the yesterday's party and the part about moderation struck me. You can interpret this in any way you want. My favourite is you can always be more moderate - sort of going against the word moderation.

Paradoxical word play is often the only way to get yourself out of the cage of well defined concepts. But rarely do I have anything original.

--
There is nothing wrong with abstinence, in moderation.

posted at: 19:01 | path: /philosophy | permalink | Tags: public, philosophy, bullshit