Sunday, December 22, 2024

a little egg of thought.

 

Nearly all the women wore aprons, and the strings drawn tight round their 
waists made their big stomachs bulge still more. I’d never yet noticed what 
big paunches old women usually have. Most of the men, however, were as 
thin as rakes, and they all carried sticks. What struck me most about their 
faces was that one couldn’t see their eyes, only a dull glow in a sort of nest 
of wrinkles.
 
https://archive.org/stream/the-stranger_202404/9780679720201_djvu.txt
 
 
old men brothers
one follows the other
with every passing
something small 
breaks apart

 
 
 

Wednesday, March 14, 2018

அளவில்லா பிரபஞ்சம்
என்னுடன் இயலும்
முடியும்  

The infinite universe becomes finite in me.
The deepest insight I have probably had is that the ego is an illusion. But without that illusion, there is no more reality. Space and time cease to exist. An illusory ego doesn't mean we are powerless. The only power we truly possess is control over that illusion. It is up to us to craft our ego the way see fit and use it to satisfy what we want most from life.

Saturday, January 27, 2018

Anusheh Anadil _ Bahok




Her album RAI is beautiful.

Wednesday, January 17, 2018

பெரியார் வழி

The pill of Indian global politics is a hard one to swallow. On one side is our ethos-wide prevalent culture of peace, self reflection, and non-materialism; on the other, a need to sustain this culture for future generations ahead. We have already become so deeply ingrained in the Western way of life that our thoughts and lifestyles model it. The greatest success of imperialism was not one of just material gains; it was the assimilation of the East into Western thought. Our lifestyles and our culture reflect this.

So, what do we do now? Do we pursue the non-alignment principle set forth by Gandhi and Nehru? Or do we embrace the surge of nationalism and participate in capitalist society to find our way forward? It is a question I keep debating in my mind, with no clear answer. I see this question of national identity of relevance to present-day Tamil Nadu. Tamil Nadu is embroiled in a power struggle, where the decades old Periyar-driven political thought is being challenged by influence from the pan-Indian BJP. It is time for Tamil youth to consider the direction ahead. Do we still follow the Periyar way which embodies separation of church from state? Do we continue to focus on social empowerment of the underpriviledged? Or do we get consumed by religious politics in the name of capitalism and wealth generation? Both have importance and merit, as they do negatives. I will argue for the Periyar way.

The primary importance of this form of governance is separation of religion from state affairs. Religions, even neo-Hinduism, are prone to misinterpretations and emotion-fueled state decisions. What constitutes this Hinduism is a topic for another debate, since it has increasingly come to reflect just the Bhagavad Gita. It should be obvious that religion-based lifestyle choices should only be at the level of the individual, while civil governments ought to be secular and indifferent to religion. Governments ought to be based on their ability to maintain law, and law is independent of religion. Therefore, a religion-afffiliated government is intrinsically biased. When governments have religious affiliation, their actions become an interpretation of that religion itself, which ironically harm that religion. We seem to often forget that the government is a representative of its people and its actions reflect on us. We have traditionally resisted the influence of religion in Tamil Nadu. Thus far, from the formation of the DK party to recent times, the focus has been on social welfare and development. It has not been perfect, but we cannot deny that caste and welfare of the under-privileged improved significantly under these regimes. Only under Jayalalithaa did the tone begin to shift, due to her subscription to the BJP agenda. To be fair, she exhibited social consciousness to a certain extent. Karunanidhi, for all his faults, is a patron of Tamil art and culture and has done much in its preservation and development. Further, the dominance of this form of political thought has not come at the expense of economic frailty. Far from that, Tamil Nadu is the now the most industrialized state in the country(1), and third in terms of GDP(2). These facts, in my opinion, outweigh other demerits of this political institution. A second factor that contributes to this opinion is the desire to sustain our old Tamil ways and thoughts. It is easy to forget one's heritage in the wave of materialism and nationalism. This aspect however comes from a place of emotion and should be seen as a reflection of that. I must also temper this opinion by saying that though I seek a non-BJP government in TN, I consider them the best choice currently as a national and international party.

The DMK and ADMK need to field strong candidates in the fight ahead. We need socially aware candidates that understand the Periyar way and show the necessary resilience and understanding of politics. We crave candidates that can set themselves aside and look around at their people. The debate should not be about whether Rajnikanth, a man with no social awareness or political acumen, will make a good leader. It needs to be about what is good for the state, and who is fit to get it done. It doesn't matter whether the candidate chooses to prioritize economic growth or social improvement as long as the goal remains the same. I think we can safely say that a man who runs to the Himalayas at the first sign of trouble is probably not a good choice for that!


Refs:

1. http://www.businesstoday.in/current/economy-politics/these-are-the-five-most-industrialised-states-in-india/story/238337.html
2. https://www.siliconindia.com/news/general/8-Most-Developed-States-Based-On-GDP-2015-in-India-nid-189294-cid-1.html







Saturday, December 9, 2017

பித்தன் மடையன்
சித்தன் சடையன் 

அனைவரும் என்னுள்

என் விழிப்பு
என் சிரிப்பு
என் அறிவு
என் மடமை

நான் ஒருவன் அல்ல, என் முன்னோர்கள் அனைவரும் என் நினைவிலும் செயலிலும் உள்ளனர். இஃதே என் முற்றொருமை. இதன் மேலே, இந்த உலகில் கானும் நிகழ்ச்சிகளும் அனுபவங்களும் சேர்ந்து என் உலக காட்சியை உருவாக்குகின்றன. இவையே என் கருத்துகளாகின்றன. இவ்வாறு இயற்றப்பட்ட கருத்துகளுக்கு மாறான அநுபவங்களை சந்திக்கும் போது ஏற்படும் முரண்பாட்டை தீவிரமாக சிந்திக்க வேண்டும். 

இந்த அனுபவத்தின் கருத்தை ஏற்று கொள்வதா, தூக்கி வீசுவதா? இந்த கருத்து என்னையும் என்னை சார்ந்தவர்களையும் முன்னேற உதவுமா? என் தமிழ் சமூகத்தை முன்னேற உதவுமா? பல நூற்றாண்டுகளாக செதுக்கி அமைக்கப்பட்ட பண்புகளும் நாகரீகமும் இதனால் உயருமா, அழியுமா?


"பொய்யான சில பேர்க்குப் புது நாகரீகம் 
புரியாத பல பேர்க்கு இது நாகரீகம் 
முறையாக வாழ்வோர்க்கு எது நாகரீகம் 
முன்னோர்கள் சொன்னார்கள் அது நாகரீகம்"

வாலியின் வார்த்தைகள் இன்றும் உண்மையாக ஒலிக்கின்றன. 

ஒவ்வொரு கருத்தையும் தீவிரமாக விசாரி. எந்த சிந்தனைக்கும் அடிமையாகாதே. தமிழன் எதற்கும் அடிமையல்ல, சிந்தனைகள் உட்பட. 

Monday, November 27, 2017

She sings to me,
in her own way,
through brushstrokes, paneer,
and joy.

I dreamed deep today, and had a realization of how ridiculously simple, yet so elegantly complex, our universe could be. Everything is reducible to the known stable elements in our universe, the fundamental chemistry. Including us. We are an expression of the universe, its children. And through us, the universe experiences itself. Life, is the ultimate "meta."

But why this urge for complexity, universe?

Sunday, April 28, 2013

Cumberland Falls, Kentucky

Rainbow on a full-moon night at Cumberland Falls (April 25, 2013). Photos by Joao (long-exposure image at about 11 pm-1am). The moon was very bright and had to rise above the creek so it could refract off the mist from the falls.



Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Saturday, November 12, 2011

The national language debate

India is a very diverse country with people of different ethnicities, languages, religions etc. Finding ways to achieve national integrity is therefore a huge task, considering India supports individual freedom (to an extent, of course). One such crucial choice was a common language of communication. The choices were Hindi (the language spoken by majority of the Northern Indian communities) or English (the language of the colonizers). Even before Independence, the primary choice of reigning politicians was Hindi, which came under fire from the South, mostly Tamil Nadu. The state (under the leadership of the Dravidar Kazhagam, and later the DMK) was opposed to the creation of Hindi as the sole official language of the country and insisted on making English official as well. Plenty of agitations, fasts etc to this end, and it was only in the late 60s, with Indira Gandhi as the Prime Minister, did the complete acceptance of English as an official language in addition to Hindi occur. This however created a mentality that the South hated Hindi (and the North as well), but in my opinion, the truth is far away from that.

Tamil people do not hate Hindi. We Tamils, in general, are very proud of our language and our culture. It is, in a form, our identity. Tamil is considered as one among the classical languages, with written literature dating back for more than 2000 years. Many of our texts and epics are older than the great Hindi/Sanskrit epics. The influence of our language can be seen in the neighboring states of Kerala, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh; the influence of Tamil reaches out further to Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia, due to the early sea-faring traditions. In fact, inscriptions in Tamil that have been dated to times before Christ have been found in Thailand and Mauritius. We have cultural symbols that have stood for centuries, reminding us of our heritage.

We do understand that as part of a larger country, we would need to accept a more common language for communication. But the question was, why Hindi for that language? English was more useful in terms of a global perspective. With the first draft of the constitution, Hindi was the only official language, and was to be made compulsory in all schools across the nation. This led to the movement pushing for English to be included as an official language. And honestly, I thank those people for doing that; without that, our competing in the global space might have been pushed back a few more years. As a result of that movement, now, most government communications are in both English and Hindi.

Even now, contrary to popular perceptions, Hindi is not banned in Tamil Nadu. There are huge sections of Chennai, where people primarily communicate in Hindi. Most schools teach Hindi. However, the most important thing is that, we have a choice. We can choose to study Tamil, Hindi or English. Unlike many other states, we have not been forced to abandon our language in favor of commonality. I know there are plenty of people nationwide who learn just English and Hindi, while ignoring their mother tongues. Maybe they are okay with it - but we aren't.

Saturday, October 29, 2011

A short history of nearly everything - Bill Bryson

An excerpt from Bill Bryson's introduction to the book - good stuff. 


Welcome. And congratulations. I am delighted that you could make it. Getting here wasn't easy, I know. In fact, I suspect it was a little tougher than you realize.
To begin with, for you to be here now trillions of drifting atoms had somehow to assemble in an intricate and intriguingly obliging manner to create you. It's an arrangement so specialized and particular that it has never been tried before and will only exist this once. For the next many years (we hope) these tiny particles will uncomplainingly engage in all the billions of deft, cooperative efforts necessary to keep you intact and let you experience the supremely agreeable but generally underappreciated state known as existence.
Why atoms take this trouble is a bit of a puzzle. Being you is not a gratifying experience at the atomic level. For all their devoted attention, your atoms don't actually care about you-indeed, don't even know that you are there. They don't even know that they are there. They are mindless particles, after all, and not even themselves alive. (It is a slightly arresting notion that if you were to pick yourself apart with tweezers, one atom at a time, you would produce a mound of fine atomic dust, none of which had ever been alive but all of which had once been you.) Yet somehow for the period of your existence they will answer to a single overarching impulse: to keep you you.
The bad news is that atoms are fickle and their time of devotion is fleeting-fleeting indeed. Even a long human life adds up to only about 650,000 hours. And when that modest milestone flashes past, or at some other point thereabouts, for reasons unknown your atoms will shut you down, silently disassemble, and go off to be other things. And that's it for you.
Still, you may rejoice that it happens at all. Generally speaking in the universe it doesn't, so far as we can tell. This is decidedly odd because the atoms that so liberally and congenially flock together to form living things on Earth are exactly the same atoms that decline to do it elsewhere. Whatever else it may be, at the level of chemistry life is curiously mundane: carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, a little calcium, a dash of sulfur, a light dusting of other very ordinary elements-nothing you wouldn't find in any ordinary drugstore-and that's all you need. The only thing special about the atoms that make you is that they make you. That is of course the miracle of life.
Whether or not atoms make life in other corners of the universe, they make plenty else; indeed, they make everything else. Without them there would be no water or air or rocks, no stars and planets, no distant gassy clouds or swirling nebulae or any of the other things that make the universe so usefully material. Atoms are so numerous and necessary that we easily overlook that they needn't actually exist at all. There is no law that requires the universe to fill itself with small particles of matter or to produce light and gravity and the other physical properties on which our existence hinges. There needn't actually be a universe at all. For the longest time there wasn't. There were no atoms and no universe for them to float about in. There was nothing-nothing at all anywhere.
So thank goodness for atoms. But the fact that you have atoms and that they assemble in such a willing manner is only part of what got you here. To be here now, alive in the twenty-first century and smart enough to know it, you also had to be the beneficiary of an extraordinary string of biological good fortune. Survival on Earth is a surprisingly tricky business. Of the billions and billions of species of living thing that have existed since the dawn of time, most-99.99 percent-are no longer around. Life on Earth, you see, is not only
brief but dismayingly tenuous. It is a curious feature of our existence that we come from a planet that is very good at promoting life but even better at extinguishing it.
The average species on Earth lasts for only about four million years, so if you wish to be around for billions of years, you must be as fickle as the atoms that made you. You must be prepared to change everything about yourself-shape, size, color, species affiliation, everything-and to do so repeatedly. That's much easier said than done, because the process of change is random. To get from "protoplasmal primordial atomic globule" (as the Gilbert and Sullivan song put it) to sentient upright modern human has required you to mutate new traits over and over in a precisely timely manner for an exceedingly long while. So at various periods over the last 3.8 billion years you have abhorred oxygen and then doted on it, grown fins and limbs and jaunty sails, laid eggs, flicked the air with a forked tongue, been sleek, been furry, lived underground, lived in trees, been as big as a deer and as small as a mouse, and a million things more. The tiniest deviation from any of these evolutionary shifts, and you might now be licking algae from cave walls or lolling walrus-like on some stony shore or disgorging air through a blowhole in the top of your head before diving sixty feet for a mouthful of delicious sandworms.
Not only have you been lucky enough to be attached since time immemorial to a favored evolutionary line, but you have also been extremely-make that miraculously-fortunate in your personal ancestry. Consider the fact that for 3.8 billion years, a period of time older than the Earth's mountains and rivers and oceans, every one of your forebears on both sides has been attractive enough to find a mate, healthy enough to reproduce, and sufficiently blessed by fate and circumstances to live long enough to do so. Not one of your pertinent ancestors was squashed, devoured, drowned, starved, stranded, stuck fast, untimely wounded, or otherwise deflected from its life's quest of delivering a tiny charge of genetic material to the right partner at the right moment in order to perpetuate the only possible sequence of hereditary combinations that could result-eventually, astoundingly, and all too briefly-in you.

Sunday, April 17, 2011

பிரபஞ்ச காதல்

அவர்கள் பிரிந்திருந்த ஆறு மாதங்கள் 
வாடி, மனம் ஓய்ந்து,
வெள்ளை அணிந்து,
உறைந்தாள்  கன்னி .

அவன் வரும் நேரம் நெருங்குகிறது
அவள் காத்திருக்க, காதல் நினைவுகள் தூண்டி,
சோகம், கண்ணீர், மழை.
ஆனால், பொறுமையே வடிவானவலள்   அல்லவா அவள்
வெள்ளாடையை நீக்கி, நாணத்தில் விழி மறைத்து,
காத்திருந்தாள், கன்னி .

மூன்று மாதம், 
வெப்பத்தில் மிதந்தனர் காதலர்கள்.
பூட்டிவைத்த உணர்வுகள் வெடித்து,
வெப்பமும் புழுதியும் கலந்தன.
மெல்லிய காற்றின் ஆறுதலில்
வேர்வை தனணிய,
 துணைவியானால் காதலி. 

மென்மையான நாட்கள் பறந்தன...
அவனை பிரியும் நேரத்தை நினைத்து
பயம், துக்கம்.
ஆனால், அவள் கொண்டது
காலம் அரிக்காத பொறுமை அல்லவா...

காத்திருப்பாள்...
கண்ணீருடன் அவனை வழியனுப்பிவிட்டு
உணர்வுகளை அமைதிசெய்ய,
குளிர்ந்தாள்.
சில மாதங்களில்,
மனம் ஓய்ந்து,
வெள்ளை அணிந்து,
உறைந்தாள், 
எங்கள் அன்னை.
 
(edited by Dad)

Thursday, January 13, 2011

The perfect murder...

There is no such thing as a perfect murder, at least, in the real world; you make a mistake... somewhere, or the other. That seems to be the underlying theme in the Hitchcock movies I have seen. I saw Dial M for Murder while traveling, and it was utterly awesome timepass. With the simplest of sets, this great man can have your attention like none other. I forgot I was traveling, I forgot I was in a narrow upper berth with no space to move... Grace Kelly was there, in her nightgown, in that train! phew.

The movie is basically about a tennis-player-turned-good-husband who wants to murder his previously philandering wife and inherit all her fortune. So, it starts with the guy scheming the murder, the actual event which goes all wrong, and the consequences. Pretty simple story with red herrings thrown in, a central clue, a detective that reminded me of Poirot... it was all there.

Hitchcock builds the suspense up with each sequence, in his characteristic manner. In my opinion, he does this primarily using music. The music seamlessly blends into the movie, and gets choppy or calm based on the sequence on play - the best part, you hardly notice it. But in its absence, would he still be able to create the same effect?

This movie is super, but it doesn't come close to Rear Window, the best I've seen of his so far. Right now, it stands 2nd between RW and North by Northwest. The problem with classy old movies is that, many new people make movies that are inspired, or at least, pay homage to them. Many of these new movies are plain kickass. I know it is not fair to compare, and they are giants in their own rights; but somehow, I can't help thinking how Lynch or Polanski would have done this movie :)

Friday, August 20, 2010

Jonah for John


Jonah for John | Music Codes

Yet another recording from Jack Gallup's basement. Dear John, a song composed and sung by Jonah Dean Miller, as a tribute to John Lennon.

Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Dreams


Yeah, I saw Inception. Brilliant movie, no doubt; the only problem was the dreams did not really feel like dreams. They felt too rational, and too well organized - not the surreal kinda ones we get. But still, it kicked ass. But really, how much do our dreams contribute to thoughts? Dreams are basically the subconscious manifesting itself into a semiconscious state. I have thought of them more as a TV show - where our thoughts form the show, a jumbled variety that is edited and directed by the conscious brain. I find them fascinating. BTW, isn't it a weird feeling thinking about thoughts? and even dreams? It's a out-of-mind-watching-the-mind kind of thing. Anyway, research so far hasn't found the reason we dream, or what role dreams play in memory. We have hypotheses though. I think we need to understand sleep and memory formation to better understand dreams. Why do we sleep? It is quite sad that we still can't answer even this question. The mind is shrouded in so much mystery, you gotta love neuroscience! 

There seem to be conflicting opinions regarding why we actually sleep. One camp goes to say that sleep has a vital restorative function in the body. The opposite camp says that sleep is just a way of conserving energy, when there is no physiological need to stay awake. Though the first view appears reasonable, they really don't have much in terms of supporting facts except behavior in humans. As far as humans go, we know that if we were to go sleepless a few days, we do not function well, to put it mildly. There are plenty of movies to vouch for that- think the machinist (Personally, I have never stayed awake for more than 48 hours- I just need my sleep. But I have heard people say they go sleepless for up to a week. If I went sleepless on one night, the next day I feel a kind of lightness in being but a strange weight in my brain that seems to crush in-happens for a few minutes. wonder if anyone else feels that way. What happens in reality sometimes feels dreamy and disconnected; and while I do doze off, I go into extremely dreamy sleep. anyway... moving on...) But is that the status quo, for all other animals too? Do we really need sleep so much, or is it just that we have become so used to it?

It apparently is quite tough to study sleep in animals. Apart from the obvious reason that you can't ask them if they had nightmares the previous night when they wander in grouchy at your doorstep demanding food, electrophysiological recordings of activity are not really indicative of actual sleep occurring. It is believed that whales and dolphins don't really sleep. They go into a unihemispheric sleep, where they doze off one brain half at a time. However, even during this "sleep", they keep moving and can respond to stimuli. But unlike other mammals, they do not require both hemispheres of the brain to carry out metabolic functions either- one is sufficient, and therefore, it is possible that there is a reduction in metabolic activity when one side sleeps... for a detailed argument saying sleep is necessary, see this open source article: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060216&annotationId=info:doi/10.1371/annotation/47c75a12-8a0b-491d-89f9-383f70a0eed7 (I came to this after reading this article http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.com/2009/09/why-do-we-sleep.html)
If you look in the comments of the PLoS paper, there is an interesting hypothesis that says evolutionarily, sleep was primary and activity was secondary. Over time, activity has increased, and sleep decreased.

So, going back, there is a hypothesis that as we sleep, long term memories get formed. One of the functions of sleep is probably in the consolidation of thoughts and experiences into memories. Dreams are probably by-products of this process. There is an article going along these lines which discusses these in relation to cortisol, a stress hormone. http://learnmem.cshlp.org/content/11/6/671.full
The authors in conclusion write this interesting piece: 

"In addition to telling us something about the contributions hippocampal and neocortical circuits make to episodic memory, to the consolidation of episodic and semantic memory, and to the content of dreams, our proposal suggests some intriguing possibilities about creativity and the generation of novel thoughts. One stage of consolidation likely involves the integration of information with pre-existing knowledge and the linking of distant but related concepts. We dream when we become aware of these activated traces, which are often fragmented images and sounds coupled with motor activity. Similar to memories created under stress, these fragments are immediately subjected to a process of narrative smoothing, and the result is typically a story that is often confabulatory, quite bizarre, but possibly also creative.

Although it is true that accurate recall is adaptive in many cases, there may nonetheless be a positive side to a process that produces fragmentation—both during wake and during sleep. All new ideas are based upon previously stored information. These fragments, or pieces and patches of knowledge, are bound into representations that we use to recall information about personal experience and to help us understand and act in the world. When these bonds are weakened, this information can be recombined, either in dreams or misremembered episodes—perhaps resulting in a process leading us down unusual paths to creative insights and new ideas."  Payne and Nadel, 2004. Sleep, dreams, and memory consolidation: The role of the stress hormone cortisol.

Pretty neat, I think.

So now, coming back to Inception, it’s time for spoilers.
I think there is a flaw in the story. Entering a person’s dream and using it as a vehicle to the subconscious to plant a thought sounds cool, but I don’t think it’s plausible. One, the person is still dreaming, and it doesn’t really fit into actual thought process. How do you account for a thought that is generated within a dream? Does it ever happen? However, they do agree in the movie that a brand new idea is not manufactured. It is built on previous thoughts; after all, it’s our interpretation of these thoughts that adds the uniqueness.  Two, the fact that he doesn’t have to remember this when he wakes up. Given, it is going to be tough to forget a dream like THAT, but how many dreams do we actually remember? Atleast I don’t remember much, and I do know people who recite stories from dreams… anyway, it’s a movie I would definitely watch again and figure out the loopholes.

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

wordless

Imagine a bright sunny day in a sunflower field. Warm skin, fluffy clouds, and cornflower sky.
Do you see?
Now, see the two people running in the midst of the flowers. You have to know, these people are special. They do not know speech, words, sound... nothing. They don't need that. Thoughts and emotions flow between them. How do you think that will be, without words? Can you imagine that?
In that sunflower field, one person smells the wetness of the earth, feels it in his heel and sees the green stalk rise from brownliness. The other, feels the gentle breeze stir her heart, bringing with it sweet unearthly fragrance. They see each other, and instantly... God, can you imagine?
What joy, and what sorrow we would feel. For, isn't every thought and emotion, at its core a silent uttering? And, when we communicate from this fundamental plane, won't it be the simplest, and most honest? How pure, and how crystal clear.
And some day, we will realize this soul of silence. When silence becomes being. When our first point of contact with another being is from the silence, and not from the senses. When your senses feed your silence, and by choice, the river of silence between you and everything else.
You become being, and nothingness.
You are free.

And till then... there's English :)

Thursday, March 4, 2010

Sita sings the blues

This looks awesome, yet to watch completely. via Nick's blog http://kasparen.tumblr.com/

Sita sings the blues...

Sunday, February 21, 2010

Identity

From some of my previous posts, it might be apparent that I seek a common denominator; one that can define, and unite us as humans. A common identity. In that sense, I think this continues on the previous post.
I believe that the institutions of our fathers give us a ground on which to build on, but not to follow without thought. Religion, nationality, community, language, regions... there are plenty of things that we find identity with. These are concepts that can induce tremendous passion and provide its followers with purpose. They provide crucial structure for the development of the individual within the community. They have, in fact, shaped the way civilization has developed to this point.


However, over the past few years, advances in technology particularly with regard to communication, have been instrumental in changing our lives, our communities, and with those, our perceptions of identity. This has enabled people at different corners of the globe to interact instantly. This, coupled with easier travel, has erased many a boundary, wherever that existed. Traditional definitions of closed communities are rapidly being overthrown to bring in concepts of larger, global communities, a 'global village'. National boundaries are of no concern. Trade has become global, ideas flow with no regard to location, race, color... In this melting pot of cultures, concepts that were once considered the basis for one's existence suddenly lose value.
Take language, for example. Though there are millions of languages all over the world, with growing communities, there is an urgency for a common language, and a common platform for communication. In this situation, a person's mother tongue, something that has been a source of 'identity', is now being more or less replaced with another language, purely for functional reasons. Future generations might choose to take up the new functional language as their mother tongues, and with passing time, the initial language can not only lose significance, but can also fade away with disuse.
I am not going to argue the merits and demerits of this; that would be a whole post by itself. But it serves to illustrate how such concepts change over time, or rather, how our identity with these concepts change. Further, it is inevitable over generations. Therefore, as we go stripping down to our cores, the only identity we share with this global community is our humanity.
How do we express, or share this identity? Simply by accepting one another, accepting we are the same regardless of where we come from or what we are.
It also arises that once we accept this humanity as our identity, everything else becomes secondary. Identity will necessarily have to be singular. Therefore, concepts that we hold dear will have to be re-evaluated.


What do I mean by identifying with humanity? It is accepting that our further evolution lies not just in individual advancement but in the advancement of the global community. It is accepting that contributing to this community transcends national, religious, or communal interests. I think it was best put by Asimov in his Zeroth law of robotics, a law that preceded protecting an individual human being, which was the First law: A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm. Just imagine the possibilities of such a community. Instead of warring over land, we fight against poverty, disease... improve the lot of mankind. To cope with our population explosion, we should be putting all our energies into actually exploring outer space, to find alternatives to Earth, to push our boundaries, to advance. The alternative is surely degeneration as our resources deplete.


The ideas are all there. We know where the truth lies. Are we ready to accept it? Will we put aside our differences for our common humanity? Religion had/has the ability to induce passion and fervor. It bought people together, to rally under a banner. Would we feel the same way about our humanity? Is this just an idealistic dream, totally free from practicality? I don't think so. It makes the most practical sense. But how do we bring people to realize it? What is that common denominator? A visionary leader to show us the way, is that what we need? Or, is there something apart from our humanity, something else that can appeal to everyone on earth and give a basis for our unity? I have more questions than answers. 
Maybe we do need a global catastrophe to actually help us realize it.

Friday, February 5, 2010

Lovin'

There floats a lot of stuff about love... vague definitions, about it being unquantifiable, unmeasurable, and not comprehensible to rationality. Many say it is a 'feeling'. A feeling of deep attachment to something/someone, the withdrawal of which causes pain. Since it is a feeling, it also has the ability to arouse tremendous emotion, which is also confused with the definition of love itself... if the emotions associated with love are removed, would love make any sense at all to many people? So, what is the perception of love in those of us, with the 'emotional capacity of a teaspoon'?
I think love is something that stems from an initial selfish need that then evolves to accommodate moments of selflessness. There's a book by Stephen Covey, where he compares the 'love' in any situation to a bank balance. You put something in, you take something out. You sometimes go on overdraft, but for the account to stay active, you got to put back in, to reach a healthy bottomline. It makes sense. After all, no one wants to be giving all the time. No person is selfless all the time, not even a mother. So here, love is about understanding, accepting differences, and showing willingness to work toward a common goal.  Why do we do it? Because we benefit from it, it gives us happiness. It does not involve emotions, feelings, or intimacy... things that we normally associate with love. And this love, is applicable to a global sense. I can love humanity. I can love you. I can probably even love loud neighbors. There's a friend who says that true love is when you can actually 'love' a person who has harmed you... how do you love a person who has raped your sister, or put a gun to your head? It seems a tall order, but in this definition, it is probably possible. However, my love doesn't mean I condone the person's actions, but I accept his weaknesses, his inherent humanity. He will be punished, but does not become an object for hate. So hate, I assume, has to be the utter opposite; an unwillingess to accept/understand someone. So there, to all you unbelievers, I've stripped love of all its glamor, gloss, and it still makes sense. The emotions that we experience are normally a product of our interactions, our intimacy, and not a product of love. The expression of love, or the lack of it, induces all emotion. Feelings for a person is not equal to love. But the intimacy, the emotions, the testosterone, the oestrogen, and the feelings, all of 'em mix with the underlying love and create the colorful, beautiful, and totally imperfect 'love' that we share with 'that one person' :) Gotta love biology for that!
So, there you go kids, now you know what to look for! All you girls that sit starry-eyed, dreaming for that perfect 'Darcy' and boys who walk about looking for love in the prettiest pair of legs, you know what you gotta do :) And for the ones moaning, crying and wasting over 'lost love', get a life!

Edit 12/26/2010: An npr article that shares the same view, albeit written much better
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/12/25/132291375/what-is-love#more