Rational Intuition

Levels of Smartness

noreply@blogger.com (Pravin Sharma) — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 22:07:00 +0000

Level 0: Plain Dumb
Level 1: Reading Smart People. (The aspiring class)
Level 2: Parroting Smart People (Borrowed smartness)
Level 3: Notice yourself finding faults with the 'smart' ideas. (Inflection point)
Level 4: Keep reading till the borrowed ideas in your head break down, intermingle and arrange themselves in new beautiful and intricate patterns
Level 5 : Genius

Hero

noreply@blogger.com (Pravin Sharma) — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 11:32:00 +0000

You dont have to win to be a hero. You dont have to survive , be the last man standing. Those who equate heroism with victory completely miss the point. A hero is on a plane completely different from others, one who puts his principles before his life.
One of best scenes in an otherwise tasteless movie (Inglorious Basterds) was this one. A German officer chooses to die rather than put the lives of his troops in danger. He is a hero and this scene from the movie will be remembered by me when all the other scenes have faded from memory.

Perseverance in the face of adversity.

Yes, of course he had to pay a price for being a hero. Being a hero ain't easy.

PS: This post marks the beginning of the phase wherein I test the "Sex and Violence sell" hypothesis on my blog.

Game Theory

noreply@blogger.com (Pravin Sharma) — Sat, 02 Apr 2011 09:26:00 +0000

Observing people commenting on cricket matches can be quite an enlightening experience, providing vital insights into human behavior. I observed many people come up with figures and data (selectively sourced, of course!) , find a pattern in them and then predicting a result based on the pattern.
Here's an example:

Both the years of 1983 calendar and 2011 calendar starts on the same day. 1983 world cup final date according to 1983 calendar is June 25 (Saturday)
2011 world cup final date according to 2011 calendar is April 2 (Saturday)
(To predict India's win in WC 2011)

"I stopped watching the streaming and India has started to get back slowly. I shall remain loyal to Cricinfo till end of the game. I promise!"
(A fan attributing India's comeback during the match to his action of not watching the streaming match.)

Our brains are pattern recognizing machines. While this is good for us from an evolutionary perspective (eg: co-relating certain signals like a rattling sound with danger of a snake bite from a rattle-snake) , it also leads us to form false associations which form the basis of superstitious beliefs.
For example, Event A may cause Event B and Event C to occur. Now, we might not notice Event A happening and see B and C happening together and conclude that B causes C or C causes B. Worse, B and C happening together could be completely co-incidental and we might form associations between them.
This fallacy of mistaking co-relation with causality is quite common among people and the habit of predicting a winner for a cricket match based on patterns found in unrelated/superficially related past data is just a manifestation of that.

Could this fallacy take troubling forms?
Suppose a people come to associate sunrise with human deaths. In other words, a belief that to rise, the sun needs a particular quantity of human blood?
(Note: I am not sure if this was actually the reason for the Aztec human sacrifices, I am just guessing.)

Marriage and Morals

noreply@blogger.com (Pravin Sharma) — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 18:59:00 +0000

As promised, I am back with my first review/summary. (Actually, trying to be both, it ends up being neither) :)
The human brain functions through heuristics. Just like a student would first derive a formula and then apply it (as opposed to deriving the formula every time its application is required), the human mind will try to frame all sorts of rules taking into account various factors and then adhere to those rules.
This approach is very advantageous to a human as it saves valuable circuitry in the brain. Along with the advantages it proffers, are certain shortcomings. If the original parameters that went into framing the heuristic are changed, we are often left with a redundant heuristic. Often, completely oblivious to the changed parameters, we continue to apply the same heuristic.
The functioning of a society as a whole cannot be expected to differ significantly from the unit that makes it up. Hence, we have a set of codes, morals and taboos all defined as a society evolved. Ethics pertaining to sexuality are among the most rigid of them all. Bertrand Russell wanted to analyze the prevalent ethics to to analyze their pertinence in today's era (His era actually). Marriage and Morals does just that. It subjects the prevailing ethics to scrutiny from various angles to do a thorough review. One of the reasons , I admired him was that he never advocated the complete relegation of sexuality from the domain of ethical purview. This conclusion would probably have emerged had he viewed the problem purely through the prism of individual pleasure and gratification as is being done by some of our contemporaries.
Instead, a well crafted sexual ethic has to do justice to various considerations like individual satisfaction and happiness, social stability, nurture of progeny among others. The consideration that towers over all others should be the role a sexual ethic should play in the healthy upbringing of a child.I agree with Russell when he says that a marriage's most important function is the upbringing of a child and it should be legally and socially acceptable for married couples without kids to divorce. He also argues that the role of the state in providing for the child is on the ascent and the role of the father is becoming redundant and we may reach a point where the father is not required at all. Keeping in mind the scenario in India, I find myself disagreeing with this view.
With the development of contraceptives, individuals dont have to worry about begetting kids while in a relationship. I will not go into the details of the relationship Russell considers ethical but I will mention that he was not an advocate of sexual relationships devoid of emotional attachment. (See chapter: Trial Marriage)
Besides his progressive views, what makes the book an interesting read is the explanation he offers for how things turned out the way they are. For instance, he attributes male jealousy and female chastity to the problem of determining the paternity of a child. Only when the father is sure of the paternity of the child, would he invest his resources in raising the child (and thus sow his seeds).
He also discusses other topics like Prostitution and Eugenics. Again, I find it better not to have a detailed discussion on all these topics.
The reason why I haven't discussed all these topics in detail is because someone else already has and I dont think I can better him.
Please visit this link to read a summary of each chapter from the book. It will elaborate all the topics I have mentioned. If sufficiently interested, I recommend you get hold of the book.

Crossroads.

noreply@blogger.com (Pravin Sharma) — Sat, 12 Feb 2011 13:09:00 +0000

I sometimes wonder what I should blog about. A friend gave me an idea. Now I'll be blogging about the books I read. A review/summary of sorts. It's a very good way to ascertain whether I really gained something of the book or not. Some of the books I've read in the last 6 months worth reviewing are:

Marriage and Morals - Bertrand Russell.
India after Gandhi - Ramachandra Guha
No Full Stops in India - Mark Tully.
Freedom at Midnight - Dominique Lapierre and Larry Collins.

The obsession with India really started after I read India after Gandhi during Winter Vacations in December. Anyway I'll come up with my first review after my exams which are due in less than a week.
I received a copy of 'Discovery of India' , the classic by Nehru which I'll be reading after mid-sems. I remember I first picked up that book in school (Was it VIIth?), read a few lines, yawned and promptly put the book down. Wont happen this time.

The Myth of Free Press.

noreply@blogger.com (Pravin Sharma) — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 13:18:00 +0000

In a liberal democracy, the function of the press is to promote open discussion and debate, provide honest criticism of the government, expose irregularities in the system, inform the public about happenings and indirectly act as a guardian of democratic institutions. "Free Press" is a term for independent journalistic organizations, that act outside the purview of the government and are therefore assumed to be completely independent of any external influence. In my opinion, this narrow definition of independent journalism discounts several key factors that can threaten the independence,neutrality and thus the credibility of the news media in the country. I will try to list those factors that currently influence the media in our country negatively and prevent it from executing its allocated functions effectively.

1. Financial dependence on corporate organizations.
As long as the media will depend on advertising revenues from companies, they will be open to manipulation and soft coercion. Any negative news about a particular company can cause the company in question to withdraw its advertising from that media organization. This frequently happens and impacts the neutrality of media organizations. While reading Hamish Macdonald's 'The Polyester Prince" (supposedly banned in India), I came across an excerpt that described how newspapers used to run negative stories about Reliance in order to attract advertising from Reliance that would shut them up. An innovative way to exort money, eh?

2.The Profit motive.
Although a proponent of increased economic freedom, I was never a fan of unbridled capitalism as espoused by some. I believe there are some industries where the race to increase the bottom-line actually goes against the larger public interest. The eyeball grabbing tactics employed by the media in India stand testimony to my arguments. In an effort to boost TRP's and increase readers, media organizations are going all out to sensationalize stuff and trivialize news. This serves to erode the credibility and trust individuals place in the media. After a while, nobody takes them seriously.

3. Foreign Investment in Media
When two siblings want to watch different channels on TV, who gets to decide which channel is going to be viewed? Simple, the one who has the remote!
Unless we want our media to act as a front for foreign organizations, it is imperative that their investments in media be capped.

In one way or other, all these factors somehow relate to money. Maybe I will look into the reforms needed in a later post.

Do or Die.

noreply@blogger.com (Pravin Sharma) — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 12:38:00 +0000

Seth Godin had this piece of advice for readers who frequent his blog. What I like about Seth Godin's blog is the distilled learning that accompanies each of his posts. Anyway, here is an excerpt :

There used to be a significant limit on available intake. Once you read all the books in the college library on your topic, it was time to start writing.
Now that the availability of opinions, expertise and email is infinite, I think the last part of that sentence is the most important:
Time to start writing.

Over the last few months, I have been feeling increasingly aimless, like an un-anchored yatch riding the winds. There are lots of personal projects I wanted to undertake but mental barriers always manage to keep me tethered. Perhaps the time has come to embark on a few projects I hold dear to my heart. Hopefully, they will impart a sense of direction to my otherwise aimless life.Time has come for being active as opposed to being passive.

Its Magick!

noreply@blogger.com (Pravin Sharma) — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 17:38:00 +0000

I attended Mood Indigo at IIT-B in December. One of the workshops was called 'Wicca and Magick' (sic). It was held by a lady called Swati Prakash.Follow the link to land on her personal site. She holds these posts :
President – Tarot India Network
CEO – Magick stores
Head – Global Wicca Tradition
Head Priestess – Earth Healing Temple
This is how an internet portal describes her:
"Swati Prakash was initiated into the realms of divination, magick and transformation at the age of 11 when she spontaneously started creating spells and horoscopes, a skill inherited from her past lives. Her interest in the occult grew with several psychic insights that took her deeper into realms of Wicca, Dream-working, Past Life Therapy, Energy Healing and Tarot."
She was a charming person nevertheless she made some really absurd claims during the course of the workshop like about how her friend who practiced Wicca could memorize the Chemistry textbook without even opening it. She also mentioned a strange worm with beard and glasses that appeared for a week while she and her coterie were performing some Wiccan rituals.
It was preposterous to think that claims like these would not go unchallenged. Most people choose to express their disagreement by leaving the lecture hall. However I choose to ask her questions to give her a chance of explain her position.
I asked her if she would be willing to undergo a test administered by independent observers to verify her claims. After all it is the privilege of the shishya to demand proof if he is not convinced of the claims made by his guru. This probably came as a surprise to her, who had always encountered people willing to submit rather meekly to her instead of poking holes in her theories before accepting them. Visibly flustered she replied " You should learn to respect people who know more than you. I can prove them, but you will need to join us and I charge a very hefty fees for that."
Maybe she had some aversion to the scientific method or science. I decided to check her blog. I found an article explaining how Einstein had proved that mass and energy are equivalent and how we are nothing but energy. (The most obnoxious interpretation of his theory that I have come across.) She seemed to me a person willing to internalize the authority of science when it seemed convenient but never internalize its spirit.
After the lecture, I was determined to further explain myself so I wrote a long email to her at 2 am. Obviously, I did not receive any reply. Nevertheless, it was a long letter and I had spent half an hour of my precious time writing it so it would be a shame if it wasn't reproduced here to add to the voyeuristic delights otherwise offered only by Facebook.

Here goes.
_______________________
You might remember me as the guy who asked that particularly incisive question at your recent seminar in IIT B (Mood Indigo). Firstly, I would like to express regret and apologize if I came off as too harsh and rude. That was never my intention. In a battle of ideas, cults of personality should always take a backseat. Therefore, I urge you to purge all feelings of animosity towards me as a prerequisite to reading the rest of this letter. I expect you to remain highly skeptical of whatever I say in this letter as you should be, ideally. Please give due considerations to the points I have mentioned in this letter and respond to them, if you wish. I would like to hear your point of view in great detail.
Now, from what I have inferred there could be three situations possible. Also, it would greatly help if you considered my comments in each case separately i.e Comments in a particular case belong only if that case is true.

A] You are correct about whatever you say and I am mistaken. In this case, please read the rest of the letter and correct me. I am prepared to pay the hefty fees you mentioned if you can establish beyond doubt your case. I recognize the limitations of the 5 senses of Human beings, but there must be some experiment we could do that would yield observable results we could introspect upon. This is the one of the best ways to prove your case. Alternatively we can set up an experiment that will falsify your hypothesis, this will be the best way to prove my case. This is because a single negation is sufficient to destroy a general theory whereas an uncountable number of affirmations cannot completely prove a theory. Newton's classical mechanics theory was falsified by Einstein's theory in the same way. You may argue that there is no reason to learn something that is bound to be falsified in the future. Infact, there is. Atleast, we know what not to believe and what is untrue if we proceed like this.
If you are still angry with me, you can cast an evil spell on me that will wipe my existence. Even though I may be dead (in heaven or hell depending on where you want to send me) , I will be happy because you will have proved your point and corrected me.

B] You know that you are incorrect, and you are compelled to cheat/swindle others because of the strong economic incentives underlying it. You believe there is no harm in doing so, as ultimately people report feeling relaxed, happy because of your courses, and it justifies hiding facts from them.This seems the most likely case to me. If this is so, then there is a very strong probability that you will ignore this letter as it will raise some difficult questions. In general, my opposition to this continuing will base on the fact that infact, people are actually getting harmed by believing in this, especially young children whose logical/analytical skills arent yet developed and thus they depend on their parents to show them the correct path. By getting impressioned by concepts like Wicca and Witchcraft, they are prone to substitute development of scientific temper and rational thought which is inherent among children in a nascent stage (as they are prone to ask questions like "What is this?" , "How does this work?") with anti-skepticism, intellectual slavery and suspension of thought that aids discovery.For adults, this could grow really big and take the shape of a religion or a cult as most cults have developed and subject the next generation of children who ideally should be agnostics, to intellectual slavery. No doubt our present society has done its lot to suppress the inquisitive spirit in children by imposing taboos on questioning or acquiring certain kinds of knowledge especially taboos regarding sex, on questioning the authenticity of religion e.t.c. Some religions have gone so far as to impose death penalties on people abdicating their fold. I understand that questioning the authenticity of Wicca so ferociously is unjustified if you do not consider other religions. Infact, my points apply to other religions that impose taboos on questioning, free thought and inquisitiveness too in the same way as they apply to Wicca.
Intellectual slavery is a very dangerous thing as it engulfs entire swathes of people without them realizing it and gives rise to dogmas which are the anathema of civilization and contribute to its decay and consequently mankind's. The European Renaissance and Reformation would never have happened if there weren't bold thinkers who could resist the majority and stick to reason.

C] You are incorrect and you believe your theories to be correct based on the supportive testimonials of others.Equally likely. Its a well known fact that today's world has increasingly grown very stressful because of the pugnacious competition and the absence of love and warmth from people in general. People are seeking respite in things they find comforting and pleasurable. As a result, they would give credence to anything that helps them relax and that includes meditation (which is a powerful exercise to stabilize and relax the mind) , sweet smelling candles and incense and your pleasing personality when you accord them affection and warmth. There are other factors too but as I am not very conversant with Wicca, I cant comment on them.But clubbing them as a package and selling them as a worldview would be incredibly dishonest. These are things meant to be taken at their face value. Another factor in work is the placebo effect, which means that sometimes a cure or a therapy would work if people intensely believe in it. I would have gone in greater details about this but in the interests of keeping the letter short, I request you to read the Wikipedia article on this topic. A reason for the popularity of witchcraft could be the fascination for it and the mysticism behind it. As a big fan of mythological stories and legendary heroes and heroines, I can understand this. Also, another reason for believing in something is the way the psyche of human beings is constituted. They want to have a guiding hand or a protector to symbolize and recreate the ideal parent as most adults , all grown up suffer from some sort of insecurity or other. I am sure you would agree to this. You must have your own insecurities and I certainly have mine. A very wise person once said " The believer is happy but the doubter is wise" . This aphorism applies strongly here. Even Genghis Khan believed he was the scourge of God before he went on to massacre people, just like the modern day al-qaeda.
Again, I want to go deeper into this but I have limitations too. If you dont want to reply to me you can read or watch works of people like James Randi and Richard Dawkins.

I have deliberately kept this letter short and eliminated a lot of things to prevent it from being very boring. I could elaborate certain points if you wish or listen to counter arguments from you. I am a very reasonable man and I am amenable to changing my viewpoints if given sufficiently strong arguments. I hope you have as much pleasure reading about my thoughts in this letter as I had writing it. :)

Warm regards,
Pravin Sharma
Sophomore, IIT Kharagpur

Nice na?

The case against OP.

noreply@blogger.com (Pravin Sharma) — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 06:56:00 +0000

When I commenced blogging, I resolved not to use this blog as a medium to illustrate how boring my life was. I wanted this blog to reflect whatever little ideas or thoughts I had on a host of subjects.(I have been unsuccessful so far) Today, its time to break that rule for I am going to deal with things I have seen/experienced personally.
For the uninitiated, OP is like a rite of passage to a senior hall for the Kgpian. Its a euphemism for ragging, although vehemently denied by the brainwashed kind. For those looking for details, I recommend you check out KGP Files which gives a detailed account of what the ritual is like.
The one thing about OP that strikes you is how it has managed to keep its ugly head afloat all these years. Its not unreasonable to think that those who have gone through the ordeal will realize how unjust it is and resolve not to to let it happen to their juniors. Apparently, human psychology works in queer ways. An abused child goes on to be a perpetrator of sexual abuse when he grows up. Maybe, after having gone through OP, some students feel the need to let the system flourish as a way of trying to come to terms with what happened to them in second year (If I can do it, why cant these guys?) [a.k.a Mother in law - daughter in law syndrome]
Essentially, the batch of second years can be divided into 3 sections.
1. Pro-OP: These guys believe in the present way of going about things and believe that OP will benefit them in ways including but not limited to personality development, junior-senior interaction e.t.c. I have nothing personal against them. I respect their right to hold opinions and I expect them to respect my rights too. They form a minority.
2. Unsure: They form a chunk of the populace. Reared on statements like " OP will help you in the end" ."OP nahi diya to kaata ho jayega" , they feel they may miss out on something or the other during their stay. The fear of losing something is a very powerful motivator and it has been used successfully by marketers all around the globe. They don't like the things that happen during OP and want to opt out but are hesitant in opting out.
3. Anti-OP: Then there is a minority that is completely against the idea. They believe that nothing worthwhile can be gained from a system like this. They also believe that they wont gain or lose anything by opting out. They know that the only people worth talking to are those who talk to you irrespective of whether you have given OP or not.

So, as you can see the people who lose out are the people in the second group. They fall for the fallacy of Argumentum ad populum and are unable to opt out even if they want to.
Now that we have picked out the guys who suffer because of a system like this, lets focus on the need for OP.
Proponents of OP give a host of reasons for justifying the practice from the mundane to the philosophical. Philosophical reasons are often BS because most seniors being in the same age group are just as confused about life as the second years.
The worthwhile reasons relate to GC performance, senior-junior interaction (sadomasochistic ? ) , a concept called hall tempo e.t.c
While I completely agree that some students will never participate in events unless they are forced to, the ethically right thing to do is to respect his wishes. If he wants to mug, he has the complete right to mug as much as he wants in his room without any disturbance whatsoever. Almost always, rights of people take a backseat. Students are sometimes forced into events without their consent. I find this one of the lesser controversial aspects of OP, nevertheless if you agree to this happening you must agree with totalitarian forms of governance because the underlying principle or logic behind them is the same.

" You must do whatever I say because I know whats best for you."
In principle, you are transgressing the rights of an individual to make his own choices in life and if you are okay with that, you must not be opposed to any form of totalitarianism because you have breached a fundamental rule.
Its not hard to imagine life in KGP in the 60's with little or no contact with the outside world. There was a need to keep the creative energy of the campus occupied with something worthwhile. The campus was cut-off from the rest of the world and so there was little to do besides academics. GC provided a welcome refreshment from the world of academics. Now, flashforward to the present. GC is just one of the things in an average KGPian's life who has a host of other things to attend to. GC's will definitely be viewed fondly by alumni but one must not forget that alternative avenues of expressing talent and creativity exist today. Those interested in GC events will work for them anyway without coercion once provided the right introduction.
As for the interaction , I doubt how treating a junior with contempt for over a month, will lead to him being able to develop close bonds of friendship with his senior. From my personal experience, I have noticed that most second years dont hold their tormentors in high esteem.
The most depraved thing about OP is however the fact that it is a system open to abuse by sadists on the lookout for ways to prep up their ego. OP is also like a test of character for a senior. There will be some who will not be able to handle the power OP comes with and end up making horrible mistakes that will scar his junior for life. An experiment to ascertain the effects of power on humans has shown some shocking results. After all, being humans, everyone is prone to overstepping limits. We will keep hearing about isolated cases if the present way of going about things continues.
Some may argue that when caught, most juniors refuse to testify against their seniors. Parallels can be drawn with this and the Stockholm syndrome. You see, survival of OP can be attributed to its manipulation of the human mind so effectively.
The bottomline is that OP is a ritual that has outgrown its utility and it needs to be discarded as soon as possible to develop alternative and humane ways to achieve the objectives that OP set out to achieve. I dont know what a perfect system is, but I do know that a system that doesnt change and adopt is imperfect. I can propose a lot of alternative systems that accomplish most of the OP objectives in a much better way. Allow the HCM to make it compulsory for students to attend Fresher's events. Much of the problem with attending forced meetings is the lack of legitimacy. With a seal of approval from the administration, most students will have no qualms about attending those events and will be sure of the meeting not degenerating into a second year bashing affair. Interaction in the presence of Professors is one alternative but we dont have to go to such great lengths.
A simple alternative will be to assign a senior to a junior or a group of seniors to a group of juniors and assign them to eat together in the mess for a day. Rotate this group around till everyone knows everyone else. The senior can ask for a 'Re' is unsatisfied with a junior. But at all times, both must treat each other with mutual respect. Besides the interaction, this system will also allow people with common interests to know each other and will be a true precursor to lasting friendships. I sincerely believe that an age gap of 2-3 years can never prevent people from being friends.The present system also prevents seniors and juniors from developing deep bonds on the basis of interests because true friendship can never spout between unequals (apparent unequals) This system will ensure that the hierarchy is lost and everyone treats each other as they ought to, like fellow human beings.
I am open to working to ensure the end of this malaise and I request interested people who share my views to contact me so that we can chalk out a strategy for next year.

A moment to cherish.

noreply@blogger.com (Pravin Sharma) — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 16:20:00 +0000

The days were long and dreary,
The nights were short and scary,
With life, I had grown weary.

I glimpsed a doe,
With eyes so pure,
Unblemished,
Just like snow.

Her eyes met mine,
My realms changed forever,
My heart began to chime,
This sensation,I had faced,never.

The gentle rays of love,
Scorched my entire being,
With pain and misery came rapture,
The likes I had never seen.

The child in me awoke,
My flame was kindled,
In a disparate world,
Two roses mingled.

Is self-doubt really that bad?

noreply@blogger.com (Pravin Sharma) — Mon, 17 May 2010 11:17:00 +0000

The world loves confident people, doesn't it? PERHAPS we are biologically programmed to favor individuals displaying a trait of confidence over others exhibiting a degree of self-doubt. You know it and you have seen it. The public voting for that amazing politician who's such a good orator. The journalist who pronounces causalities like " Sensex down 12 points over inflation fears." or making judgments like "India needs to feed its poor before aiming for space" without blinking her eye. The public has little grasp over the nuances of policy-making and subconsciously decides the best policy ,hence the politician over how confident they appear. Likewise, the cocksure journalist probably hasn't done her homework before pronouncing judgments which defy rationality. (A 12 point shift in the Sensex hardly indicates anything and the cost of Chandrayaan was equal to the cost of a big airliner, hundreds of which ply over Indian skies at any given time) Yet, their arguments appear sound and convincing. Its no secret that the dumbest guys are most cocksure and aren't afraid of taking huge risks.

In stark contrast, a rational and informed individual always appears hesitant , especially if you ask him to pronounce a judgment. Its not because he knows nothing, its because he knows he doesn't know everything. Maybe, that's the reason they aren't the darlings of the TV media used to quick and vapid sound-bites. Ever noticed how funny news channels look when they invite actors to discuss political issues? Here's the point. They dont invite them because they know everything , they invite them because they appear to know everything. Politicians sure as hell are not exempt from not knowing but blabbering something rather convincingly. I had the opportunity to witness a debate on globalization on TV yesterday on NDTV and was startled to discover some of the participants making juvenile remarks quite confidently. (They are used to it. Most of them were politicians). The public quickly laps up all they say without a hint of skepticism. A good example would be the theory floating around that the lesser the economic regulation, better the nation is economically. On a personal level, I have noticed that the smartest people I meet are the most hesitant and the most annoying pricks act like they are the masters of the universe. (I am definitely not saying, all confident people are dumb. Far from it)

If the 9/11 bomber wasn't sure he was going to get 17 virgins in heaven, he probably made a very bad career move. What do you think?

Torrent of Tempest

noreply@blogger.com (Pravin Sharma) — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 22:30:00 +0000

Entombed in the grave of time,
Dormant lies a sea of memories,
Murky, malevolent and undivine,
Deadens my soul with its horrendous chime.

As I recline to relish the forehead caressing breeze,
And savour the all embracing sunshine,
From underneath me I sense the vile toxicant seep,
Draining away all delirium and delight.

My knees go numb with dread,
My throat turns parched at its fiery sight,
As I turn to face my queasy past,
I can, but marvel at its might.
And despair.

What used to creep, now flows.
Who stood upright, now bows.
Amidst the chilling gurgling,
I can sense the numbness in my toes.

As its icy hand,
rips apart my conscience,
My eyes ask the world,
"WIll some help, you lend?"
Now choking, gasping, and buckling,
I stare into the apathetic, cold
eyes of the world.

As my past catches up with me,
Once more I am consigned,
To excruciating torment and agony,
I live a life vapid
But how I wish,
Death should have been mine.