The Turtle Moves

Sliding on the Dawkins scale

2011-09-17T18:37:00.001+05:30

The Dawkins scale is a scale that measures belief (I think it was deliberately constructed to closely resemble the Kinsey scale of human sexuality). It's a scale from 1 to 7, 1 being certitude that God exist and 7 being certitude that God doesn't exist. This post is about how I slid steadily down on this scale and where I am today.

Where did I start out? I probably started out vaguely aware that people believed in a god that watched over them. That kind of belief was something that happened to other people. As a little kid, I also didn't know anything about Platonic dualism. I used to think that "mind" and "brain" meant the same thing. I was "corrected" by my well-meaning grandfather. He said "... the brain is separate from the mind. The mind exists beyond the brain...". That sounded somehow so lofty and nice, though I argued against it just because I felt I should. I was probably in the 2nd grade.

Unfortunately, like a lot of kids, I was afraid of the dark. My mom suggested I pray to god(she specifically suggested Rama) and that this would make things okay. I think that worked- my fear of the dark was substantially reduced. Around the 11th grade though, while that fear was thoroughly routed, the prayer still remained. It gave me the strength to sleep at night, the certainty that when I woke up, all would be as it was the night before. It was around this point that I started reading. Wikipedia was a lot less organized back then, more unstructured, but it was a treasure trove for me. Because I didn't bother about citations (so much for scientific training in school, eh?), the early form of Wikipedia was fine by me.

At this point though, more intellectually appealing alternatives began to creep in. Hindu monist beliefs drew me in(Advaita Vedanta), though not because of any inherent intrinsic logic in such a belief. It simply seemed nice and well-aligned with my world view- if you're basically good and lead a nice life, you'll be fine when you die because(here comes the fun part) the world is a lie, a mask or illusion(maya) over the "Ultimate Reality". It was also readily apparent to me that most old Eastern religions shared similar beliefs(The Tao, Buddhism, Jainism). It seemed to me that I had found a unifying theme between religions. Read carefully and selectively, one can also find monist overtones in the Qur'an, the Old Testament(some parts), and with some logical gymnastics, the New Testament. Eastern monism seemed to have made its way into the West as well- what you may know as New Age religions. I was sold! For the next few years, I strongly believed that this was the underlying truth of the world. How satisfying!

Then, I realized something. I seemed to have a need to believe- or worse, I seemed to believe out of sheer habit. Looking at my rosy little belief system through more critical eyes, it seemed to me that I had a symbiotic relationship with belief. I gave it my time of day and a space in my mind and it gave me solace. But solace from what? What exactly did I think was going to happen, as a student of science? The answer was clear: nothing! I saw only darkness beyond death. But I was no longer afraid of the dark, only sensibly cautious.

I read up on Evolution, on arguments for and against the existence of a prime mover, and on belief itself. It was at this point that I realized the trap of an all-encompassing faith- it morphs. Hinduism, since it started out as a way of life, morphs and adapts to encompass any belief system you have. It enfolds you. This is why Hindus do not evangelize- many of them sincerely believe that you might as well be a Hindu. To them, you are not the Other.

That's very nice. Generally then, liberal Hinduism is quite similar to liberal Judaism or some forms of Protestantism. That doesn't make it any more or less valid, does it? I had an answer now, but I was still in search of a question. I picked up "The God Delusion". This book has a polemical style that stings the religious. It stung even me, me-with-the-proclaimed-disbelief, with its harsh criticisms of religion. At that point, I asked myself: "why am I feeling bad if I no longer believe?". There were two answers: "I was taught to be overly polite when it comes to religion" and "I have the vestiges of some form of indoctrination clinging to me". My parents did not indoctrinate me, not consciously. But I was most certainly a product of that typical liberal Hindu environment- the tendency is towards inclusiveness and claiming oneness with other religions than to critique(not even other religions).

Richard Dawkins talks about consciousness-raising. That book raised my consciousness- not in some mystical sense, but more in letting me see what beliefs I had accrued along the way. At this stage, belief was no longer symbiotic to me- it was parasitic. I excised it. I stopped believing entirely. I lost superstition. I stopped crossing my fingers or uttering little prayers for what I wanted. I stopped knocking on wood (whoa, we seem to have accrued some uniquely Christian superstitions, no?).

Fueled by a desire to become a cleaner slate, I frequently attempted to shock myself by uttering statements that went against my former all-inclusive religious beliefs. Today, I can proudly say that if I am defending Hinduism, I am playing Devil's Advocate(whoa, we're on Judeo-Christian fire today!). I am fortunate to live with a guy who's an evolutionary biologist- he's always got an interesting thing or two to say everyday that continues to show Evolution by Natural Selection is very real. I am fortunate to have advisors who encourage my critical thinking skills- it turns out critical thinking during your PhD can actually apply outside that narrow little field of research you participate in! Shocking!

I am fortunate to have parents who aren't dismissive of my personal growth. I am utterly happy to have a fiancée who understands me and appreciates my attempts to become a clean slate. How is my desire to become a clean slate different from a similar albeit more mystic desire espoused by monists? I do not reject the power of thought, the power of the brain(and the mind, for science tells us they are the same thing viewed at different levels of abstraction). I try to wait for evidence before forming conclusions. In the absence of evidence, I try to make estimates for myself as to how probable or improbable something is. It is untenable(scientifically, philosophically) to postulate a prime mover that is infinitely complex to a Universe whose origins are unclear.

I slid from a 2 on the Dawkins scale to a 6 over the past 3 years. I think the existence of a god is highly improbable, but certainly do not make claims on the impossibility of such an existence. More importantly, I don't hang around waiting for evidence one way or the other. If sound evidence to the contrary presents itself, I will simply change my mind. Till then, I will live my life free of pain and fear and worry. I will be cautious of death, cautious enough to live my life to the fullest.

After all, we face the dark everyday. Why should the last day be any different?

Institutionalized Hinduism

2011-04-09T21:23:00.000+05:30

Clearly, this is a zombie post; my blog has been dead and is now resurrected, (un)fortunately, well before the end of days. Alright. Let's dive into it.

This is not going to be much of an argument from fact; I have chosen to not indulge in that pretense for this post. This will be an argument (a vague one) from assumptions that I'll attempt to state clearly. I'm also going to write this post in response to what "people say" - a random and ridiculous approach but I like to play around! So, what do "people say"?

"Hinduism isn't really a religion. It is a way of life that has had to evolve to be a religion- both to fit into the modern social discourse and to gain the same protections other religions have. In that case, if one were to aspire to be a true Hindu, it would be simply an attempt to discard such a religious interpretation of this way of life, and simply treat it as it was meant to be. It'll catch on better that way. Hinduism has been around for a really long time in that format, after all."

I think Hindus who make this statement are usually liberal Hindus from the Indian middle and upper economic classes.

They are also wrong. Hinduism has (and has had) at least a couple of religious institutions that formed a foundation for propagation of the religion. The first of these is the vast network of temples across the country that have frequently served as a cornerstone of family life, much like churches do in modern Christianity. You could point out that Hindus didn't have access to these temples during invasions and conquests by rulers practicing a different religion, but you'd only be partially correct. India has been mostly lucky in that the longest periods of conquest were generally by rulers with a secular, perhaps even a pluralistic bent (Mughal Emperor Akbar is the easiest example). In times when India had horrifically fundamentalist rulers (Mughal "Emperor" Aurangazeb springs to mind), there was opposition, underground worship and so forth. This worked because India wasn't India- it was a diffuse set of people used to getting their way, used to the nuttiness of kings and queens, and used to finding ways around that. I'd like to think the common man thought, "Hey, Aurangazeb may be a crazy king, but he is my ruler. Who am I to question him publicly? Instead, let me just do this pooja in privacy. He'll never know!".

Something changed when the British colonized India. Perhaps it was because their ways were so alien to us, perhaps it was because they viewed us as somehow inferior, not simply because of what religion we practiced, but by the colour of our skin, the lack of social cohesion and the lack of industrialization. This perhaps meant that they could justify not giving Indians the modicum of respect that Muslim rulers did give us. I'm not sure. Either way, when the British colonized India, our religious institutions changed. Hindus went to the temple but began to cling to their old ways of life well beyond the expiry date of those ways- I'm talking about the caste system. Suddenly, gods and temples were demoted and another already atrocious institution became the vehicle of Hinduism- the Caste System. I believe it is quite safe to say that the Caste System was the major thrust of Hinduism in the public social sphere (with the benefit of hindsight)- thrust here meaning the way Hinduism affected lives of people.

Then came the reform efforts- trying to remove the caste system and uplift the "lower Castes". It is indeed a work in progress and will take a while. Maybe someday, Hinduism will be sans the Caste system. But, if we continue with the train of thought that the Caste System has inadvertently become the central contribution of Hinduism, its only talking point and commentary on people's lives, removing the Caste System might remove Hinduism altogether! I've argued with my folks that if you're a religious person AND belief in exactly one god is a belief you wish to see enshrined in your religion, some forms of Christianity are the logical and most benign choices. On the other hand, if you don't believe in any god whatsoever (not even just the one!), you'd be an atheist or more mildly, an agnostic if you're unsure. Hinduism will be practiced by small segments of the population in the distant future, in this little portrait I've drawn- those drawn to the mystic/monist interpretations of Hinduism(drawn to the supposed freedom of these ideas), those drawn to the polytheist interpretation of Hinduism (the latter a more obvious interpretation than the former) and those stubbornly sticking to it despite the popularity and "rationality" of other religion (either to preserve the religion or simply because of indoctrination). A lot of categories but only a few people in each, after the other religions have had their say.

Hinduism will probably flourish if it is strongly institutionalized, with a caveat that we don't know that that would be such a good thing. Even today, one can see the craving of at least some Hindus for a centralized body, something to belong to other than temples and pooja rooms. This craving has manifested itself in the distorted and often plainly terrifying RSS, Bajrang Dal and the VHP, all overly-vocal Hindu organizations with close similarity to some bible-thumping neocons or fundamentalist Muslims(boredom, a desire for power, dangerous ignorance/intelligence).

Since Hinduism doesn't have a central voice other than these jokers, non-Hindus and Hindus alike will grow to regard them as the face and voice of Hinduism. This will prompt world scrutiny(not a bad thing), give further ammunition to conversion-hungry evangelists(I don't care) and probably cause many Hindus to leave their newly vitriolic religion or fall into those easy categories I listed above(the prospect doesn't pain me). Going with the same vague, unsubstantiated argument I've been making, I say that Hinduism requires an institution that is largely regarded as benign, like the one we have at Kanchi, but also far more involved in public debates and issues than the one at Kanchi. The guys at Kanchi have taken a step in this direction- their "spiritual leader" is starting a political party. I love it when the world goes along with my arguments in such a convenient fashion!

So, simply put, it might be logical to throw your weight behind this Hindu-politician-priest-party if you're horribly concerned about the future of Hinduism. They're more likely to care about what you(a probably socially liberal Hindu) have to say than the charming members of the RSS. The process of politicizing and transforming your ancient religion for the modern world and to make it fit for survival in a distant caste-free future can start here, today, with you!

That is, if you buy my argument. I'm not sure I do. But it was fun writing after so long!

Memystery...

2010-08-24T08:23:00.003+05:30

We may arguably be in control of our own lives but we are not in control of Life. Understanding evolution teaches us this.

Currently, many scientists are of the view that we are merely vehicles of expression and competition for genes; not expression in the human sense, but in a "sprout limbs to help pass me on" sense. In a nutshell, everything we do, conscious and unconscious, may be the result of genes trying to propagate and continue on. Are you particularly robust or healthy? Thank your genes. Are you constantly ill? Blame your genes and the genes of viruses for good measure.

Hang on, though. Genes can't "try" to do anything- they're just chains of molecules, strands of DNA. Yet, somehow, for presumably billions of years, they have served as the sole vehicle of evolution, the sole competing media. Isn't it strange that these molecules influence so much of our behaviour, our lives, our culture?

Speaking of culture, some in the scientific community are of the view that there is now a second breed of competing media- the so called "memes". Memes are pure information- thoughts, ideas, poetry, generational slang, you name it. Scientists are divided over memes, but some espouse the fascinating view that memes compete and engender changes in us and our genes, just as our genes affect changes in us and may result in creation of new memes.

It's easy to visualize ourselves as liaison officers, facilitating interactions between genes and memes. At the "behest" of the competing media, we may end up evolving in strange directions- perhaps more durable vocal chords to enable the spoken memes, provided speaking has some intrinsic physiological or psychological value to humans as phenotypes (arguably, it is).

There's the concept of the extended phenotype. Here, genes of organisms that live within us (bacteria, viruses, that nasty fungal infection you didn't know about) may end up influencing the evolution of our bodies much like our own genes can! Ever felt less in control of your own fate?

Genes and memes are not alive. Everything that is not alive is, essentially, crude matter. Crude matter is a euphemism for trash and therefore everything that is not alive is trash. Thus, genes and memes are trash. We are trash ferriers, trash receptacles, mere pawns in a not-so-grand not-much-of-a-plan with no agent not planning anything.

How does that world view account for Terry Pratchett and Albert Einstein? For Vincent Van Gogh, Satyajit Ray and Alan Moore? What could possibly be the evolutionary "use" of Relativity, art or comic books to genes? They may indeed have become memes, but what is the phenotype that these memes effect changes in?

It's one big memystery. Paging Dr. Sherlock Freud...

Rising

2010-04-11T15:00:00.001+05:30

Forget the economy and religion for a second. This is a blog post about something else altogether. First, let me start off by acknowledging something: I'm going to die. Today, tomorrow, ten years down the line, a fifty, a hundred, but I will die. With this acknowledgement of my mortality comes the question of how to live my life till that fateful day. I have decided to be happy, and to be myself.

Something very interesting has been happening. Few who knew me before college would call me passionate. Even now, the term "laid back" or "happy-go-lucky" is attributed to me. I will tell you this: you are wrong. I feel strongly about one thing, and this fact enables me to relax about everything else.

I feel strongly about myself.

I strongly affirm that I exist, and that my existence matters to me. My most powerful tool is my mind- note that this isn't a claim to any kind of superior intellect. It merely states that of the arsenal of weapons at my disposal (which does not include bazookas, sadly), my mind is the weapon of choice. For those claiming it is an illusion, those claiming that is a lie, an aberration that must be erased, I say to thee: nay! It exists. It arose out of natural biological processes and perhaps some random chance. The assumption that something this complex cannot arise from Nature is the ultimate conceit, bias or misconception, because that assumption comes from too much faith in human ability, and often a lack of understanding of natural processes.

When all we know and are is humanity, when our entire world view is defined by this, we fail to grasp the truly dynamic nature of, well, Nature. It makes us create or want to believe in a proto-human or super-human being, somebody at least somewhat personal and somebody we can hopefully meet and shake hands with, and more importantly, somebody in whose form we can believe we were made (though, ironically, in most of our thoughts, we give this being our form!).

I give myself one gift, in addition to that superb weapon; I give myself choice. A choice that is given is only a choice if one gave it to oneself. With my mind, I cut through the thorny thickets that my gift can often morph into. Then, in the ultimate positive feedback loop, I choose to believe in myself and my mind. This is positive self-reinforcement. The word positive, at least the way I use it, does not in any way refer to the consequences of this choice. Instead, it is a very simple word describing how I feel about myself and my choices.

I am not materialistic. I choose not to define myself by what others think of me, except when such a definition would lead to greater positive self-reinforcement, or even better, to growth. Growth, then, is what I have decided my future will contain. I also acknowledge that, in the end, my life amounts to very little. I will not have mattered to many people, or to the vast uncaring universe.

I will therefore make sure I always matter to me.

This one's for me: I am rising.

Musings- Part II

2010-01-24T10:01:00.002+05:30

Ever have something happen to you which you got mad at in retrospect?

The last 10 years were quite interesting for me and my friends: we went to school, college and now we're either in grad school, interning or working someplace. I got thinking about things that happened, and a few gems stand out.

In 9th std (that's the 9th grade), we studied World History in great detail. Our teacher, Mr. Easwaran, was a favorite- he had a knack for keeping our attention. He had another trait that was obvious- he didn't like Hinduism. This by itself is no big deal. I was studying in St. John's English School and Junior College, an unabashedly nonsecular school. They would even hand out copies of the New Testament in class. This one time, we got a wonderful, full color comic book based on the life of Jesus of Nazareth. No, what this history teacher did was slightly more insidious- he wove the story of the Bible into our World History curriculum. Starting with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, he went on to explain the history of the world. He wove it all in so well, master story-teller that he was, throwing in appropriately neutral-sounding terminology whenever he thought literal interpretations of the Bibles would appall 9th grade kids. Through him, we were exposed to the rich narrative of the Semitic Religions. Being a convert himself, he had perhaps a little too much zeal and not enough neutrality, but he captivated our imaginations! Ah, the worlds he showed us!

Scumbag. He would brook no protest or discussion, cutting us off with "This is not a theology class". Hope you read this someday. Your attempts at indoctrination were transparent to most of us- we used to discuss them after class.

Don't get me wrong. I used to play the guitar in the choir daily, and on every Friday, join the boys' choir in singing praises to Christ. Somehow, in that seemingly nonsecular school, there was still a separation of Church and "state". That balance, of course, was changed by Mr. Easwaran. Suddenly, we had an authority figure teaching us the history of the world from the viewpoint of one religion. Even in an inherently Christian nation like the United States, a similar incident created such a furor. In multi-religious Hindu majority India, surprisingly, nobody heard about it. Not one person bothered. The same scene is being repeated in many Indian schools. Does it matter? Hinduism seems yet undecided on its stance on whether it is an organized religion or a way of life; whether it is an "it", in the sense of an ancient religion whose adherents are slowly being outnumbered in its last bastion, is still open to debate.

It should have been easy for the BJP to play the hard line Hinduism card. They were our version of the GOP, attempting to come into power again after a successful stint. I was an ardent supporter of their economic and foreign policies, though not of their right-wing religious stance. They didn't win, despite a good first term and a rising Hindu consciousness to prey on. That's the picture of the New Decade- the Indian GOP lost, at a time when the global recession caused right wingers to come to power all over the world. Of course, the term GOP is a misnomer- they are not as "grand" or as "old" a party as the Congress. In the New Decade, we are ruled by the most educated Prime Minister in the world, a brilliant man who kick-started India's economic growth and... wait, what's that you say? We aren't really ruled by Dr. Manmohan Singh? Sonia Gandhi, you say? Uhm, well... ha! At least we have an awesome President in Pratibha Patil, take that! Wait, what? She talks to the dead? Mired in financial scandals? Another Sonia Gandhi puppet?

Whoopsie. India in the New Decade, ladies and gentlemen!

Another charming incident from the past decade is the time when a teacher in my college said to me, "Don't ask questions in class. You're not supposed to. Even teachers don't know everything". Oh, and the other teacher who answered, "That's not in your syllabus- you don't need to know that. It won't come on the exam". They aren't to blame really. They were a part of a system of education that was in dire need of an overhaul. It was a system of education that was grounded in Victorian values of prudishness and "proper conduct", while completely disregarding the inquisitiveness and inventive spirit that spurred on the Industrial Revolution in the same culture that invented the Victorian values. The teachers in Indian colleges are dismally paid, and hence are barely interested, though there were a few exceptions. Is the pay changing in the New Decade? Maybe. Is the system of education changing? I have seen signs of change, promising ones, in various colleges and universities all over India. Unfortunately, there is one thing that will hold Indian universities back- the bureaucracy's utter lack of respect for the students (again, with some notable exceptions). As long as students feel their freedoms are curtailed, or that their voices are being disregarded, they will not be interested in learning. The best, who do learn and grow, will leave the system that they had to work against. Many may not come back. Most who do come back will not teach within that system.

I plan to return to India to teach, at the fag end of this New Decade. I hope the bureaucracy won't crush my spirit.

While religious attendance is at all time high, the New Decade is also seeing a rise in atheism. I was claimed by these godless creatures only a year ago, while I was perched on a fence that insisted it didn't exist. Ah, the contradictions in Hinduism! Get your story straight, people.

More next time on the economy and religion.

Musings on the second decade - Part 1

2010-01-05T05:35:00.006+05:30

First, a very happy new year to everyone out there. We've gone around the sun once again! Also, this is the second decade of the new Millennium (which technically began in 1999). I thought I would write a series of blog posts (I don't know how many yet!) with my thoughts on the past, and how the legacy of the past will influence this new decade to come.

The first part of my story begins in the 1970s. What was special about the 1970s? Only Pink Floyd, Hendrix, the Beatles, hippies, the Cold War and... I digress! The thing I want to talk about right now is the Voyager probes, Voyager I and II. These probes were sent toward the outer solar system in 70s. They were to map the outer solar system, propelled by nuclear powered engines (with the help of a gravity-assist or two). Voyager II was on a longer and more curved trajectory, to keep it in the plane of the solar system.

Interesting things that came out of the Voyager missions: we found that the southern hemisphere of the solar system is being pushed in. Voyager 2 reached the heliosheath (the cloud of gas and dust that surrounds the system) well before Voyager 1 for this reason. We got some wonderful pictures of the outer planets. The Voyagers also contain the famed Golden Record, a record of mankind's culture and diversity on a golden phonograph. Also, they contain the brainwaves of Carl Sagan's wife! Let your imaginations roam here- mine does. In the far future, discovery of this "time capsule" may tell an alien of our curiosity, our diversity, our culture and Carl Sagan's wife's brainwaves...

However, there was something highly unfortunate about these missions: they were waaay before my time! I wasn't around to see it! I did get to see the launch of something equally interesting though: the New Horizons probe. This wonderful probe launched on January 19th, 2006. I watched the live feed from NASA's website (after watching the failed launch on the 11th). It's main mission is to study the outer solar system and Pluto, but New Horizons will give us more pictures of Jupiter and the Jovian moons than Pluto. By pictures, I mean the works- not just that puny band of the spectrum which we call "visible light"- particle readings, radio waves, light, orbital charts of the moons, you name it.

New Horizons will then go on to study Pluto and its moon, Charon. Pluto, which recently got demoted (arguably a wise move) from planet status. After this, New Horizons will go on to study the Kuiper belt, a large belt of asteroids and "plutoids", or near-Pluto size objects. It will leave the solar system in 2029 (estimated). However, perhaps fittingly, New Horizons will never catch up to the Voyager probes.

I say "fittingly" because, to me, this decade of technological innovation seemed to be horribly offset by the cultural and ethical bankruptcy plaguing the "civilized" world. Two wars by the world's only superpower, border claims by the heir to the mantle (China), a clash of fundamentalism with an increasingly hollow-sounding liberal ethos. I say hollow-sounding because I've lost faith in the intellectual elite to lead this world. You probably have too. The gigantic failure of the free market lead not only to an economic recession, but to a religious uprising. I personally have nothing against religion, but religious uprisings historically result in uprisings of fundamentalist elements, and we've seen that too. The world we've inherited is now inherently more religious than secular, and more intolerant than inclusive (Switzerland, shame on you for the damn minaret ban), a world where Creationism, an inherently intolerant philosophy that claims that one religion's idea of how the world started is the only correct one, is actually successfully battling in schools against evolution. Don't take my word for it, look it up.

The 70s had music, drugs, women's lib, tremendous spaceflight innovation. In the 70s, you'd have the United States as an example of how successful democracy could be and the USSR to show you how lofty ideals are ultimately doomed to fail when vested in frail mortals. I know, I know, an overly romantic view of the 70s, after all, the Cold War had its fair share of intrigue, murder, plotting (by both sides), wars, hatred... but this was supposed to be the NEW MILLENIUM (note capital letters). What happened to the glowing future we were all waiting for? Instead of a utopian future, we walked into the new age wounded, our optimism and love tarnished, surprisingly, by faith in God (fundamentalist terrorism). It seems right to me that Voyager I and II can never be surpassed by New Horizons, in some weird twisted way.

I'm deeply disappointed in the political leaders of this world- for Iraq, for Iran, for Copenhagen, for Afghanistan, for all of Africa. I'm disappointed in myself and my generation, and sad that we have no clear causes to stand up in favor of. In the 70s, our parents' had a lot of clear cut ideals they could support and if necessary, fight for. In India, we had a rising green revolution and a growing young population. Now, the youth in my country have inherited a mess- political corruption, hard-line hinduism, conversion by Christianity and Islam (forced, deathbed, "coaxed"... now in 53 flavors!), communal violence, and the damn Nehru family (who started the Kashmir problem in the first place, my what short memories we have). What do we fight for? How do we choose restraint when restraint means that a potentially worthy cause will perish? How do we pick a side when every side is tainted?

Tell me, my parents, family, friends, how do we do right by ourselves? How do we believe in God when believing in God is causing violence, death and the Dark Ages over and over again? Is a little light worth large amounts of darkness? What is my Dharma, when the people who defined Dharma in the first place were backward, sexist and not forward thinking?

I choose science. I urge you to do the same. Science needs guidance though, lest it produces another Hiroshima. God cannot guide science through 'his' oft-failing representatives on Earth. Politicians with corrupt agendas cannot guide science.

Where do we begin cleaning the debris? What is OUR cultural New Horizon?

Death in the New World

2009-10-22T07:14:00.002+05:30

This is probably the first blog post I'm writing for myself as much as for others. It's about death, and what death means to us today.

In the Old World, all across the globe, death was celebrated as a release from life, as a return to the gods, to the primordial womb that birthed us all. People grieved for a loved one's passing, but nevertheless, there was nothing bitter about it. The wise men and women of that age knew the inevitability of death, and that any grief and loss was only to those who survived their love ones' passing, and that the dead are beyond pain, suffering, grief or loss. They become a part of all of us, just like you and I are a part of each other.

Today, it is not so. Death in the Christian Era has been viewed as something to be fought off, and Life something to cling on to. Inevitably, with the notion that lives are given in service to mankind comes a stigma attached to taking one's life, and the idea that it is an unforgivable sin against God.

I personally believe this is not so. Suicide is a waste of a life, yes, but in the eyes of a God, those who commit suicide must be so much more special in that they felt enough sorrow, anger, rage or despair that they wanted to abandon their mortal shells. If God exists, he is the God of Love as well, and he will extend to them the comfort and warmth that they deserve in their pain. God does NOT inflict pain on those who are already hurting, he shelters them.

Say this out loud with me, if you can:

"To our brothers and sisters who leave us abruptly through their own choosing, I apologize. I should've been there for you. Nothing should make you feel that you are not loved. Nothing should make you feel that there is nobody for you to turn to when you are in pain. I love you, I share your pain, and I will grieve for you.

I will live on your behalf, and see things you might've wanted to see. I will live my life, not cling to it. I will savour every experience. I will live such a full life that when I do join you someday, I will be able to tell you of everything I did in your name. You will not be forgotten."

Rest in Peace, man.

Events: Staring at the Sun

2009-07-08T05:25:00.008+05:30

I've written a lengthy post before on how events are merely abstractions that lose all meaning as more information is subtracted from the situation. What happens when you add information?

Looking at it from another angle, you could say that trying to understand events is like trying to stare at the sun: you need a pair of really good sunglasses to see the sun, and even then, you can do so only for a second or two. You also have tinted sunglasses that come in various shades that add that wonderful colour to the world you see through your eyes. Rose-tinted glasses, brown shades, green... ain't it picturesque?

Trying to really understand an event by itself is impossible, even for those involved in the event. This is because, at any given time, while our brains catalogue every detail, we can draw conclusions only on those details that are relevant to us. Memory serves as a vehicle to draw new conclusions as and when required by pulling out old details, and even memory fades. Going back to my point, events cannot be wholly comprehended. They are, instead, understood through narrative, the analogy to the tinted sunglasses.

Stories, the vehicle of narrative, are tinted sunglasses. They add colour to our perception or comprehension of events. Of course, through this process, they distort what could've been TRUE knowledge of an event. The media agencies, they each have an agenda, perhaps influenced by their owners and founders. They distort our perception through presentation. Any good storyteller, you will notice, has greater presentation than attention to detail. If he DOES have attention to detail, that would be a presentation style too (if you've read the Wheel of Time series by Robert Jordan, you know what I mean by this). Presentation, when added to an agenda, results in what we call Spin. Spin comes in many colours, just like those sunglasses I've been ranting about.

Take the classic newspaper, the Hindu. Unashamedly biased towards the left, the Hindu nevertheless has exemplary writing style (though typos and grammatical errors abound of late). The Hindu's writing style is exemplary in the sense that, through a seemingly grave and detached tone (the "reporter's voice"), it seeks to hide its own spin and present itself as upholding the old reporting standards: neutrality, free speech and chocolates for all. Now, take a look at that hub of gossip, the Deccan Chronicle. This newspaper sports headlines that are blatantly attention-mongering, appearing to be far from the dignified, sober headlines of the Hindu. However, the Deccan Chronicle, as far as I can tell, has no leftist leanings. No, the spin in that paper is limited to self-promotion, and the core of the news is often lost in the process.

My question is: is it wise to discard all spin of the media? It seems like an altogether sensible strategy. Perhaps we'd best keep away from those pesky world affairs till they show up on our doorstep. Yeah, that's been working for the USA, let's all do that! Oh... wait. Two words: Barack Obama. He's globe-trotting right now, trying to change the way the USA is perceived in the world. Who better than a lawyer, the man of spin, to change the way people perceive the facts and events associated with the USA? So, no, I personally do NOT think we can discard all spin.

Instead, we must seek to assimilate multiple views, or different spin, of the same event covered by the media. Read both the newspapers mentioned above, and a third one if you can. Watch at least three news channels and balance that against what you read in the Blogs. This way, though a lot more of your time is taken up, the subtle prejudices planted by each agency's agenda (sometimes, even the agenda of a medium), often cancel out. We are creatures of emotion, though we attempt to be logical. Most subtle spin appeals to emotion rather than logic- this is the physio-psychological basis for marketing, targeting the amygdala, that seat of emotions in the brain. When we consult many sources of spin, the mixed signals produce no noticeable effect in the amygdala and we're left with good old logic and common sense (bio students, proceed to pick this one apart!).

The same applies for understanding the real-world. Take religion. Every religion is built around narrative, stories that seek to explain an underlying concept. Some religions grow bloated with stories, often conflicting, till the underlying concepts are obscured- look at Hinduism. Other religions, like Buddhism, completely do away with all stories that cloak concepts. Instead, their stories seek to encourage questions that MAY or MAY NOT lead to understanding of that concept. Neither extreme is wildly successful. That is why Islam and Christianity are successful and popular today. The narrative is extensive, but secondary. Primary to such religions is a single tale that explains the target concepts in one fell swoop (or in a divine flash, you pick).

Therefore, to truly understand the world, events, concepts, you need those magic sunglasses: stories! That way, we at least partake in an incomplete truth, rather than absolute falsehood. By looking at the Sun through those glasses, you can, for a minute, witness its magnificent Light, dimmed though it is by the vehicle of perception.

Would you rather live in Darkness, and shun narrative? Or perhaps, like the Buddha, you seek to stare at the Sun? Beware! The Light Burns!

My e-mail to the Pope

2009-05-29T06:46:00.001+05:30

It was titled: A Plea from a Hindu.

Respected Fathers of the Church,

I have great respect for Christianity. Though I am a Hindu, I've read the New Testament quite thoroughly and studied in a Christian school in Chennai, India, for about 6 years. I played the guitar in the choir, sang prayers, and believed that Christianity was a tremendous force for peace and love and spreading God's message in the world.

I recently came across this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8060442.stm

It is about how the Irish abused were cheated of their justice. I understand the act of forgiving and kindness, and love to all. I, however, believe that justice is as important, and should be first enacted by the Church, before the process of redemption can begin.

Further, in my area in Chennai, priests of the famous local church in the area of Besant Nagar are engaged in the practice of forced and coerced conversion: I understand that Christians believe their way is the best way, but forcing conversion by offering land, is that really ethical? Further, it is clear to anyone who studies Christianity in India that the Hindu Caste system structure has been maintained even among Christian converts- I point out Mark Tully's book "India in Slow Motion" where he has investigated and observed the remnants of Hindu practices in Goa Christians. Hinduism deserves to face conversion till it rids itself of evils, but it must be pointed out that the Church has let these evils linger, when conversion was supposed to end that. There are also numerous cases of Deathbed Conversions in India, which are often forced open dying people by instilling fear in their hearts in moments when they should be at peace.

It seems to me that it makes more sense if a man converts to Christianity out of a TRUE faith in Jesus Christ, rather than to partake in material rewards offered by conversion.

In all likelihood, being a Hindu, my mail will be ignored. My only wish is that Church fulfill its true potential, and become a real beacon for the downtrodden. I harbour no ill will at all towards the Church, and I know that Christianity is a wonderful religion that has dramatically changed the face of the world over the past 2000 years, and will continue to change the world in the centuries to come.

I hope my plea will be heard.

Best Regards,

Varun Shankar

Women, Society, and Beyond

2009-03-24T16:29:00.011+05:30

A grand title indeed. I admit at the outset that I'm not at all informed, and this is merely a layman pointing out something that seems obvious to him; it'll probably seem obvious to everyone who reads it too, but read on- you may find surprises.

A bewildering array of possible approaches to this topic come to mind, but let me start with my first theory: the Ancient Enemy. No, this is not Morgoth (google Morgoth and LOTR) I'm talking about, but something far more internal- the Ancient Enemy is bloodlust, violence, lust for power- all things that we needed for surviving in the wild, back when we were a generation away from the apes. The ancient enemy is every man's individual potential for violence and hatred, and collectively, is mankind's desire for survival in a world that must have seemed hostile a million years ago- beasts with claws, fangs, poison... you get the picture.

One problem: we don't have a hostile world any more. However, we evolved to deal with that hostile world, and that is WHO WE ARE. There is no getting around it. This is why we fight wars every once in a while- in the absence of this hostile natural world, we create hostility unconsciously and then battle it. It is our brains fighting to fit new situations into old patterns of response. Failing that, we collectively seek to bring about a situation that will fit the pattern.

Here is where Society comes into the picture. Somewhere, sometime, some group of geniuses realized that the evolutionary bundle (you know, ancient enemy?) that we inherited was something that would hurt us, frequently. This group of geniuses created Society. All the members of this group were Women.

Women understand Society more than men do. Please, do me a favour and dismiss the ideas of high tea and finishing school that are going through your sexist heads! I mean that Women chained the Ancient Enemy to ensure the survival of the species. You can see it in the way they treat men today- they are attracted towards aggressive men. I think this had its roots in how the men were the first line of defense in mankind's forgotten past against external threats from the animal kingdom. Anyway, so having gravitated towards these aggressive men, and after evoking the Ancient Enemy in these men, Women tame them. The Ancient Enemy is chained, and is almost at their beck and call. ( Spontaneity in relationships arises from those few occasions when the enemy fails to listen. I oversimplify, but this is my blog). My theory is that, apart from the obvious benefits to mating with an aggressive male, Women are higher beings in the sense that they bring out the darkest feelings in Men and then subdue them with effortless ease- forcing us to acknowledge the hidden emotions and then ridding us of their burden.

Women are the makers of Order- after marriage. (Before marriage, they may bring about disorder through courtship rituals, and men vying for their attention). Marriage is the tool women used to cripple the Ancient Enemy, and marriage is the idea behind Society. Society arises out of that unit, the "family". Society is a banding together for mutual benefit. It is also a tool of Order. As links form between families, and other units spring up around them, the Ancient Enemy, the Beast, is systematically driven back, and conscious thought, logic and consideration of consequences arise. Women created Society. They are still the Shepherds of our race.

Men long for "freedom". Within Men, the racial longing for something to fight against is strongest. This is why there have always been more male pirates and soldiers. The problem though is that Society is a little too effective at chaining the Beast. There arises the need for a release, and when that need goes unsated, it builds pressure, and bursts through the dam that is Society. We then have war, either religious, idealogical or for sheer anarchy. What are the possible outlets then? Sports, Management studies (yes, they talk about channeling your ambition and drive- where do you think those feelings come from?) and outdoor adventures.

However, when you look at the situation as I do, you would see a vicious cycle that repeats itself over and over again. This is because at no point in the evolution of the human race have Men even attempted to share the burden that Women have of being the Shepherds of our race. We have always tugged in the opposite direction and humanity remains fractured, always full of potential and full of hope. However, I am optimistic: each century improves on the previous. We now understand and accord a special place to the handicapped, we try to feed the poor and uplift those who live in darkness. Eventually, Mankind will reach a point where Men can also step up and shoulder that burden. Women have their half of the Solution worked out, and it is called Society.

What will Men's half of the Solution be? Have we already found it? Is this half of the Solution lying dormant in Women's consciousness, just like Men harbour the Ancient Enemy more than women do? It would be fitting that the remaining half of the Solution to war and ugliness in this world lies within the Shepherds of our race: Women.

(Anusha makes a great point on the aggression of women as a force to be reckoned with. Women being aggressive results in them sharing the burden of the Enemy, a signal that the Solution is at hand. My athai asks about the tussle between women to pull each other down, and I say, we can't sit and analyze the flaws in women- that'll take too long! Let's just idolize them instead!)

Getting their hands dirty!

2009-02-05T09:04:00.002+05:30

The self-proclaimed representatives of Hinduism, such as the VHP and the Shiv Sena, in my opinion, are doing more harm to the religion and how the world's view of it than the so-called "enemies" of the religion. A subtle undercurrent has always existed against Hinduism all over the world, and this simply adds to it. Ironic, then, that the religion that gave birth to two other great world religions- Buddhism and Jainism, the former of which is now part of western pop culture (thanks, Rudrani!)- is now dying a slow and painful death.

However, as some may argue, the Shiv Sena and the VHP are merely part of a rising Hindu consciousness, thereby lending a sense of organization to an otherwise scattered religion and a scattered people. Hinduism's greatest strength as a religion has been that lack of organization, and that same factor is also a cause for its failure to capture the heart of the average Western man. The problem with these organizations is that they lack a moral centre, and advisors informed in the ways of Hinduism. For these organizations to be effective and accepted in a world that favours democracy and claims to desire pacifism, they should have some pacifists on board.

Who then are these pacifists? My answer: the Hindu priests, the scholarly ones such as the Sankaracharya, the public ones such as Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, the "enlightened" men who strive to keep their noses clean. Well, my statement to them: take one for the team, get your hands dirty, join the RSS/VHP, and bring balance to the face of our religion once again! Balance is the key to survival, for a religion to thrive, and balance can be brought only by including peace into violence, by bringly the saintly amidst the unsaintly. Christ was a great man because of this reason alone- he moved amidst the people.

Of course, this would require a huge sacrifice from the saintly: the tarnishing of their reputations, a greater loss in faith, an attrition amidst their own ranks. But, the lesson we must learn from our recent past (the battle for our independence) is that we must lose a lot more to gain back what we have already lost. If the saints and holy men of our religion, the pacifists, believe strongly enough that the existence of Hinduism is warranted, a necessary force to achieve worldly balance, then it's time for them to show us the way.

Teach us sacrifice, O Gurus! We have forgotten how! This is my plaintive cry to thee! Bring forth the peace hidden in the anger of the RSS/VHP. Show us true reform by indicating your willingness to change! Guide the face of Hinduism on to the true path through the strength of your convictions, and we shall follow.

Show us drawing room conversationalists that even you are willing to get your hands dirty!

Illegal Immigration

2008-06-03T00:47:00.002+05:30

Something my friend said to me got me thinking about Illegal Immigrants. We in India know a lot about them. They're creeping in over our borders, slinking in under the fences, and they just don't leave. Now, clearly all these people coming in, taking jobs for lower pay than the locals, that's got to be a dent on the Indians.
But, if you ask me, India was POPULATED by illegal immigrants. First came the hypothetical Aryans(dunno if that theory is valid anymore). Then, the very long line of Mughal emperors. The British just manage to escape that title, cos WE were the ones who invited them in.
What I'm wondering is, if the illegal immigrants just added to the richness and cultural diversity of India back then, why are they such a pain in the neck now? Why is everyone complaining about them? I can understand the idea of nations closing off their borders to outsiders, yes, but what about a nation of outsiders? (America, this means you too!) All of a sudden, we Indians are jingoistic, and in a misguided fashion.
I was wondering how to solve India's problem, and stop illegal immigrants from hurting our country. Then it struck me: Shut down the economy. Yes, it's a genius solution, because back in the old days, apparently there was very little gold being moved around. Today, agreed, gold isn't moved around, but MONEY is, and money merely represents that gold that we have in our reserve. I say, pull down the economy, and assimilate the immigrants. It's what we did for centuries, and it made the country we are today.
If you want to discriminate against these immigrants(without having to go through those pesky nationality checks), revert to the barter system; sure, it had it's disadvantages, but... illegal immigrants! We have to watch out for our own, and the barter system helps us favour our own that much easier. I'll tell you how: say this guy comes to you and wants your potatoes. He's a tamilian, and you thus like him. Barter more potatoes off for fewer stuff in return. If you see a guy who's an immigrant, smile into his face, and skin him, give him only TWO potatoes for that loaf of bread. They'll see that they're not wanted, and that they can't make any money in this crazy country anyway, and they'll head back over the borders, where they aren't wanted either, and use the new Indian techniques on their old enemies. It's not so easy to do that with money: sure you can pay them less, but where's the satisfaction??
Go pick on your very own illegal immigrant today. Trade him your banana for a mango or something.
I'm done babbling now...

Feelin' a little... blue...

2008-01-10T02:53:00.000+05:30

I was listening to music the other day. Usually, it's Floyd or some such, and often heavy music like System of a Down. This day, I started out with Floyd, and watched the Meltdown concert. David Gilmour is simply... enriching! Then, I heard he came out with a solo album- On an Island. So I checked that out immediately. Found it very different from Pink Floyd's style... a bit more bluesy... more Gilmour than Floyd, know what I mean? That got me wanting to listen to the blues... REAL blues.
I, of course, put on B.B. King.
Usually, Pink Floyd transports me to a world of psychedelic colour... all I have to do is visualize the music, and their spacey tunes invoke the imagery. But, B.B. King made me picture something very different:
A small, crowded bar... with a little piano in the corner, and a small stage with a small circular microphone... a dusty bar counter, with a bartender who has a big smile on his face... (yeah, I've been watching cheers, so there)... The crowd is busy swigging beer, and chatting and relaxing away...
The guitars start up... with the bass playing a blues scale... and the ivories are being tickled, they're giggling even! The drummer is going soft on the high hats... and a guy's talking, he doesn't even have to sing... the piano's going on the blues scale too... a drum roll... the guitar is playing a blues lick...
The people in the bar don't pay the singer any attention, or the music per se... but it works its magic anyway. They're unwinding more, the men feeling more like men, cos the singer is actually just telling them how their day was... the music is gruff, and strong. If you take your troubles, your blues and put them into music, it comes out manly...
And chords are now rolling on the piano, the guitar is going into a soft lick... and the singer, he's telling us that he can get all the people with soul to speak through his guitar, his guitar Lucille.
The lights dim... and the men get up and walk away... the wife's waiting up...
When life gets too blue, I listen to Lucille talk...

A Discourse(read rant) on physics today

2007-11-17T01:39:00.001+05:30

The twentieth century has, almost from its beginning, seen the greatest strides ever taken by mankind in Science. Starting with 1905, we had Special Relativity, Minkowski space-time in 1907, General Relativity in 1915 and the first experimental proof of General Relativity in 1919.
Einstein started it, questioning our notions of Time and Space, not to mention Light and Gravity. Incredibly brilliant people of the day such as Bohr, Heisenberg and Schroedinger extrapolated quantum physics from the special theory of relativity, and the photoelectric effect.
Quantum Theory- we have a vague idea of what it is. Basically, quantum theory says that an entity such as an electron will behave in different ways, and exhibit a different nature, depending on what nature we're testing for. This is definitely true, proven experimentally. Does this, however, mean that the electron is both a particle AND a wave?
For those of you grimacing, yes, I AM a layman, though I've read about Quantum Theory for three years, and Relativity for as many. I'm questioning the fundamental philosophy of the quantum physicists in taking a statistical view of the nature of subatomic particles.
Absurdities persist in Physics. Physicists have definitions for work, energy, time... without knowing the source of these properties- are they even properties? If they are quantities, why is it impossible to measure them in a way that isolates them from each other?
Work and energy cannot be separated. Then, it follows that only one of them is fundamental, or both arise from some fundamental archetype themselves.
Time, as an absolute, was untouchable for hundreds of years. It was something that existed, untouched by everything. But relativity says otherwise: Time dilation effects, time itself going slower... Why did scientists and philosophers not pounce on this and study it ten different ways?
Physics is unable to unify the fundamental forces. Physics cannot explain how matter has mass, and why. They're trying though. Last I heard, the LHC(Large Hadron Collider) was supposed to search for the Higgs Boson as a transmitter of the scalar Higgs Field. Basically, the thing gives mass, just like gluons transmit the strong force, and other bosons transmit the weak force.
This is the Standard model of physics. They're trying to explain away the forces as transmitted by particles, and they've succeeded for all forces except gravity. They're still looking for the graviton.
Isn't it all messed up? All notions of an over-arching causality(NOT GOD) got thrown out of the window with relativity. Relativity, as a scientific theory, is sound. But Relativity, as a philosophy that has invaded our lives, is not satisfying or wholesome.
String theories and Theories of Everything are trying to find the underlying causality. They predict the existence of 11 to 25 extra dimensions to successfully explain all of nature. To us laymen, "dimension" means one thing, and to mathematicians, another thing altogether.
The Human mind, in utter rationality, has taken the reductionist approach to science, and has reached the edges of the reductionist approach, where even "nothing" is "full of virtual particles", and everything that can happen, happens "somewhere".
We've gone the right way. We've done the rational, scientific thing for a hundred years now. The picture has only grown murkier as we look at it closer.
But so-called fringe science takes up the larger concepts- super symmetry, string chains, branes. This, to my mind, is the absolute opposite of the reductionist approach. But they're not working from rock bottom! How can they, when they don't know where the bottom lies?
In my opinion, our search has led us to the ends of infinity(HA! ends of infinity? is that an oxymoron?) and this is something the human mind cannot and will not accept.
Science has butted into the playing fields of the philosophical masters.
I quote Nisargadatta Maharaj, a pan seller who supposedly attained Realization: " Universes are created and destroyed every instant". He makes sense. The past is gone, and the future is created, all in the Now.
Why didn't science tell us that?
Utopia has been averted by not the science of Relativity, but by the philosophy of Relativity plaguing Science.
We're living in a different kind of dark age, perhaps the worst kind of darkness;we've reached the limits of our minds...
Now all we have to do is get rid of them... wait, isn't that what the Buddha said? What Monism says?
So the reductionist/rationalist approach is the same as its opposite approach?
It's really late...

Sunshine... not just another movie

2007-11-14T18:45:00.000+05:30

God is an omnipotent divine being. Like from Robert Jordan's Creator, Light emanates from God, and envelopes us. The Light shelters us. To many of us, God IS the Light.
I saw the movie Sunshine for the second time today. To me, the movie was a discourse on God. At first glance, the movie has a typical SF theme- grandeur, with a pinch of human drama. The Sun is apparently dying, and mankind has mined all the fissile material on the Earth to make a stellar bomb, the size of Manhattan. Their aim: to rekindle the fires of the dying sun.
But the movie has a startling depth, and deals with many philosophical issues.
The spaceship sent to the sun to rekindle it is called Icarus. Not "Hope", or "Opportunity" , or any optimistic name, but Icarus. Icarus is the mythological figure who flew through the air. Lost in the joy of flight, he flew too close to the sun and burned out the wax holding his wings together, and plummeted into the sea. A fitting name, as the ship was mankind's last hope. A sober reminder to us of the weight of their mission.
When the movie starts, the crew're already out of contact with Earth. Soon, they encounter the distress signal of Icarus I, the failed mission to the Sun, sent 7 years ago. They decide to alter trajectory to pick up the payload of Icarus I, to increase their chances of succeeding. Things start to go wrong. They find the crew of Icarus I all burnt to a crisp. They also realize they can't use the payload as the ship is inoperable. Suddenly, their numbers are whittled down, as something causes an airlock disengage between Icarus I and Icarus II.
Left behind is the most intriguing character on Icarus II, their medical officer Searle. Searle is the first person we see in the film. He has a peculiar belief: darkness is separate from us, as darkness is an "absence", while light, light envelopes us. And when Icarus II leaves to continue with the mission, Searle stays back, and watches the Sun through overloaded observation filters... and meets a fiery end. The Light he loved so much burns him, and takes him unto itself.
Icarus II soon receives an unwanted guest... the captain of Icarus I, thought to be dead! The science officer of Icarus II, Capa, finds Captain Pinbacker in the observational gallery, watching the Sun(just like Searle used to). Pinbacker talks about his "conversation with God"... and why he abandoned the mission: "from stardust we came, and God has decreed that we return to stardust".
A melee ensues... Pinbacker shuts down Icarus II, and chases the pilot (Cassie) into the payload module. As members of the crew die around him, Capa frees the payload from Icarus II, and enters the payload module to manually arm it.
There, finally, after Cassie temporarily incapacitates Pinbacker, Capa arms the payload.
As thousands of lights twinkle around him, Capa watches the payload activate... and explode.
And we see into the mind of the last man alive on the mission, as a wall of light from the heart of the Sun, and a wall of light from the payload rush toward him.
Capa stands, a lone man, sheathed in roiling Light, unharmed, separate from it, for a second.
Then, Capa's face lights up into a beatific smile as the Light draws him into his embrace.
The movie has three major themes to me:
First, the nature of God, and the question of his Existence, and more important, his Will. Man finally defies the "Will of God" and survives extinction.
Second, the contrast between Pinbacker and Searle. Both believe in the divinity of the Light. But, where Pinbacker is willing to sacrifice mankind in his madness, Searle chooses to be alone in his belief, and sacrifices himself for the greater good.
Finally, the theme of sacrifice and loss runs strong through the movie. Great deeds require a great sacrifice... the biologist Corazon dies, cradling the last plant in her garden... the pilot Mace dies, saving the ship... the Captain dies, saving the ship... Harvey pays the price for his selfishness... Trey kills himself, unable to bear the weight of his error...
Searle dies, believing to the very end, and embracing the Light that he loved so... Pinbacker dies, seeing his failure to carry out his "god-given directives", Cassie dies in the explosion of the payload... and finally Capa, in the heart of the Sun, sees the true nature of Light... and the luminous nature of man himself... a final sacrifice to the Sun.
A tribute to the Will of Man, and how it can triumph over all.

Events- are they for real?

2007-08-15T22:46:00.000+05:30

Events are interesting to study. Mankind has been studying events for centuries, and as is our tendency, we've been drawing parallels between events, looking for signs of events yet to occur, and seeing if the event that just occurred was predicted sometime in the past.
I'm not interested in that particular train of thought.
Something that occurs at a given place and time is an event. We hear about an event that occurred hundreds of miles away, often described in great detail. Now, only to the greatly empathic does the tragedy of a mass killing or a terrorist attack really sink. To the others, it's a kind of numb horror. In fact, it's an abstract horror.
An event has no direct significance to a person who hasn't experienced it.
Take the example of a man walking down the road. He's blind, deaf, mute,no sense of smell, no taste, and feels nothing on his skin. How does he know he's walking down the road?
Okay, I admit, that's a far-fetched situation. Assume he has feeling on his skin. Someone taps it out to him on his hand: "You're walking down a road".
To us, the event of walking down the road is closely tied to the amount of information we receive from our senses: the feel of the road through our footwear, the sounds of birds in the background, the sight of the road itself. Now, as we subtract our senses one by one from this picture, the flow of information trickles to a halt.
The event is now a total abstraction. "Walking down the road" has no meaning, and is merely a label imposed by others, who had a lot more information. An event outside the framework of our own personal experience is thus an abstraction. In fact, any event about which we have no information is an abstraction.
Consider Relativity. It simply means that we each perceive an event in a different way, and that there is no absolute frame of reference. In fact, the event itself would be the absolute frame of reference, since anything else is a dilution. That's what my dictionary tells me: "An event is the fundamental observational entity in relativity".
An event itself is the frame of reference? This would imply the absolute is an abstraction, since no one experiences the absolute at all.... weird. Furthermore, if "the absolute" means "the absolute frame of reference", then "the absolute" is the mother of all observational entities. Is this what we know as "god"?
Again, the less information we have, the more these events lose meaning. They're becoming less real! Taking this line of thought to its logical conclusion, we arrive at the conclusion that... no event is completely real, because we never have all the information. We never CAN.
I know, I know, this logic is probably one big gaping hole in of itself, but I have Eastern philosophy on my side, bite me. Not to mention Kant himself. Remember "the thing in itself"?
Events are ethereal, and meaningless without a framework.
Which bits of us are ethereal, and which bits are working hard to impose a framework on those other bits?
How real is the world around us? We often see underlying causality and symmetry everywhere. How can we be sure that what we see is what really is, and that underneath the causality is madness?
What if it all really is quantum, as Terry Pratchett would put it?

Intelligent Design.. or just plain Intelligent?

2007-08-05T12:19:00.000+05:30

The proponents of Intelligent Design claim that the obvious beauty, symmetry and recurrences in nature are the greatest evidence of an Intelligent Design, of a supernatural being creating our world, the Universe and everything in it.
I agree that this is evidence of a Higher Being, one who's far more intelligent than the Intelligent Design proponents will ever be. You see, they're His dupes.
Yeah, that's right. If I were a God, it would make a lot more sense to me to just claim credit for stuff that happened. If I were anything close to Omnipotent, it would be child's play to "mind-trick" the weak-willed into thinking they see symmetry, beauty and perfection, the hand of God, in everything around them.
If God, by definition is the God of everything, he's also the God of Sneakiness.
Or is that the Devil?
Wasn't he an angel too, once upon a time? Then, he TOO is part of the Ineffable Dupe...er...Plan.
All is in order.
By sheer probability,there's gotta be intelligent life out there in the Universe, 'cos there's none on Earth.

Ethos

2007-08-05T11:49:00.000+05:30

Wars are being fought all over the world. At the most visible level, they represent a clash between human beings. At another level, there's a war being fought over ideologies, the war of the minds. At an even deeper level, there's a dual war being fought on the religious plane: the in-fighting among the Monotheistic religions for supremacy, and the fight fought against the "direction-less" religions of the East, which are sometimes atheistic, sometimes monist, often existential, in their pure forms.
The gravest, most silent war, perhaps the ugliest one of all, is the clash of ethos: Liberalism versus Fundamentalism.
In my not-so-informed opinion, it's this war that is the underlying cause of unrest in the world today. Mankind always prefers to cling to the tenets of the past. We've also learned to justify, to rationalize, this behaviour by passing it off as "we must learn from the lessons of the past".
The past. Let's talk about that, shall we? Humans have such a tendency to accept every incident that has happened, and move on! The tremendous power of the human brain to forget, to heal from trauma. It is this precise power that has made us forget: the past wasn't such a great place!
Wars, ill-treatment of those considered "unworthy", lack of medical care,killing off huge sections of the population in the name of religion... seriously, we've been screwing up for thousands of years.
But wait! Doesn't the above litany sound familiar to you? It does to me, at least bits of it. Yes, that's right, we STILL have a lot of those things, those horrors of the past! Why? It is because the Fundamental Ethos ascends in times of uncertainty. The human brain is designed to function in patterns. It keeps throwing up the same behavioural patterns each time it is faced with a certain situation, never mind whether the pattern originally improved things for the better! Apparently, we are "designed" to respond, but not to respond intelligently.
Such a response requires us to overthrow the conditioning of a lifetime. It's hard work. It requires us to let go of Big Brother's hand, and venture out into that murky grey area, where we have to choose on our own, where tried and tested values don't help, where sometimes, you have to choose the lesser of the two evils.
Immediately, experts and scholars, intellectuals and laymen alike, understood that there was some massive new change coming: the advent of Liberalism, of a completely free society.
Liberalism isn't the solution to all of Mankind's problems, and may never be. But, it IS a solution to your PERSONAL problems: it's OKAY to choose, OKAY to make mistakes, to falter, to slow down, to speed up, to LIVE!
When individuals are content, so is the public. That, in a nutshell, is what the Liberal Ethos means to me.
The Fundamental Ethos, to me, is a knee-jerk, conditioned reflex, very Pavlovian in the sense that it may not necessarily be beneficial in ANY way to Mankind. It was just bred into us.
The clash of Ethos is ,then,reduced to merely the personal: can you throw off the shackles on your mind? Do you even need to? Is it your responsibility to do your duty as defined by others, or to see where you best fit, and thereby serve?
It requires effort and patience.
Mankind has never been good at that, has it?
Individuals, on the other hand, have always shown promise in that regard.
Change must come from a personal scale, as naive and idealistic as that sounds. There seems to be no viable alternative.
This, friends, is the great war of our time: the Ethos war.

Who am I?

2007-08-05T00:39:00.000+05:30

Hushed silence greets the orchestra...
The conductor raises his baton... The orchestra plays...
The conductor tickles the air, twirls that little stick, and creates magical music...

The spell breaks. The conductor waits with bated breath...
but there is no applause,no audience.
The conductor smiles and bows anyway...
and the music starts again.
This time the music is endless...
flawed and hence perfect.

I am the orchestra and its music...
I know the identity of the conductor, that elusive mastermind!
I am the conductor...
the Principle, the Abstract, attains flavour through me.
Sometimes, the music is all there is...
All Is.

of raindrops and lights...

2007-07-18T22:34:00.000+05:30

I was listening to my new favourites, Pink Floyd, and the song was an especially psychedelic number...
Slowly, stuff happened to me. I realized I didn't need to blink as much, and stuff was standing out starker, more colourful, and the world looked richer.
In this weirdly heightened state, I happened to look at the windshield of the bus I was riding on... the rain splattered windshield caught my attention... something was moving across it, which I couldn't recognize in that state(turns out that was the windshield wiper).
Suddenly, I see raindrops on the window. And this IS cause for surprise; who sees the raindrops?? I usually only stare past the window into the rain, and feel thrilled, but this time, I saw the drops themselves.
I felt like I'd crossed some line, from the normal kind of person to someone who moons over floyd and stares at raindrops. I HAD crossed the line!
I saw the raindrops glowing, red, green, orange, and a mixture of the colours... each raindrop glowed, they all glowed together in circles, weird patterns...
I suddenly blinked, wondered what the hell I was seeing. Were the glows some random bursts of colour triggered in Floyd-filled brains? Was this something all Floyd fans neglected to mention? Was there a secret club?!?
That was when I saw the traffic light change...

God's Debris

2007-07-09T00:48:00.000+05:30

Scott Adams, as we all know, is the famous creator of the Dilbert comic strip, and the author of the Dilbert blog.
Recently, I read his book, God's Debris. It was very interesting! A book that challenges your preconceptions, and dares you to think freely, not to mention re-evaluate concepts that you are already very familiar with. According to the book, the only challenge faced by an omnipotent being, say God, is his own destruction. To me, this made a weird kind of sense. If a being is omnipotent and omniscient, will he retain said qualities even after destruction of his...well...being?
The book says God did. We're God's Debris. And over time, we're slowly clumping up to form God again.
Now, any day, I'd rate this short book as better than "The Monk Who Sold His Ferrari", which is a thinly disguised, and poorly written management book. Not only does it make you think, it serves as a crash course in Monistic philosophy, albeit indirectly. A lot of the concepts outlined in the book actually can be found explained in great detail in Nisargadatta Maharaj's or J.Krishnamurthi's talks. After reading this book, try picking up the Bible or the Gita. You'll find hints of Monism in there too. The Gita somehow manages to walk the line between being a tribute to God, and a denial of the existence of a personal deity. A good balance between several schools of thought, don't you think?
Anyway, check out the book, that's what this was all about! Google "God's Debris". It's a free download.
Scott Adams, you're awesome!

The Bystander : avenged?

2007-06-23T22:56:00.000+05:30

For thousands of years, kings and conquerors, pirates and pillagers, have fought, looted, conquered and generally destroyed the landscape and its hapless occupants. People were forced to watch from the sidelines, wondering whether justice would be dispensed, and how that "justice" would harm them again. It's a pattern that's all too obvious if you read between the lines of the history textbooks.
The bystander was always collateral damage, swept up in tides of change, in revolutions, in large-scale social reordering. The problem is, the bystander almost never WANTED these things. Or, the changes don't reflect the desires of the bystander, because, of course, by his very nature, he's a non-participant. Nothing wrong with not participating in sweeping changes, some people are actually very content where they are. But, to be frank, these people almost always turn out to be feckless!
If you haven't guessed it already, this one's about journalists.
Journalism and the freedom of press gave rise to a new generation of bystanders, who didn't participate, but who were empowered. Journalists, especially the newspaper ones, use the inconspicuous nature of the bystander to observe the happenings of the world. They then make sure news reaches the people. Here, "the people" is another way of saying "non-empowered bystanders". For those of you wondering what kind of empowerment I'm talking about, it's the power to observe, to not take part immediately, but to influence results in the long term.
Journalism provides a way for the bystander to express his idea of a desirable outcome for a situation, or merely his take on the situation itself. In public forums like letters to the editor, others are brought into the fold.
I can actually picture the effect as a tiny wave, which spreads out and gains strength. The end result? Democracy.
Democracy has grown in, well, popularity, not just because people can all vote, but because they can bitch about the ones in power in a public forum, and not pay for it!
Actually, we can see ancient roots of democracy in court jesters, who dared to be satirical, at the risk of the kings understanding. We hear whispers that Nostradamus actually was satirical, that his prophecies were actually a huge laugh at the insanity of the Inquisition. Jesters, it can be argued, were bystanders who were swept up in the conquests.
Journalism actually is the culmination of generations of bystanders, passing rude comments. The glorious result of a thousand years of sarcasm.
Relish it, bystanders of the past! You have been avenged!

An Extinct Code of Honour

2007-06-19T22:07:00.000+05:30

Let your imagination take you back in time. The feudal system is now in place. Picture England. Kings live in castles, and men work on the fields for them, earning their freedom after a certain number of years, and also earning the right to own men of their own: slavery, yes, but rather "liberated" slavery, don't you think? Picture yourself as a lady travelling alone on the roads. You're waylaid by brigands. Not exactly being trained in self defense, you realize you've had it.
Along comes a knight. A knight of the king. He doesn't even have to fight the brigands: they scatter at the very sight of him.
A strange power!
Any reader of "King Arthur" will know about the code of the knights, to honour their king, to fight and live for the king, to help the poor and the weak...
The knights lived for the king and hence for the people.
The Samurai of Japan are as famous. They followed Bushido, a strict code of honour and conduct, and served the Shogun, even at the cost of their lives.
What prompts men to swear such vows?
Humans are pompous and greedy, not to mention self-serving. People would stab each other in the back and fight amongst each other endlessly in order to achieve their ends. Yet, we have teams in sports, armies in nations, and "national spirit". We have tribes of people, living in various parts of the world. Small tribes, large tribes, nations.
The reason is this: humans are afraid.
Inside each and every one of us, an ancient enemy whispers to us. This enemy tells us to fight, and to fight ruthlessly, to gain it all. This enemy is mankind's past personified. It is the enemy who we externally escaped through evolution, but who still sits in our minds, waiting to usurp rationality and logic. Modern man, the rational man who science has trained from birth, fears the ancient enemy.
Society, that great organization and accomplishment of mankind, brought into being by rationality and common goals, has taught us to fear, and lock away the ancient enemy. Most us succeed. However, every part of the global society has crime, that is, all nations have crime. The enemy is still finding ways to leak out into the world. Crime is just one angle. War is another expression of mankind's suppressed fears and hatred and anger, and sheer fighting spirit.
When you swear a vow of loyalty to your king, or your shogun, to someone far greater than you, and far above you in as many ways as you can think of, when you hand over your life to someone else, that's the ultimate sacrifice. And sacrifice has a curious effect... it frees the enemy from its chains. Doesn't make sense?
Mankind's biggest mistake was chaining ancient fears. Locking them away also resulted in locking away much of what makes life worth living. No, I don't mean indulging those mad desires, but constantly balancing them at a personal level with the rational.
And remember this, the package containing our fears and anger also contains our hopes and dreams, not to mention our passion. For a normal human being such as you or I, passion has to be unleashed, a zest for life must be found!! Live with zest, and maybe a little skittishly, but LIVE. Discontentment largely vanishes when we're constantly tested. Crime rates would plummet.
Utopia has arrived.
That is the secret of the code of honour of the feudal knights: the code made them face what they feared. They gave their lives not just to their kings, but to themselves. They found the gift of love, compassion, bravery, and nobility. They found a cause into which they could channel the "Beast", the ancient enemy.
And they won. We remember them today, don't we? That makes them as immortal as any of us can dare dream to be.
Is the code of honour extinct? We see it in people around us today, people like Mother Teresa, or Gandhi, or Martin Luther. In them, we see echoes of the lords and ladies of old.

In them, we see the pinnacle of mankind: flawed, and perfect because of it.

Labels: different strokes for different folks

2007-05-31T23:28:00.000+05:30

No, I'm not talking about those little bits of gum-covered paper, with pictures of spiderman, that you stick on your english workbook, I mean the words we use to describe things we see.
Labels are among those important things that we need in life, like language, and gestures. They help us categorize the world into groups, or parts, that we can understand, analyse, examine, whatever. Labels have got humanity to the exalted intellectual level that we currently are at.
Labels have not only been indispensable in our study of the natural world, but also in our study of concepts themselves, or to put it in another way, in our study of our study... I love doing that, sue me! Just try explaining a simple task without labels... you'll fumble. You may accomplish it, but it won't be easy.
My question(yes, there's always gotta be one, don't crib) is this: is the act of labelling things something acquired, or was it always in us?
Watch a baby toddling around. He sees a VCR. Sees a slot in it. Puts his fingers in. Starts putting stuff in the slot.
To us, "the baby put his fingers and then other items in the VCR slot".
I wonder how the baby sees it, or understands it. Clearly, he understood the purpose of a slot. But he doesn't label it in his head in any language, because he doesn't know any! How'd he know it's different from the buttons around it? By determining object-specific behaviour!
Clearly, labelling transcends language! This further proves that language is not as essential as the senses for understanding a concept. It IS important to convey ideas ABOUT that event in a frame of reference that is absolute, and not coloured by the highly personal interpretations of sense-input from an event. Language is essential only for second-hand labelling, but not for first hand labelling.
Now, I'm gonna leap to the conclusion that this proves labelling is innate. I'll tell you why. I managed, with my example, to illustrate that labelling is free of language. And language is the most prominent, and probably the first "second-nature" thing, or the first "feature", that is acquired as we grow up. So, labelling is something that crops up in the baby's head even before he broadened his horizons through language. I'm thereby concluding it's innate. If you know of some other qualities(bio students, help!) that are acquired before language, some other stamps of society, please tell me!
Another question: how do the visually impaired, and so on, label stuff?
Now, imagine the labelling process in a person. Logically, it must be tied in with the senses, because labelling seems, in our baby example, tied to behaviour of the objects in question, which can be perceived only by our senses. Interpretation of what we "sense" then takes place to assign a label and gain an understanding. What we sense has five elements, each element being one of the five senses.
Take a visually-impaired person. How does he label something? I didn't understand this intuitively till recently.
Let's analyse how someone who's NOT visually impaired would go about differentiating one plant from another in a garden. I would look at the plant, then look at the sign, or vice versa, and know that this plant has the given name.
If I lost my sight, I would go to the touch and smell garden, which is a garden for the visually blind. Smell the plant, or touch it if it has no smell. Then, I feel the Braille sign.
I associate that particular touch or smell with that Braille sign, which I have understood(assuming I know braille). While a normal person has the choice to look at the plant first, and THEN understand the writing, and THEN form the association, a visually impaired person has to do both simultaneously or in a certain order, that is, the understanding comes before the tactile feel or smell of the plant, or comes WHILE smelling or feeling the plant. Forming the association is the process called labelling.
A pair of senses hence substitute for one.
As you go on subtracting senses, labelling becomes increasingly difficult. Remember the little girl from "Black". She was lucky she had the sense of touch. Everything has a feel to the skin. Imagine how much darker her world would've been if she didn't even have that! Eliminate the final sense, smell, from the picture. You have, as my friend Vinay put it, a blob... a vegetable.
Even to the girl from "Black", the world is far more abstract than it is to you and me.
We take our senses and the role they play in understanding, in memory, in LIFE, far too lightly. If we go around with a profound thankfulness for what we have, maybe we'd be happier. Busier, a little preoccupied, but for all the right reasons.
There's so much that can go wrong that didn't!
We are so much more than what we could've been!
"Who or what should I be thankful to?", you may say. Call it fate, destiny, god(s), karma. But there is some kind of nothingness(or perhaps everythingness) into which these undirected emotions go to. We can choose their direction, though. Such people achieve more than the ones who restrict themselves to mere labelling.
The quintessential labeller/observer is only a peripheral contributor to society. It is the quintessential interpreters that contribute. We're again back to communication between the two groups, and language, aren't we?
Seems like language isn't as divorced from the consequences of labelling as it is from labelling itself.
(thanks to Vaishnavi for giving me the chance to see a Touch and Smell garden. Thanks to Vinay for changing the direction this article took)

Premonitions and Dreams

2007-05-29T02:46:00.000+05:30

I have premonitions.
No, they're not profound or earth-shaking. I have premonitions of mundane stuff. Boring, uninteresting stuff. But as usual, I found a way to make it a big deal: blog it!
Here's one stupid premonition:
I dream I'm sitting at an annual day function(this was back in school). I'm sitting to the left side of the stage, in the back rows, with empty seats all round me. Two rows ahead of me, and one seat to my right, is a dark-skinned guy, who's kinda blocking my view. To my right, two teachers are sitting, same row as me.
A water bubble-top thing sits to my left and slightly ahead, with a drip of water from its tap.
Next day, I get an invitation from school to come to annual day and collect a prize.
I head there in the evening. I meet my friends. I'm following one around, and suddenly I get fed up and plonk myself down in one seat.
Bingo. Premonition position achieved.
Being slightly sceptical about such stuff, I wondered whether I simply remembered the dream at that point when I chose the seat. But I'm pretty sure I didn't. Then, I consider the possibility that subconsciously, I chose the seat because of the dream.
But that's slightly scarier than a premonition, because that implies my motivations for doing something as mundane as selecting a seat were dream-driven. Then, isn't the source of such a dream important, and analysing the dream necessary to understand the choice?
This brings to mind some hindu tenets that our current lives are influenced by past choices, from past births. Rebirth, in Hinduism, is closely tied to the concept of Moksha. And to explain Moksha, constantly, Adi Shankara invokes the analogy of dreams to real life. Moksha is to life as life is to dreams. Then, if dream actions can influence life, can't we assume that our actions in life can influence the actions in another life, both tenuously connected through Perfection, or Absolute Reality? We can't affect Perfection, so we affect the next imperfection(read next life)? Of course, it's clear there are a lot of assumptions here, "serial reincarnation" and "Absolute Reality/Moksha/Perfection" being large, controversial ones!
This idea of subconscious desires or thoughts influencing choices is not new. We see it in marketing, where neurobiology plays an important role. Advertising that appeals to our basic instincts, that lie below the threshold of awareness or that lie suppressed by the logical mind or deal with raw emotions, such as sex, or wanton stuff of any kind, such advertising is FAR more successful. Children are most susceptible to advertisements because they have more blurred distinctions between the atavistic thoughts and the logical ones. Society hasn't got them yet.
Back to the premonition.
The second explanation, however far-fetched, is that I predicted the whole stupid event. I remember reading somewhere that dreams are actually the result of the brain trying to make sense of random brainwaves generated during REM, because the human brain tries to impose logic and structure upon everything it sees. Then, maybe, from the randomness, arises an ordered picture of possible events, extrapolating from the present? We know dreams are based on memory, or at least subconscious thoughts and desires from the day(hence past, hence memory). The brain is, obviously, only able to derive logic based on the past(or present, i'm using these interchangably). If I hear about annual day, without deciding whether to go or not, definitely the probability of me going arises. The brain reads this from my random activity, and voila... premonition. But the details? No idea. Can't explain those away, except by the first reason, and/or coincidence.
My dreams, I find, are also unusally lucid and structured. There's sometimes a voice-over, explaining characters in the dreams. There's colour. There's me knowing it's a dream at the point where things go bad for me. Highly detailed environments, fantastic mountains and valleys and castles hidden in them. Filled sometimes with nazis. And Sith, bearing lightsabers.
The Sith seemed to be leading the nazis. That makes sense. Anarchists, all of them.
But why subtitles? Why'd I get those?
If I can do this, I sometimes wonder if I can lucid dream, like some people can.
But then, I stop myself from trying.
Somewhere in my life, there's gotta be a way for things to sort themselves out illogically.
Let it be in my dreams.
(1.For stuff on lucid dreaming, wikipedia has a nice article with citations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucid_Dreaming
2.For stuff on amygdalae and the neocortex, read some papers of Paul.D.MacLean, neurobiologist)