Night at the club (muses, revelations and speculations)

The concept of clubbing is a multi-faceted and dynamic one. It is unwise to think that one can precisely define the complete extent of it's purpose, potential, use or scope. I, for one, from last night, have stumbled upon some revelations (some of which just needed a finishing surge of clear thought to be complete) .
   Firstly, the moral dilemma between protecting yourself from being at the mercy of unknown (and probably undeserving) individuals and the unequivocal assertion of dominance by getting a mate, is quite taxing. Truly, in these moments, it is easy to think for a fleeting moment, that ignorance is indeed "bliss". Somewhere further down the road of thought, I decided that the key to the moral dilemma lied in the extent to which one lets the said "unknown" parties affect oneself. i.e I, for one, decided to get on with the endeavour of trying to catch a girl's fancy, for I thought that it was worth the possibility of facing a rejection. This came as a result of me realizing that the judgement/rejection of the girl did not mean anything to me in the first place, as I have already delineated her, in the confines of my mind, as "undeserving". This is a conclusion I stand by.
  

Relationship take-1

Relationships or the modern version of how they are delineated, are replete with ostentatiousness and pretentiousness. One is bound by the covenant of "pleasing", thereby, in most cases, indulges in  "sugar-coating" and partial dishonesty which is undesired, but is a sad necessity. This arises out of the need for constant goodwill and "smoothness" between the involved parties. Somehow, as a person who is not in a relationship, I find this notion amusing and redundant, not to mention, sad and pathetic.I say this because, to me, a relationship of note, is aways that between equals. Ideally speaking, an example would be the relationship between Howard Roark and Dominique Francon in "The Fountainhead". The aforementioned example is an ideal-case scenario. i.e it is a slightly fantastic, slightly exaggerated version of the unconditional understanding that I deem necessary in a relationship.
     In some cases (I'm given to understand this through a friend of mine), apparently, one party indulges in forms of said pretentiousness, in order to achieve his/her end through the seemingly ubiquitous methods of Reverse-psychology and guilt-pricking. (Freud's theories anything but redundant huh? lol)

Homer's illliad

The Illiad is considered to be the oldest piece of extant western literature. It continues to be read, discussed and dissected thousands of years after it was written. Literature that survives the test of time is the sort that deals, in most part, with the intricacies of the human psyche. Complex emotions that are encapsulated and elucidated upon, are what are responsible for timeless classics. In this respect, the Illiad shows unprecedented scope for research and pondering.

     It impresses one with it's epic proportions. It presents a glorious and almost magical vision of the age in which the author lived. This was expected out of Homer, as Greeks took the role of historians very seriously. The proportionality is a welcome change to the modern reader, whose choices in Modern literature are dominated by the concept of realism.

    The grandeur does not reach a level where one forgets that the characters are but mortal men. Their flaws are not belittled and nor are their weaknesses ignored. At least, within the realm of the characters that the story deals with, Homer does not take any clear sides. His clear preferences to men who are honorable is evident in his glorification of Hector and Achilles over all else. But, he does fail in his duty as a documenter of happenings. 

   

My favourite character: My choice would unequivocally be Hector. Hector was naturally endowed with a calm mind and sharp rationale. A quality that in Achilles, was either missing or was overpowered by a brash and impulsive mind. Hector's adherence to a reason and his sense of duty make him endearing. He is the ideal prince.  He loves fiercely his wife, father and brothers, but puts his country above all else. He has a strong sense of "right". He is a patriot, but not a jingoist as is evident by his strong desire to establish peace with the Greeks. At a time when a Prince could have his way in almost any way, Hector stays true and faithful to this wife. His acceptance of his fate without complaint or regret sees his glorious end. 

The concept of a "nation"

Ernest Renan, once famously said, " A nation-state is not composed of a single homogeneous ethnic group (a community), but of a variety of individuals willing to live together." True to his words, France has always been accepting of people of any racial background as long as they agree to naturalize. Even during the colonial period, The people belonging to France's colonies in Africa were considered Frenchmen by the law. This concept, although seemingly ubiquitous today, was crucial and novel at a time when in many countries, citizenship was limited by race/descent. For instance, in USA, which is today cited as a foremost example of a multi-cultural society, full citizenship was limited to "free-white-people", until the third decade of the 20th century.
   Although the concept of believing in the superiority of one's race is quite an inherent human trait, the appalling notion that racial make-up has anything to do with one's ability to blend into a society is condemnable. Although, human society as undergone a lot of "progress', one still can see instances of such behaviour. In today's society, although blatant displays of racism have been curbed, one still sees outbursts of xenophobia, hostility and contempt towards people belonging to minority sects. At this juncture, i cannot help but point out that the very feeling patriotism is a highly overrated and romanticized delusion. Drawing the line between patriotism and jingoism is something men throughout history have never been successful at perfecting. 
   The ideal notion that a nation is but an economic, political and administrative division, i feel, will be more easily achievable in a multi-cultural society. Although arguments exist that, a nation sharing a strong sense of cultural unity and pride would be desirable, I strongly feel that this is root cause of all the atrocities one commits in the name of one's country. Following this train of thought, here is a noteworthy anecdote: When the well-renown J.R.R.Tolkien was to visit Nazi-Germany for a book-reading, he was sent a letter by the Chancellor, Adolf Hitler, asking if he was of "Aryan" lineage. Tolkien's hard-hitting response, pointing out that "aryan" refers only to the speakers of the Indo-Iranian family of languages, never made it to the hands of the notorious dictator. After all these years, one can but muse over how far human society has actually come from such days. Opinions would definitely be varied. (At this point, i couldn't help but suppress a snide lop-sided smile)

The battle of the sexes

The very title of this post may cause many to plunge into fits of consternation.  Despite every signs of peace, love or any goodwill between members of the opposite sexes, one still can not but notice the constant tug-of-war between their members. 

   This, in part, is constituted by the constant need to attract the attention of the opposite sex. I was lead into this line of thought by one of my friends' reflective quips. He went "hmmmm....to men, all women are conquests that they succeed or fail in". This, although caused me to spring back in denial, did cause me to ponder. it is but a fact that men put themselves at the mercy of a woman, try various tricks, pretend, deceive just for the pleasure of knowing that he succeeded in his "conquest". I can not but acknowledge the possibility that women, in their own way, are privy to this battle of sexes. It is but a musing of a man, that this may be the obvious reason behind health consciousness, sexy shoes and expensive perfumes. 

  Although this supposed "battle" may be the center of many a person's ridicule, it is true. It's implications may be not readily be acceptable to a majority of us; But, one can definitely not rule out it's existence. Shifting to a more biological perspective, this is nature's way of ensuring healthy offspring. The constant "battle" keeps us on our toes while picking a prospective mate. The better one is at handling the opposte sex, the healthier one's children will be, could be the empirical, rudimentary and theoretical conclusion one may draw from this. considerations of the human sense of logic could very well render this argument moot. Nonetheless, the battle goes on.

Linguistics

Linguistics are a key area of the human intelligence. The domain of linguistic skills is a rough indicator of the rest of a person's intellectual capabilities. Learning languages is a process that begins early in one's life, as an infant. Nevertheless, one can still find many a person struggling to express themselves lucidly in any tongue.

  Languages determine the way we think and in an indirect way, act. A person's thinking is sometimes, limited by the limitations in the language that he/she speaks. Therefore, language has a direct bearing on the manner in which the cognitive senses of a person develop. 

    A recent study by Dr.Janet Werker of The University of British Columbia, has suggested that bi-lingual babies are more likely to have better developed cognitive skills when compared to their mono-lingual counterparts. This has been attributed to the fact that bi-lingual babies are often required to modify speech-patterns when shifting languages thereby, exercising their analytical skills.

   One's grip over a language is often determined by the extent of his/her vocabulary and the correct application of grammar. Building a strong and sufficient vocabulary may take years, and is a slow and gradual process. Conversely, as far as my observations go, grammatical applications are to be learnt in the early stages of the period when one learns a language and are to be retained. If one does not retain the essence of a language's grammar, he/she never quite gains mastery over it. 

   Generally, linguistic intelligence is listed as one of the most relevant spheres of intelligence in day-to-day life, as it determines the extent to which a person can be a successful communicator. I personally feel that being a good communicator always helps establish good relationships with people around. Furthermore, I think that somehow, good linguistic skills and an ability to process profound thoughts are interlinked.

Recognition

Recognition for one's work, however insignificant it may be, is something everyone appreciates. In today's world, thanks to blogging, social networking etc, recognition has easily come to those who deserve it. Be it writing, poetry, photography etc, one can be recognized for one's talents through these vistas.

   One often ponders about the importance of recognition. One might argue that true talent will stand irrespective of whether it gets recognized or not. But one can definitely not deny that being recognized does feel very heartwarming. Nothing is more encouraging than to be lauded for one's work. 

   Looking at this from the receiving end of good art, in the 19th century, for instance, one only had access to the works to a certain amount of writing or poetry. But in today's age, with a little help from google, one can access tons and tons of quality writing from around the world. Thinking of these immense benefits that this seems to offer us, it seems stupid to me that people have a problem with the generation of today's apparent "propensity to document every happening in their lives". Even if this is a big deal , as it is being made out to be, I guess it is a price we would all gladly pay.

   

The grand finale

Finally, the day of the final encounter of the world cup 2011 is upon us. An event which the entire cricketing world awaits for with bated breath. As always, it so seems that the past month has passed by in a surreal fashion. 

   For the first time in the history of this tournament, we are going to witness an all-Asian final. Indulging in a moment of silent gloating, i would like to point out  that India and Sri Lanka were my two predictions (in a now-deleted entry to this blog) to be the favourites at this world cup.  Guess the home advantage played a bigger part than was expected.

  Looking forward to the final, it is a very evenly matched tie, it every possible respect. In fact, i would not hesitate to go on and say it has been one of the most evenly matched world cup ever. Both the teams are going into the final with an even win-loss record and nearly even injury concerns. India is being touted as the favourite due to the home advantage and also due to the exaggerated inadequacies of the Sri Lankan side. Nevertheless, I would like to point out that Sri Lanka's victories over England and New Zealand left many a face agape. India , on the other hand, impressed many with their resilience,indomitable spirit and ability to hold on to nerves. Sri Lanka, albeit due to their own might, haven't had to deal with a lot of nerves in this competition and therefore, this is being touted as an attribute that is going to shift the balance in India's favour. 

   The familiarity between the two sides over the past couple of years is only going to make it a much-more equally poised contest. Sri Lanka would definitely have benefited by a fit Murali and losing Angelo was also a shocking blow. In comparison, India's loss of  Nehra seems less drastic. 

  I could go on and on about how close a match this is going to be. But to be absolutely clear, there are no favourites to this one as one may debate the distribution of odds all day. One thing is for sure- WE GOT A GAME OM OUR HANDS!!!

Organic Evolution

A year ago, if i had come across a blog page which propounded the validity of evolution,  i would have dismissed it as a nonsensical, "stating-the-obvious" piece of work. But today, after being exposed to an international demographic, i have realized that the number of people who do not agree with the theory of evolution are startlingly high.
  Firstly, the i feel it is noteworthy to mention that most of the people who resent the implications of this theory are the ones which are closeted, narrow minded and are not open to thinking in a manner that opposes their current beliefs. I detest such a mindset.
  Evolution is a proven occurrence which not only lucidly explains the dynamics of life but is also the only possible explanation to variation in life as we know it today. One highly stupid and ubiquitous point among all evolution-critics is that, "It's called the theory of evolution; It is not a law. ergo, it is not proved". This weak argument can be invalidated by the understanding of the term "theory" in a scientific context. Quoting wikipedia, "The scientific definition of the word "theory" is different from the colloquial sense of the word. Colloquially, "theory" can mean a hypothesis, a conjecture, an opinion, or aspeculation that does not have to be based on facts or make testable predictions. However, In science, the meaning of theory is more rigorous. A theory is hypothesis corroborated by observation of facts which makes testable predictions. In science, a current theory is a theory that has no equally acceptable or more acceptable alternative theory.. i.e .A scientific theory is a well-supported body of interconnected statements that explains observations and can be used to make testable predictions." 

    Another point that many anti-evolutionists draw juice on is the supposed lack of proof/evidence for the existence of evolution. This is mere idiocy as any scientist worth his salt could list out, on a single breath, at least a hundred different evidential facts proving evolution. Furthermore, evolution may not be individually observed in creatures such as humans. Nevertheless, in extremely fast breeding species such as fruit flies, evolution can be demonstrated in a simple lab in a matter of weeks. This again stands testimony to the fact that, most of the people who do not believe in evolution just aren't ready to embrace rationale.

  On a pessimistic note, i have come to a sad conclusion that more often than not, any amount of discussion with people of the aforementioned stand is futile as apparently, living on a mere whimsical moral/intellectual stand is more common than i thought. Nevertheless, as a last effort, i would like to list some day-to-day life examples proving evolution:

• the presence of a coccyx but the absence of an actual tail in humans
• the redundancy of the appendix in humans
• the termination of use of obsolete antibiotics as microbes developed resistant strains.

I do hope this serves as an eye-opener to at least some readers. I would like to urge all you non-believers to just look into legitimate sources before you dismiss the possibility of this beautiful law of nature.

Anarchy!!!!

The ongoing riots and strikes in the state of Andhra Pradesh, demanding the separation of the state into two factions, is appalling and frightful. In the wake of the recent events concerning this issue, I'am afraid, the state and, in an indirect fashion, the country, are descending into anarchy.
   The conduction of violent strikes, be it by students or any political organisation, is nothing but sedition, and is a culpable crime under many sections of the chapter of the Indian Penal Code entitled, "Offences against state".
    The pro-separation movements that are rattling the country these days, are demeaning to the very spirit with which the democratic fabric of our system was weaved.
    The most painful and sad part is, however, is to see that the vast majority of the masses are unperturbed by and indifferent to this sorry state-of-affairs. It is matter of utmost shame that students rejoice when institutions are  closed on account of strikes.
         I condemn this movement and resent it's anti-democratic implications.....

Emma

I finally made time, this week, for a long overdue watch of "Emma", starring Gwyneth Paltrow.

    The movie was a pleasant change of course from the nonsensical crop of romantic comedies that English-language cinema abounds in, these days. Screenwriter Douglas McGrath's devoted adherence to the confines of the original novel by Jane Austen has paid off in retaining the essence of the story.

    Gwyneth Paltrow's performance embodied showmanship at it's effective best. The actress pushed up the bar for any American actress playing a British character. Her portrayal of Emma Wodehouse transcends the trans-atlantic divide and is highly convincing and well-played. 

   The movie starts off at a rather slow pace but soon enters a brisk and smooth course. The editing seems highly proficient as the movie lacks in drag-scenes. The comedy is  highly-subtle and intelligent. The realistic portrayal of the period (19th century England) is worthy of praise.

   The movie is definitely worth a watch and is one of the best lighthearted movies I have seen in recent times.

Success

Since time immemorial, i have contemplated the reality of an actual entity such as success. It seems obscure, vague and undefinable on the very surface. the limits and boundaries of "success" has been ineffable to countless great thinkers throughout the ages.
   One way of defining success could be that "success is a state of mind"; i.e. An individual brimming with a sense of achievement can be called successful. But, realistically and factually, contentment doesn't figure as a criterion in gauging one's success. the magnitude of achievements is always assessed from the third-person's point of view. Somehow, using statistics alone a base to adjudge one successful, seems pretty hollow to me.
  One can not ignore how closely fame and success are  intertwined. At this point, I can't help but to wonder, is fame a pre-requisite to be called successful or does success bring fame? At face value, each of us may point to one of the above options, but after due consideration, one has got to accept that it is puzzling. Branching of on a tangent here, i wonder if the whole notion of success rests on the labelling by media: i.e one is not successful or unsuccessful, but, one is merely, more/less known. Concluding here, I'm  gripped solely by the aforementioned thought of fame and success being intertwined. No answer yet!!!!

Reason

The best gift God gave man was the ability to reason. Reasoning is what sets mankind apart from all other creatures. reasoning is what sets apart the thinking man from the ordinary. It is the viewing-glass through which one's intellectual credibility is assessed.

   This although is a quality supposed to be possessed by all of mankind, the disparity among the levels at which various people use/show signs of this virtue, is rather disturbing to note. One often hears that one's life is a product of all the choices one has made. At every moment of our life, the decisions that we take, affect our lives in the most bizarre and unforeseen ways. Good decisions are not always the most well-informed ones, but, are the most well-thought-out ones. 

  The power to reason, at the pinnacle of it's usage, negates the requirement of any pre-written doctrine/set of rules for human conduct/behaviour. The extent to which a person can reason has an infinite bearing on the moral stands a person takes up. It is no doubt influenced by pre-taught values on nationalistic,religious or familial grounds. But to look beyond the fed notions and to break open the shackles of stereotypes and stigmas with mental clarity, is something that requires strength and intelligence, in their most potent forms. 

  Almost all of the discriminatory issues that human history has witnessed, can be attributed to lack of reason and a whimsical and meaningless devotion to a ready-fed notion that was baseless. It is appalling to see the huge masses these notions command. The only possible explanation I can come up with is that intelligence probably isn't a virtue possessed by the majority of the human race. In this context, i refer solely to the intelligence of weighing facts and reasoning situations.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~************************************~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Is Selfishness a virtue?

 It might be appalling to millions that one can even consider selfishness a virtue. I was directed into this line of thought after reading Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead". Ayn Rand, propounding her philosophy of objectivism, says that selfishness is indeed a virtue and that the utmost of all the duties of man is the duty toward himself.
     Throughout the ages, mankind has been lead to believe that a life for others, is the most virtuous. any act to one's own end, has been looked at as an abomination. For instance, eating chocolate, an act of self-indulgence, was labelled a sin in the middle ages. Similarly, any act of self-indulgence, although at no one else's cost, is looked at with contempt.
  One might argue for the contrary that as a society, we are all dependent on each other. Here, i would like to say nothing more than a simple analogy. A person goes to a doctor because, he/she is sick; not because, he/she wants to do the doctor a monetary favour. Building on this concept, Ayn Rand illustrates, in her book, a society, as imagined by her, wherein a man chooses a profession to spend his life doing what satisfies his passion and to earn a living as opposed to serving the society. Nevertheless, a one-dimensional view on this could be dangerous, as most people who belong to the society, inadvertently contribute to it's net dynamics.
   The philosophy of objectivism, like any other philosophical doctrine, is not flawless. Much as it may seem wondrous, a man rising to achieve great heights in one's life without any ill-will, help from others etc is a concept that is way too fantastic to be true.
  Secondly, the philosophy abhors charity as a whole. This is senseless, because, even if one considers charity to be, in no way enriching, I don't see how it is degrading to the greatness of human beings.
   Now, re-tracing my way to the stem of the topic, I think selfishness, i.e "To think about oneself before anyone else" is fine as long as one does not act at the cost of someone else. nevertheless, making an effort to be selfish, thereby, ignoring the ones you love, even as it pains you to do so, is, I feel, nothing but stupidity.
            ~~~~~**************************************************~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~