Reflection on the fall of Dinasaurs

Once upon a time, the dinosaurs ruled the world. It might even be said the dinosaurs were the world. I am not discounting the insects and other basic mammalians that might have been alive during that time. But, all the major life forces were dinosaurs. Some were leaf-eaters, some others fruit-eaters, some stuck to meat, while some others gobbled up everything. But, what happened to them? Now, all we are left with are a few lizards and crocodilians.

Celestial cause

Some people consider that the larger earthlings perished due to act of God. It is believed that a huge meteorite crashed onto Earth and wiped out the dinosaurs. May good Lord be praised for not killing the small mammals! This is a bit confusing: if a meteorite killed a big dinosaur, then why didn't it kill the small mammals as well? Now, this is not the real interesting question. In the land of big lizards, there were smaller ones too. We see snakes, crocodiles and other "old" dinosaurs even today. So, why didn't the meteorite kill the small dinosaurs as well?

It's commonly argued that the mammals survived because of their small size. They were able to hide in small, safer crevices; and that's why they survived. This line of argument looks like the biggest fallacy out there.

A meteorite impact is actually a very local affair. Of course, there are those who argue that a meteor impact does more damage than meets the eye. A large enough meteorite impact might result in large shock waves, leading to massive "earthquake". These shock waves may trigger volcanoes, earthquakes elsewhere. A meteorite falling on an ocean might result in massive tsunami. The meteorite on impact night spew out molten rocks leading to extra damage. Then there is the ash cloud that can block sunlight. There is the heat generated during impact itself.... The list can go on, but so what! There is still one problem with this line on destruction.

If there is a real wipe out, say by the large amount of molten rock falling back to Earth, they are going to fall back in the nearby region. The rock can't fall back on the other side of Earth. The immense heat generated will not only burn the large organisms but also the smaller ones. Whether a large animal or a small animal is subjected to high temperature, both are going to get fried. Heat is not biased against reptiles or plants or insects(don't forget about these older living things) or mammals. Maybe a hornet may get fried at a 47 degrees and a honey bee at 60 degrees; but if a molten rock is going to fall on them, both are going to die.

Let us assume for an instant that the mammals saved their skin because they went underground. A tunnel is not really a safe place during an earthquake. The walls of the tunnel are bound to collapse if the shock wave is large. Then there is the problem of the overheated air above. Hot air will rise and nearby air will take its place. Most of the tunnels build have a natural way of circulating air, otherwise there will be CO2 built-up. If tunnels were built with holes, hot air will enter the safe places where the animal was sitting. Also, how long are these small animals going to survive without eating any food. Food is one thing, what about water. When the temperature rises, these animals who aren't evolved to live under such circumstances are going to dehydrate. At high temperature, water is going to evaporate. Those who live in hot climates know that animals cant hydrate by drinking hot water.Eventually their body temperature will rise and they will get boiled.

In short, looking at the skies is never going to convince anyone on why the dinosaurs perished.


(to be continued)

kash koi sochta meri bharat ma ke bare mein bhi

काश कोई सोचता मेरी भारत माँ के बारे में भी
मरहम लगानेवाले डॉक्टर को भी कोसते हैं जो लोग
उन्हें कहाँ पता देश बनता है लोगों से
न कोई पुरानी ज़ंजीरों से ||

काश कोई सोचता मेरी भारत माँ के बारे में भी
कोटि कोटि युवा है मेरे देश में
मगर यौवन के बारे में इन्हे क्या है पता
बडे हवेली में बसे  इन्हे क्या है पता ||

काश कोई सोचता मेरी भारत माँ के बारे में भी
चैनल में आकर चिल्लाते हैं जो लोग
कहाँ कहाँ से खाए हैं घूसों के ये भोग
काश कोई सोचता मेरी भारत माँ के बारे में भी ||

Unblinking eyes

മിഴികള്  നിശ്ചലം 

മിഴികള്  നിശ്ചലം
കിന്തു  ഭാവം പല തലം.

എന്നെ തേടും മിഴികളോ ?
അതോ നോക്കും തത് മനമോ ?

ഇവ മിഴികള് നിശ്ചലം
വെറും ഭാവം ബഹുതലം

തത് സ്മിതം ചക്ഷുവൊ
നീര് തളിക്കും ഗമനമോ

ആ മിഴികള് നിശ്ചലം
കിന്തു  ഭാവം കോ: ചലം

വചനം ഭാവം സംഹിതം
എന്നാല് മൌനം അതില് ചിരം

തേടും അര്ത്ഥം പലവിധം
കിന്തു മിഴികള്  ഇതു നിശ്ചലം

(This reflects emotions surging at a vulnerable moment of mine.

language needs some more finishing touches.)

---

Rough (horrible) Translation:

Unblinking eyes

But having many phases/emotions.

Are they eyes that are searching me?

Or is it a mind that searches me?

These eyes aren't wavering.

But hiding multifaceted feelings.

That is a smiling sight,

or is it the flow of water/tear/sadness.

Unwavering eyes

But where did its feelings go?

With words and emotions combined,

but silence was there forever.

Searching for all its meanings.

Yet, these eyes are not moving.

---

The eyes... without blinking, they look so still. But do they hide more than they reveal?

Often, I have wondered whether those eyes were looking at me. Are they searching for me? (May be so, at least I would like to believe so.) Or, perhaps its not those eyes that are searching, but it is the hidden mind/person behind it that is searching for me. At least I would like to hope so.

But these eyes appear to be unflinching. As if they belong to multiple planes, do they just appear to be unflinching.

(Are these eyes smiling?)             Are they trying to share their delight?
(Or are these eyes water-fllied?)   Are they shedding tears of plight?

Those eyes look to be still and mute. (I inquired what they felt. But they didn't seem to say much.)
But, did it's emotions lose their route? ( Are those eyes devoid of any emotions?)

Sometimes, they seem to encompass both words and emotions.
However, they keep their silence about them( about what they hold) forever.

In them, I kept searching for many meanings.
But these unwavering eyes  were holing back all it's dealings.

Silence

I was led to ruminate on silence, and a few things spilled out.

It all started with an innocent tweet:

Today is already so awful
— always last (@dr0wning0uty0u) December 14, 2013

followed by another one:

i like my music so loud i can't hear my thoughts
— ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ (@Oddsxul) November 26, 2013

The loudness, the shrillness, the overwhelming feeling of being drowned in the abyss of sadness led me to think about silence.

Sometimes, silence is all we need. #6wordstory  The beauty of disconcerting silence, tranquil silence, intermittent silence, vacant silence.

It is said: once a #zen monk meditated on silence. he found that there are different types of silence. one such silence included satori.
From thence flowed the humble koan:

"In the silence between the wing flaps of a honeybee, the lotus bloomed."

The upbeat story can't browbeat the poor melancholy to submission. Melancholy, is but a prose,
whose chains behoove the lonesome men. 

A burst of cloud,
thunder and showers;
with silence soon to follow.
Poor toad cried to quench his thirst
but it fell on rocks so hollow.

There is vociferous silence, loquacious silence, sanguine silence, remorseful silence-- but, yes, sometimes, silence is all we need.

Sometimes silence talks,
sometimes silence pleads,
sometimes silence sighs,
sometimes silence breaths.
Sometimes, silence is all that is left in me.

Sometimes tears swell,
sometimes tears fell.
Sometimes fears poke,
sometimes tears choke.
Sometimes, silence is all that is left with me.

In this mute dishonest world;
in this crude voracious world;in this low remorseless world;in this huge salacious world;sometimes, silence is all that is left to me.

Indeed, sometimes, silence is all that is left  in me.

Article 370: why we need a debate

Of late, much has been talked about the infamous Article 370 of Indian constitution[wiki indiankanoon]. The article over here gives a quick glance of some of the historic aspects of the Article.

In short, the story goes as follows: The people involved in making the constitution felt that the Kashmir state (under Lt Gen His Highness Maharaja Hari Singh, Sheikh Abdullah, Gopalaswami Ayyangar, and the rest) sat together and said that the princely state is under some sort of difficulty. Because of the current trauma, they may not be ready to completely integrate with rest of India. So let us give a stop-gap provision to allow time for the state of Jammu and Kashmir(JK) to integrate over period of time.
Now, things were only about to become complicated. A lot of history happened between India and Pakistan, and some people who thought of clicking the "None of the Above" option. To put it in the simplest form, the situation looked like a plate of our Maggi noodles. Now, even regular elections are being held. There is a functioning State government (similar to a regional government of Spain) and member are sent to the Lok Sabha, the lower house of the Indian Parliament.

The basic premise of the Article was that things will iron out over period of time. Dr. BR Ambedkar was one of the historical proponents of the notion that all laws/articles of constitution, which may be found to be lacking, can always be fixed by the future Parliamentarians. Unfortunately, the later leaders of the nation were broiled in other interesting activities, and forgot about things like the continuing SC/ST, Minorities Commission, and other mundane corrective measures that was envisaged to have been removed within 50 years. While the merry making by the state and central governments was going on, the notion that JK needs to be integrated was used to show the common man that they are working , exactly the way a Class 10 students shows his/her parents that they are studying (of course, while they are doing something else :-P). Currently, the Prime Minister aspirant Narendra Modi stumbled around a call for some sort of debate on the elusive Article in a political rally. The politics naturally kicked in, and #Article370Debate in twitter was born.

Relevance

Leaving all the muck that politicians want to throw around, there are some serious things to be considered. Its been what 60+ years since the Constitution has come into existence. Over the years, what has actually been done to remove a temporary provision in the Constitution. Politicians can always talked about some committee or other. But whatever action has been taken so far, the mere fact that the Article 370 still remains in the Constitution is proof that our approaches were not effective. So the first question that needs to be asked is: do we need a course correction vis-a-via JK?

The answer to the question can be looked from a different perspective. As per 2011 Census, the population of JK is about 1.25 crore (12.5 million) with a decadal growth rate 6 % above the national average. Literacy rate of the state is about 72%, 5 % lower than the national average. In terms of sex ratio, the state has fallen from 900(2001) to 883 (2011) per 1000 men.  In terms of the sex ratio in men:women that is indicated in the rest of the web, the sex ratio has slid from 1.11 to 1.13 (World has 1.07, Pak has 1.09, China has 1.19). In terms of per capita GDP, this becomes 33,056 as compared to 54,835 of India. All these figures are with the state being funded primarily from central grants. What these figures indicate is that not much development has actually taken place in the state. So let me re-phrase the question: Is lack of integration with the rest of India due to lack of development or is the lack of development due to lack of integration?

The debate is relevant now because we need to know what is it with JK that a special provision is still around. Now, there are some sections who claim that rest of India is gaining more than Kashmir is gaining. Observe the way the sentence was written. It said Kashmir, and not Jammu & Kashmir. The state of JK has three regions, Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh. The major counter-point with regards to the first query is that we only know of separatists in Kashmir area. I don't have data showing how exactly each of the three regions fair. But I am willing to bet that within the state the three regions are growing in three different paces. The Article technically has an issue in the sense that it doesn't really differentiate between the 3 regions which are culturally different. So, the real question is, are we undermining the rights of three regions because of egoistic jingoistic positions held by a select few? More importantly, the question is not limited to just the people of the three regions. Should the rest of the nation be anymore interested in this conundrum?

There has been a wide murmur among common folks that JK is getting away with whatever they wanted to do because they were intelligent enough to put special provisions in the Constitution.

Answers please

As a tax-paying citizen of the nation, what most of want to know is very simple.

Who is benefiting from this protracted drama that has been going on in the name of Jammu & Kashmir?
Should we look at Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh as three separate issues?
Should we even be concerned about the so-called "sensitivities" of Kashmir?
What is the moral legitimacy of this Article after so many years? Are we better off using force and annexing the region, or is there any purpose in continuing dialogue?
What exactly has the state government done to facilitate integration?

Some of these questions may be non-sensical or even outright blasphemous. But the real question: can we at least talk and figure out why this discussion is taken as a taboo topic by a select few.

[Mega disclaimer: I personally don't subscribe to anything mentioned here, except for a general call for an open rational academic(if not pragmatic) debate]

Change

Somebody once asked the question, "When does a species evolve?"
He got the response," Only when it is in the edge of annihilation."

Strange. I thought that human mind evolved when it is pushed into a virtual annihilation.

But why are we forced to change. Rather, why cant we change on our own, but have to wait for a threat to appear? Frankly speaking, I don't know. But most of us change only when we reach such a point.

There may be that one exception who had changed his way on his own, but that seldom happens.
In fact, most of our training is to ensure that we change when we are expected to change.

People say we adapt, under newer conditions. The innate nature is changed, when the new condition came in. The real question, then is to ask whether these changes are revertible.
Can we change back to what we were earlier? The answer theoretically should have been yes. But, practically it rarely happens. Once we change from one state, we rarely go back to the old state. Those who are obsessed with the past, make an attempt to reach that old state, but all they are able to achieve is their perception of the old state. Nothing more, nothing less.

Things always move forward. They never go backwards. The statement appears too strong, but then it so not too far away from the absolute truth. The flow, as can be experienced by our thoughts, rarely repeat. Can they repeat? Yes. Its like random numbers we generate. There will be a set of small numbers that do repeat, but they wont repeat long enough. We may experience a set of experiences that may seem repetitive. But it is never going to be same as past.

Let us bring our focus back to the question,"When do we change?".
We like the way things are. The conservative half of us, wants to see the same things over and over again. We like to go to the same barber, like to eat the same type of food,like to wear the same color of dress. If we are doing the same things, we do not have to change. And change needs work. It needs rewiring of our way of life. It needs to learn new things about what is around. It needs us to solve new problems of day-to-day living. It needs us to do a lot of things, and that's why we don't like to change.

Are we keeping us away from change, because we are lazy then? I wouldn't put it like that. Laziness requires us to be utterly disgusted by the very thought of doing something. The conservative self is not lazy, in the sense that people continue to do what they were doing anyways. They just don't want to change their behavioral patterns. That's where the inertia is coming from. For a river to change course, the banks should change. If a hill is on the path of the river, the river wont try to climb up the hill, and then get down. It will just flow around the river, using its simple policy of "flow from top to bottom". Water simple wont flow uphill. It is not part of its innate nature. So, can we change our habits?

Let us look at the way beliefs change. There are some people who have a fixed set of beliefs. The buffaloes. They never change their set of beliefs. Their belief system is as rigid as rock. Once they believe in something, no matter what happens, no matter how much proof is given to them, they will not reverse their belief. Strange to say, many of the things that they believe are what was told to them. Like, Jesus came back to life after 3 days of death. Or, like earth is flat. Or, God is of the form of a man. The extreme versions of them form what is termed as the fundamentalist bunch. These people truly believe that whatever is being taught to them is the truth, and the only truth; and every other view is false. Then, there is the bunch of fickle-minded set of people. They start believing in one thing. They do truly believe in it for some time. And then they hear a new thing and change their belief system to the new one. At any given point of time were they conflicting themselves? No. They were having the right set of beliefs at each instance of time, they are just incapable of sticking on to one set of beliefs. Then, there are people who have semi-rigid beliefs. It is not that they wont change their belief systems. They just ask for different degrees of proof to state that the new system is the better one with respect to their current belief. Just for theoretical completion, I will also be forced to state a class of people who do not believe in anything. Frankly, if there is really a person who doesn't really believe in anything, then he is in vegetative state.

People with rigid belief set are like ASICs (Application-specific Integrated Chips). They are hard-wired to do a particular task. The only way to change them is to change their hardware.
Those who are fickle minded are like software running in a PC. When a new task is executed, then they will work in the new way. They dont have any thing fixed, and hence are easily changeable. (Is there a truly pliable person? That is going to be a quite debatable question. Let me just put this as the other theoretical limit.) Since there is nothing limiting them to one set of beliefs, the inertia to change is minimum. The third category is like programmable logic circuits (PLC). Once programmed, then till the program is changed, they are going to run exactly the same way. Most of us belong to this intermediate category. We have some set of fixed beliefs. We can change them, if get a proof. It is not that we are unwilling to change, but then we need to be coerced to change our beliefs.

The same is true for any sort of change. There are some aspects of us, which are very rigid. Right-handedness, is a simple example. Our nerves have been hard-wired to be like that. Many of the things used for biometric authentication uses these fixed parts of us. Then comes a set of daily routines. They are there for all. Most of us can easily identify with them. There will be some of us, who may have to struggle a bit to identify them correctly. These are not immutable habits. Like, say having bed coffee. We may be having bed coffee as long as we can remember. But it is not that we cant change it. If we got stuck in a place where they dont have coffee, then obviously we have to adapt accordingly. Or, the roads we choose to go to office. We usually follow the same path, but we can always use a new path if there is a circumstance. There are some aspects of us which are very easy to change. Like our dreams. We get new dreams every day.

Those things for which there is no strings attached, we can change overnight. Normally these types of changes are triggered by environmental conditions, and are normally a direct response to some immediate cause. The PLC type aspects of us are not that easy to change. we need to be coerced to change those. It is not that we cant change these aspects. It just needs a strong external impetus that can trigger our inertia to change. The the fixed things in us, that are near to impossible to change. These are primarily things that are soldered with lead in our brains. These cant be changed.

To change a man, may be a few words will suffice. To change a village, more than words are required. To change a nation, the scale changes accordingly and so too the physical impetus required for the change. For changing a species as a whole, lots more is needed. In fact, nothing short of the threat of complete annihilation can coerce the species to change.

Free flow of f.........

Some body said

"If I am not for others, who will be for me?
And if I am only for myself, then who am I?"

I feel, i completely misunderstood the quote. I thought that the quote tells us to help others.

But then Life has taught me the finest of all lessons.

Helping others is a virtue. The willingness to help others is even a greater virtue.
Helping others, without first helping one is the biggest vice.

To each bird, its own nest. To each man his own work. There is nothing wrong in helping your neighbor in times of need, when you are capable of helping and you have all the resources to help others. But if your nest is not built yet, dont go and help your neighbor repair his nest.

Marrige Quotable Quotes

Accepting with lack of information is suicidal;
Rejecting with lack of information is stupidity.

---- After a long time, a quotable quote by me.

Marriage is one important problem for which you should never give anyone any advice.
Whatever you say will be used against you, when your next turn comes.

In the beginning, God created Adam. He named the class of people like Adam as "single". He lost interest in watching a single person a lot. So he created Eve and betrothed her to Adam, thus creating the second class, viz. "married". Everything was good for sometime. Then he wanted to have some fun. So he created the third class and called it "to be married".

Meritocracy: A dream or realtiy?

I was just reading through Wikipedia on meritocracy and I suddenly remembered my favorite style of government,(Some thing I want if I get to rule Mars) use people with skill to man important posts for the government. In fact, it is not just pure skill that happens to be around that matters. May be in the first generation or at most second or rulers, we may have to look at merit from an exhaustive set of tets which include not only testing the IQ, EQ and SQ, but also an elaborative personality test to find the true personal feelings of the person. The later people manning all the posts will be trained for the post. In fact, the emphasis shall always be for training the people needed for the post that is needed, wherever possible. Outsource all other acts as much as possible.

The system of meritocracy depends on the elite at the moment to strongly follow the methods that were used to choose them. And this is one of _the_ most dfficult part of this form of government. In general, at one point of time or other, a person may wish his son/daughter to succeed him in the job that he is currently doing. Genetically, we can expect the child to emulate most of his/hers' parent, but it is not universally true. Also, the downfall of most of the other goverment's seems to be the effective turn towards nepotism.

The beauty of any system that must really be built on top of meritocracy must be its inherent affinity towards merit of the person. For ensuring this, the entry conditions has to be strictly followed, and the method ofchoosing any candidate must be both strict and accountable. In fact, the fear promulgating from accountability must form one of the basic protection for the system.
The selection board shall be highly methodical.

There is one small catch in a highly strict method of governing. Sometimes, some of the best governers were not actually identified as good enough for managing even themselves, but later turned out to be effective governers of vast kingdoms. So, the selection mechanism should ideally be able to incorporate these possibilities. What I feel is the best method is to actually test people based on the skill sets ideal for the job. Once they show that they have the requisite skill sets, make a pseudo appointment of the said people for the task, and evaluate them on the how they work and then only give the full responsibility to them. In fact, I would prefer that the selection process for the successor for any post should be an ongoing process. This is the only way the best available talent can be used for the correct job.

One of the main reasons why any person may think of nepotism is inherent insecurity that expresses itself in a ruling person. To overcome this, effective couner steps must be evolved so that there wont be a sense of insecurity inherently being developed in the governing people.

Energy as chande of state

It might seam strange, but if we look at most of the processes in the nature, they seem to flow with the sense of innate chaos. For example of water flowing, wind blowing, magma flows, cosmic dust's flow. . . In fact, it even spills over to the virtual workds created by us, like the money flow, or you can say stock market variations. At a glance, they look as if they do have a pattern, but then when we look deeper into them, they simply look unconnected.

In the sense of meditative gabbling , even the electric charges came into the picture. Suddenly the uncertainty principle struck me somewhere. so is there an electron? apart from a sense of abstraction, it is not possible to sense the presence of electrons and protons and their flow over an electric wire. But then, we all can say for sure that just as air exists, so do electrons. Just as tree leaves sway because of the power of air, so do bulbs glow. but then to perceive the electrons are not possible.

Now if it is not perceivable, then it cannot be sensed by the sense organs, and if cannot be sensed by the organs, then the existence of an electron is as questionable, as the inexistence of electrons.

it is more possible to picture the sense of electrons and protons as nothing but the negative and positive instances of harmony. The harmonious one, looses its balance and leads to unharmony, and since the innate is harmonious in nature, unharmony cannot be maintained. hence the unharmony will strive to become harmonious by the flow of air, or the flow of water, or the flow of money or the flow of electrons. As far as the natre is concerned it is not important what constittes it, but in what sense of harmony they are.

Just as water take the form of vessel it is placed in, so do the harmonious mix with one and all in the nature. But the unharmonious cannot mix and merge with anything due to its nature. Hence it needs to seek its compatible other half so that it can become harmonious again. It is in the nature of the unharmonious to seek aggressively for the other. This innate urge itself is the energy that drives the bulb, the force that pushes the leaves, the unforseeable that churns light breezes as well as cyclones.

THus energy is nothing but the unharmony of one part of the object. But what if the object contains more than one sense of unharmony? What if every time one type of harmony is achieved, another always props up? In the sense that, do all the actions resulting for one type of unharmony effective in achieving the goal?

There is struggle in life, because we need to figure out the mechanism for reaching harmony.

The equilibrium need not be passive inanimate as is usually visualized, but it is to be a dynamic attempt to seemingly r=touch the equillibrium without actually touching it.
It may not really make sense, because it will be beyond sense, but not really nonsense. The thin line (as if lines can be thick too.) Loitering around in the verge, just seemlessly interlinked with other side aside. the waves may churn but they dont exist, as the sound may come out from the silence to. The sense of presence that just about touches, but then when actively sought for, never really was there.

it is hard to type, because of the effort needed, but it is not possible to stop, brcause the gush cannot be stopped. it just flows out , innately searching out the garbled keys of the keyboard, yet unaware that the letters typed do add up to something. there are swirls and there are cross swirls. but then wihout all there, there wont be the wave. do words have to have a meaning, but then f they dont have one, wont they cease to be one.

thoughts stop as if they pass, but then it can only mean that they just stopped being percieved. if thoguhts could stop, then wont the mind go to stop, but then having never seen a mind that stopped because of lack of thought, how can it be made sure that the mind will stop.

if there id no effort to conciously make an effort to be active, then will it be termed inactive?? will it have to be like that?

The ravishing is all but state of mind, but then by acknowledging that the states change and so do the resultant energy waves that flow out too. after all energy is nothing but the shift of the state of the innate mind of an object.

At last wakes up the sage from a mysterious sleep, but still very tired as if he was working hard all through.

It may not seem sane, but then who knows what goes through when a sage sleeps. For only a sage knows whether he is or not.

That brings us to the age old quote:

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Now the role of gaurdians has increased even more. Only, now they are called as regulators and anti-terrorism cells.There is no better example than the story of Gen (Retd) Musharaf. (Did i make a mistake by calling him 'Gen'???) Musharaf it seems was so fixated with ruling Pakistan, and coming out of his self-imposed rule aive that he did the best thing to safe-gaurd his interests - lick USA's arse. So there he was catching Bush's neocon policy with his own hand and lending to the concept of terror, all the while making his place safe. The issue is that no pakistani could actually do anything about it. Now the results of the electin seem to talk a little different, but then look at the election turnout.
Bush can tell back home that he has brought democracy in pakistan, though he was supporting a dictator for a very long time. He gave Musharaf enough money that if the people who ate money survived the regime change, then they can simply retire and still be able to feed 3 generatoins. Musharaf got to enjoy full power for some time. Bush got away with spending more oney than he could ever spend and still say he was good at it. But then after all the gaga any man can say these people went free because there was no one to call foul.

That brings us to the main question, how can we actually root out the evils from coming in? The essence of solving the problem in the so-called democratic form of government is to ensure that nobody comes up with enough clout to actually make any change in the State. Even if some one does come around, the negative pull on him/her will always be so high that nothing positive could be brought out.
More good had come out during the time of Saddam Hussein, than the two Bush administrations. If you dont trust these words, just look at the state of US economy at the end of the 2 Bush eras. Both Bush administrations converted a good US economy to an economy with recession and war expenditure to top the hardships. A more single-minded Saddam government could actually set changes in the lives of the selected people. But a US with the so-called democratic government couldnt control not just one, but 2 lunatics.

Devolution of power, it seems, is a euphemism for ensuring nobody is left powerful enough to do anything positive. At least, instances like Musharaf will logically be not so rampant then. But then, is democracy so nice after all?

From the start it has been so that democracy had existed without a clear definition of it. The oft quoted "government of the people, by the people, for the people" is so meaningless that everyone feels that it is something extremely great, but just out of the reach of their brains. People are still upholding this talk, because still they havent realized that it was just another publicity stunt. Democracy has always been used by power-hungry people to wrest as much power as is possible, because they are afraid of having to loose the little power that they will gain from the exercise. Even more horrible is the state of the select few, who would rather have no power, if they can ensure that no one else will ever get full power.

Is there any government in which a single party has taken full control of the legislature and the executive arms right now? Even if you may some how spell ot one or two names, a deeper analysis will always show that even the so-called single party that gets into power is so bifurcated that even for a good policy, you will find a sizeable number of people opposing it because of outside influence from own party. It is high time we realize, that democracy is only as good as holding out a dictatorship from happening a few more years. The current mechanism is so flawed that a violent show down will occur anytime. The successful States are only those that delay the final break down as much as possible. It is something like saying, "X went down after having one and half pints of wine, while Y couldnt last more than one".

Fly Fly

Fly! Fly! With your wings stretched, fly.
Fly, not because you have wings;
Fly, not because you have the urge;
Fly, because you know to fly.

Free the shackles that hold you back,
because they are not yours.
Clean your mind off useless worries,
because they are not yours.

When the urge comes forth to free yourself,
When the urge comes forth to clean yourself,
Just fly... Jus fly ...
Because you know you can.


Tears come down to cleanse my hurt;
Pangs are freed from the chest of wrath;
Darkness and light are but
just two sides of the same door.
When you see them both, you know you are the same floor.

It aint my nor my words, nor my deeds,
It aint the heavens, that knocks nor feeds.
Just open the heart and feel the breeze
the bells that ring, are for me.
So fly with the winds, fly with the rains,
fly with the heavens and fly with the flames.
You know you need, but you just wont heed,
That you know you can BE ...

USA - my latest vibes

Of late, i have been reading something on Nostradamus, and then came the crap about Anti-Christ and stuff like that. some where in the middle i read something like America will fall because of natural calamities.

Unfortunately for me, i read it around the time when there were wild fires spreading in California. Now, it is no fault of mine to start feeling for some vibes and finally i thought, if USA is to fall, it is more likely due to something they are not prepared for. Katrina showed us what USA cannot handle - not because of lack of resources, but because of lack of political will.

Whenever i hear bad news, i always think "GOD save America". When i think of those poor American common men, i really feel for them. They are really victims of the so-called American dream. A dream that many find hard to make true. A dream that many followed without knowing what they will end up doing.

Right now it is official that America did not attack Iraq for oil. The real reason why the current administration attacked, is the same reason somebody will pluck a leaf from a plant in the road and squash it and put it down. I hope what I just said makes sense. If it doesnt, dont worry. Because I also dont understand that reason. But, every human being has the innate ability to just play havoc in places where he should only bne a silent spectator.

As far as my latest vibes go:

The greatest threat to the mightiest empires spring not from outside, but within.

In fact, we often say, the greatest enemy of any man is the enemy within. The same rule applies to nations as well. If we remember the battle of Troy, the winning team attacked from within their enemy. That was the only reason why their enemies failed. Time has come for the American civilization to find out the place where they made mistakes and try to correct them.

The only reason why USA is still a weak nation is because they still dont know themselves.

Greatness is always the result of self-awareness.

Time has come for the nation to spend some time on domestic policies and stop over-emphasizing on its foreign policies. The conservative tactic of staying in power has left the nation weak and trembling in front of "terrorists". In fact, most of the so-called "terrorit"s were made by the conservatives themselves. Common man is not enjoying any benefits of the growth of the nation, and the political system, especially the conservative movement, has modelled the world around them in such a way that people feel that the conservatives are right.

For example, take the ad campaign of Republican Rudi Guiliani. He is coming up with some numbers which do not mean anything. He is talking about getting his prostrate cancer cured, but he never talks about who paid the bills of his treatment. He also never says what people who are not rich like him will do. By not talking about the things that really matter, but talking a lot about unrelated things the GOP was innocently following the same tactics that are the bane of the nation's politics. The "terrorist" health plan is seemingly unrealistic according to his team, and they need to be rooted out. If Mr Guliani is so sure that USA does not need any social plans, then he should look at what Hugo Chevez is doing in his own backyard. Please dont claim now some unrelated crap again on this point.

The real issue with the conservatives is their conservatism. Why the hell do the politicians cry about the immigrants (legal/illegal). I really dont know how many of their own ancestors had come legally to the americas.

May the inner eye open the world outside.

The essence

With the onset of the much awaited tempest, the smell of the silent seas left the lush green forest. The buttreflies treating, with the nectar oozng out, it is but natural to be intoxicated with the essence of what is called life. The agile motions are indicative of the fluidity that is inherent. As each little muscle fletches and stretches, the effect of the innate is subliming. The luscious flow intermittently tickled by the gentle cajoling touch of the branches.

As the young bird stretched its wings and made that first flight, amazingly perfect, feeling the wind flow through it, that new feeling of being afloat - so seemingly natural, so seemingly de facto, yet so new - with the nature becoming one with the released self; thats when the essence merges with that stroke of the buttefly.

Ramblings

The cool breeze was lightly cajoling me to sense the urgency around me. The deep strong desire to just merge with those lush green fields. The blades of grass gently shaking their head in approval. Encouraging me to join them. The chimes of gentle soothing calls were leaving me senseless. The very senses somehow trying to say there is nothing here, but pure bliss. When I breath in, the mild air is filling me with solace. On exhaling, the mildly warm air emanating from me is lightly stroking the greenery around me, as if the gentlest of warmth can somehow thank them for their kindness towards me. The rhythm of breath intermingling with the breeze, and the light rejoice of the green leaves making merry. I dont know whether it is possible to think of anything but the moment. Somewhere deep within the sweet music of enjoyment was flowing. The tune seems so familiar, but without the voices, so awe-inspiring. The muscles go numb with the sense of presence... Each cell in my body can feel the unexplainable presence. Its not in any way intimidating, but the presence makes the feeling of unity with itself. Each muscle in the body suddenly becomes live with sensations hitherto unknown. What is time, what is space ... these are things I just forgot to think about. I feel lightly closing my eyes to savor in more of the feeling But the effort needed to close the eyes seem so much that I just let the eyes remain open.

What makes clock tick?

What makes clock tick? It is really a difficult question to answer. We can come up with a very technical answer like, there is a quartz crystal,, which generates the ticks with the help of a timer circuit. Or something like, a spring wound tight unwinds itself, generating the tick. The technical aspect of it is superficial. The question can now be what makes the quartz crystal tick. We can yet again come up with lots of scientific answers, but then, they do get questions in turn.

The questions can be answered and deeper questions can still be posed. The question is how long will there will be a tryst to answer the question.

Now, What makes the clock tick? There is a story I heard a couple of years ago regarding an real life incident of one of the greatest American poets. I think it was T S Elliot. This gentleman was walking in the park, when one of his fans saw him. The lady was walking with her 5-yr old kid when she recognized that her idol is walking in front of her. Immediately she approached and self-introduced and poured on to the poor poet the normal ravishing of a fan. Her kid was uninterested first, but after a while, he asked " Can I ask you a doubt?". The poor poet was trapped. He is standing in front of his fan and her child wants to ask him a question.
"Go ahead. What do you want to ask me?"
"Why are the leaves of the pine tree green?"
The mother of the kid was completely bewildered and she wanted to divert the topic fast. But a gentleman as he was, he bent down to the child, thought for a while and simply said : " I dont know, my child."
Why the heck didn't he give the usual discourse of chlorophyll and all.This is quite a learned man, with lots of common sense. But he resorted to the most simplest of answers, simply because he truely didnot know. He knew that chlorophylls give the leaves the green color. But then, what makes chlorophyll green in color. We can boil down to a set of chemicals that has the green color, but then the question is how did those compounds get the color. Even thinking deeply, what is a color? The unending sequence of question continues. And at last we fall back to the simplest of all answers.

So, what really makes the clock tick? I dont know.

Now did I turn defeatist and give up even when the question was asked. There is a thin line. The question is, when the line was drawn, was i standing just one nanometer to the right or to the left. When the answer, I dont know came, it was not because of ignorance. I know the reasons the science behind the working of a clock. But how long will I go answering the counter questions. Did I go deep enough , before I said "I dont know", or was it a shallow search.

There are lots of things we dont know. The question is did we as deep as possible, before we said "this is all I can do".

Often, the simplest questions are the most profound.
Follow these simple questions, and the doors of heaven will be opened.

Water and well

A metaphor i thought of lately

Water in a well is sweat and unique for people drinking it. But all wells need cleaning periodically. If water stagnates too much in a well, then even it becomes undrinkable. Shrewd are those who periodically check the quality of their own wells and do the necessary steps to clean it. If the one taking care of the well is not capable of cleaning it because of any reason, then others who drink from the well must take necessary actions to ensure the quality of water.
No matter how long you use the water from your well, it is insane to think that water comes only in your well. There are others with their own wells. Water is there in their wells also, even though the tastes of the water may be different.
Also, though you may have accustomed to drink water from your well, there is no rule out there that says that water in other wells are unhealthy for you. In fact, try to taste other waters before you decide on the quality of your well. Who knows, may be when you drink water from other wells, you may be able to find out deficiencies in your own well.
The underlying part is, Drink well and take care of what you drink. Do whatever it takes to ensure you are drinking the right thing at the right time.

The independence of Thought

Many things have been written about thought that I feel my own words are only regurgitation of some persons thoughts put in some manual script or some where else. But to write is what I do and that is all that matters.

What is thought? I have browsed through many books. I tried to put the question into my own mind and the results that I got were amazing. Thought is that which makes you read, that which makes me write, that which makes us eat; thought is the drive for all our activities; thought is the result of all our activities; thought makes us think, thought makes us not to think; thought makes us dream. Thought is the only thing that exists in our mind. But mind itself is too abstract to conjure.

I said thought is responsive. Then how can thought be independent? Well, for that first I will have to talk about the fallacy called "my thought". "My thought" never exists, because I nor any person can own a thought. It is the nature of thought to flow through us. If I were to take parallels then I think I have to take the case of neurtinos that pass through the earth. The neutrinoes, when they pass through, do contribute their weight to us. The earth's mass does include the neutrinoes mass that pass through it as well. But then try fixing the neutrinoes to earth alone, and then one becomes incapable. At an instant the neutrino is part of the earth, but then it never looses its individuality and the moment it comes out of the other side, it is free from earth.

We think. Our thoughts do become part of us. But they are only part of us, as long as we are following the thought. Once the thought is lost, we don't follow it. Now we can train our selves to follow the same thought again and again. That s possible. But the ownership of the thought will still be with it, not with us.

WE have seen a lot of abstract things. But then to add some more things to it, let us pose the question, "what exactly is thought?". (Too difficult if this was part of my exam papers, I would have left the question.) To put it with some physical perspective, I must explore it as a group of chemicals in my nervous system playing rock music. Our brain brain consists of a lot of nerve cells(neurons). They are connected among themselves at places called synapses. In a synapse, there is a lot of chemicals flying across from one cell to another. There are also chemicals floating around in the vicinity of the synapses themselves. Then the neurons nucleus has also to make a decision whether it must "fire" the synapse or not. All this chemical pout puree with the neurons influence together generate a small flow in our brain. Lots of such flows combine together to create an imprint on our mind that a thought has come.

even the very act of me typing is way too complex. There are fingers moving and hitting keys. These actions have to be coordinated. I have to look at the screen. Parallelaly I have to check whether I am making any typos. I have to follow a sequence of complex signals to generate the thoughts that I am having. And all these things the "I" doesn't do. It is just a sequence of chemical reactions inside my brain. [The question of "who am I", I have not answered and I don think anyone can 'answer' that. So I am lavishly using 'I' even in places I shouldn't be.] all these seemingly complex tasks are nothing but a stream of thoughts. I wont call "algorithmic" because I don't want to feel like a robot myself. But the fact is these are simple set of operations that is inherently taking place inside us all the time.

The nature of the thought purely depends on the input to this massive computer, called as "body". [Why did I say body, and not brain?]

Now will there not be an argument that from what I have said, a thought is specific to an individual body. Well.. Let me try to explain it this way. WE have got thousands of cars plying around. Each one of them has its own petrol internal combustion engines. Now engine is individual, the petrol flowing in different vehicles must also be inherently individual (not same). Then how does all the engines when working, turn the crank shafts the same way. Though the actual bodies may be different, thoughts are like the motion of crank shaft. Crank shaft will move in the exact same direction whenever the engine is running. The mechanisms of the engine force the crank shaft to work in a particular way. I could actually use a generic term "crank shaft" and not bother about specific cars or trucks, simply because the inherent nature of the mechanism is known and it is known to be the same in all instances. The same action will occur in the synapses if the inner conditions and the surrounding area conditions are same. The probability for Murali to throw THE one rupee coin in air to THE exact height and catch the coin in THE exact height catch it in THE particular way in an exact environment condition and get a heads is also is going to be 1. Of the parameters are fully explored and set, then probability will degrade to totality/fallacy, never in between.

Using the same logic, if a person as inside his brains an almost exact replica of brain patterns an another, then both of them will have similar thoughts. The funniest parts of neurons is that they can do the same operation in an umpteen number of ways. So essentially, two people need not have all the parameters exactly same to have the thoughts matching. They can just have 'Equivalent' neuron mappings and related chemical environment to have the same thoughts repeated.

If the same thought can appear in two persons simultaneously, then who will be the owner of the thought? This is a fairly logical question that will follow and the only answer striking me is that thoughts cannot be 'own'ed by a person. If it is to be owned, then it must be under the control of one person alone, and can never be under two persons.

[I am not against IPR] If thoughts are independent, then ideas must be independent as well. Ideas are nothing but a collection of mutually coherent thoughts. Since thoughts in an idea like company - I mean the thoughts that are part of an idea want some exact thoughts to follow them to make them logically cohesive - we have no other option other than to accept that ideas are also independent.

The thoughts need not want a person to conceive, because it already had existed. Just like we don't need to conceive all the atoms in a steel beam manufactured in a factory. The factories processes themselves will eventually bring the sequence of atoms in place. The parameters that fix the thoughts to a person at a point of time manifest themselves to generate the thought. Once the thought has been expressed, the parameters don't continue to be same. And hence they thought drifts. All the thoughts are fixed by their corresponding parameters. The moment a set of parameters repeat anywhere, the thoughts will come back to life just for the fraction of time needed to manifest itself, and then disappear back into the place from where it came from.

||Chintaneeyam chintamanyam chintanam, chintayeraiva chinthayath||

WHY Super-heroes are a failure

Looking at the title itself, I think, many of you must be wondering what utter non-sense this is. But then, many things that look like non-sense end up having much more sense later on.

Super heroes are supposed to be characters that fly around doing impossible things. People have used super heroes for motivation effectively. For instance, "If Superman, who doesnt know that under wear must be worn before pants can do it, then so can you." Super heroes are super heroes, because

• they do impossible things.
• they fight for the notions of truth, justice, et al.
• they come from seemingly innocuous back ground and use some of their talents, though exaggereated heavily, to become famous.
• they are the creation of some person who is obsessed about one special trait.
• All commercial super heroes, started decent and then became prey of commercialisation.
  

But if you notice carefully, all the characters were made in situ. The story revolves around their surroundings. What I am syaing is that the superheroes functioned and usurped their current surroundings for all the things they did.

All superheroes were lonely people. Some of them identified their special traits very early in life. Others just stumbled upon them. But whichever way it goes, it was something great which they suddenly got.

The main problem with these superheroes is that they are not trained. They just happen to possess what ever special thing they have. I will accept that superheroes were made because some body wanted to put their imagnation to the extreme. But you dont get special powers unless you are trained. I am happy to believe in a Jackie Chan movie in which he flies from top of building (into a net) than a super hero simply because the kung fu movis show level oftraining involved before these people show their stunts.

No man has ever gotten anything without a mentor. Ok, Ok. There was some one as a mentor for many of the heroes involved. But what did these mentors do? They did not teach them hw to use the powers. They were in most instances only motivators. But the heroes never recieved a well-organozed learning strategy.

I have been blabbering about training a lot. But what is the real significance of training? Take the case of ean Claude van Dam's martial arts movies. Specifically I want to say about the one with coumingtang. There the master trained the student to deal with the fight. His training strategy not only involved giving special skills, but also sharpen the already existing skills. (remember the scene where van dam was blibd folded and asked to serve tea. this effectively helped him win the fight even though the opponent had put chemical in his eyes and he turned partially blind). Similarly, in Yodha, mohanlal was trained to fight and protect appukuttan. The character Akosoto was given skills and also the training to use them. That is where our superheroes lack.

Our superheroes know their skills. They have been fed with various concepts of truth, justice, etc. by simple common people. The people who were metnoring probably had no idea what the capabilities of the person are, and how can you improve upon them.

Another problem with super heores is that they were all loners who sddenly emerged out. Since they were loners, they start reading the signs wrongly. World out there cannot be mastered if you are a loner. This is a simple fact of life. What these people needed is just a set of people who can show them around. Not developing super powers and end up saving the world.

The main objective of such a person is to project his own inherent weaknesses of loneliness and so on onto the world. Frankly speaking, world doesnot need some one to save it. Humanity may need, but humanity is way too small. As the scientists try to put it we have been here only for 6 seconds if we consider that earth was created in a day. The real quality that must be cultivated is to understand the right thing to do and do it. do it not becuse it satisfies a fancy condition called justice, but do it because the soul says "do it".

"WE can become responsible fo our actions, only when we are aware of our actions. All the training that is given to us is just to do that. Be aware. "

Nothing in special - usual time pass

Feeling bad that i had not contributed anything to the blog recently. Been a bit busy recently. When sh.......it happens, it happens all of a sudden.

To stimulate my cranium, Vimal's company has been great. He explained to me some of the tiruvalluvar sayings. What I was thinking all the while was how could the guy who lived so many years ago come up with easy correct and eternal quotes. There were some simple quotes that simply said a doctor must find the disease, find the cause for the disease and then find the cure and after considering all the sides of the cure give it to the patient. Simple effective facts of life. But then valluvar simply turned it to give deeper philosophical insights into many many things in common day-to-day activities.

I am still forced to believe that sight is completely dependent on the beholder. The deeper the beholder wants to see, the more enhanced his sight will be. Pretty hard to chew even for me. But as someone said, truth is always bitter.

---

I met the chowky yesterday night. I still dont remember his name. But then spending some time with him was good. We talked about many things, but nothing in specific. Just the usual time pass talks. I told him about the article on Nostre Damus on India & BJP in astrojyoti.com. We just talked about the greatness of a man who lived a couple of centuries before us and still he was able to say what happens now. The power of astrology is great. Both of us agreed that it will be BJP this time.

During the conversation he told me that his insincts say that another bomb explosion is on the way. I did not agree with him totally, but the times are quite turbulent. Now-a-days you dont really need Pakistanis to plant bomb here. There are enough bad elements in our own nation to do the damage.

Lesson I learned:

The best way to motivate yourself is to be in good company. It doesnt matter who the other person is and what the exact topic you talk on. All it matters is the vibrant positive energy that must be shared among one another. AS the great man said, "Until you start talking, you will never know how big the world really is and how well knit all of us really are". Motivation doesnt need words. All it needs is the vibrant energy. Words only act like a strip of gold that is used to keep the diamond in place.