Democratic governance will likely fail unless a country’s citizens have already adopted values that accompany democracy..  This is ever more significant these days, when great democracies face significant threat internally.

Is human a complex life?

Is human a complex life? And, if so, why?

Human, in fact is a life, like all other forms, except that it is more of a programmable form of life. One can mould a new born in the manner one would wish. As one grows up, one’s own will, the influence from chosen entities, or a mix of both, can do it. When one wouldn’t make a wish here, the default comes into play, which also is a mix of both. Mainly, this is what was happening to human race all these years, but, since we have been celebrating it a lot, that too as something human-specific, unfathomable, etc., we have come to accord a status of complexity to human life. There is one more issue. Humans continue to change, always putting into practice, whatever one learns. Since we are constantly being told that we belong to a complex species, it just doesn’t occur to us to examine whatever choices we make about ourselves, against a yardstick of simplicity, though it is so, on all other matters. And as a result of this also, we tend to shape our actions as well as reactions in a complicated and circuitous way.

I can think of one way of simplifying it. Which is this. Look at life, including human life, through the eyes of a computer program. In fact our appreciation of life already follows such a path, and we seem to have landed with it well before we ever had a chance to acquaint with programming as a way to confront questions. Just as in programming, where we use procedural or functional model of the issue to make an abstract (computer) equivalent of the whole, in our journey behind the secrets of life and all that matter, we are in fact attributing properties and functions, similar to that of ourselves, to each and everything. Thereafter we keep making amends, wherever necessary. Like specifying qualities of sexual or gender nature as the key to everything, except where it is impossible to do so. The few places where such an approach is yielding true and desirable outcome serves as a versatile and universal support, for continuing with the same for other areas too.

I admit, over the years, we have been making quite a bit of headway in realizing the true nature of things, and integrating those gainfully, while we move on with our life and living. But, in this matter, the one which includes our own life, we are happily continuing with the ancient approach. And, even when a change becomes inevitable, by making it to align to such an approach, we are losing much of the gain, it would have brought. Which perhaps is the reason, why human life is so full of problems. Look carefully, and one can see that every new problem is nothing but a leftover from some of the solutions of the past.

The above fact should have been occurring to us, in the normal course of life itself. However, it hasn't been happening thus. Not that we are incapable of realizing this. But, we are confronting life, in a manner that is totally unbecoming of an intelligent race. I find, especially on matters related to our life and living, whenever we observe something amiss, the immediate reaction is to belittle the intellectual standards of previous generations, except the rare cases where it is not possible to make even a remote link. And the immediate result is, we are getting an impression that we have found an answer. That is, whatever would have sparked the desire for further contemplation or study, comes to a logical conclusion. And, as we continue to do so and keep feeling great about ourselves, we do not feel the need to examine the issues matter to us, in depth. We are effectively in a vicious circle. By belittling the previous generations, we are placing ourselves on a superior pedestal, which makes them relatively more inferior. Naturally, then we pat ourselves, and put further examination to rest. We need to ask ourselves, why, even though we pride ourselves to be well oriented to intellectual transactions, shy away from probing an obvious confusion as this?

I think, ages back, we understood ourselves as life that is programmed in a particular manner. (Not in these words, though!) Which perhaps was a good fit for the current ambience, the race felt. And instituted a system of nurturing future generations in that manner, while educating the current one to align themselves to it. Over a period of time, human life ended up getting specified as a continuum, a collection of wants and desires, and the ways of achieving those. One may entertain many such, while having no limit to the ways of accomplishing each of those. As a result of which, each and every one of a group of people, effectively will turn out to be, a group of desires, combined with another group of efforts towards those desires. Times changed, greatly altering the structure and composition of human race. The huge kitty of wants and desires and the associated melee, naturally is leading to phenomenal complexity in human affairs, where each and everything is linked to each and everything else. Bewildered of the issues that constantly affect the race as a whole, rather than taking the natural path of questioning the original specifications that led to this complexity, we continue to tackle every difficulty that confront us by incessantly repeating to ourselves, man is a highly complex life.

Thus, we have acquired a flurry of imponderables, mostly acclaimed as unique parts of the human, in almost all aspects of our life. For example, it is perfectly acceptable for one to say, ‘I am greatly offended by you wearing a red dress, when my faith defines it as deadly’. And it is quite in order if some people make elaborate plans for keeping red dress as a controlled commodity, on this account. In short, any member of our race can initiate a commotion. In fact for a commotion to begin, one only need to link disturbances of some facet of life, to some reason. It is immaterial, whether the proposed reason is a rational one or not. Also, how abstract, vague or remote, the connection between the reason and the commotion.

Suppose, ages back humans understood themselves as something programmed in an object oriented manner. That, while confronting different issues or circumstances, human behavior shall assume unique patterns that are not necessarily connected directly with any issue other than the one being reacted to, currently. (This is in stark opposition to the present. Now, in fact we take pride in direct proportion to the number or severity of unrelated issues that can influence one. And we allocate prime position to such wasteful efforts, collectively calling it as culture.)

The above is however true for all other forms of life. Perhaps for humans also, no such connection existed. Since intellectual transactions were a favorite past time of humans, we seem to have discovered a possibility of such relationships, which happened to get instituted as important features of human life. There would have been motivating factors, which needs to be investigated further.

In such a case, all the phenomena associated with our race would have been reduced to a set of particularities of conduct, behavior, etc., and the occasions suiting to each. Each one, will then feel disposed to each such particularity, perhaps always and every time, under respective circumstances. Which can turn human nature more towards the predictable, letting in an ambience of tranquility and ease. More importantly, our young ones would have been growing up with rather clear idea about themselves and the reactions, greatly altering the social fabric.

What all could have happened as a result? One substantial change, I can feel immediately, is about thinking. Like speaking, writing, and other forms human expressions, we would have had thinking also, as an art and a science formally taught to our children. Which could have enabled the society to have standardized patterns of going ahead with this activity, as well as allocating for research and development. Perhaps, just like in all other cases, we would still have been giving to the object under consideration, undivided attention. But, the random disturbances that always exist, unlike presently, where it poses a threat, depending on many parameters like the mental state of the personnel involved and the prevailing social atmosphere, shall die its natural death, being entirely overlooked. In short, as a matter of habit itself, each and every issue would get addressed, neglected, or contemplated upon, in its ideal way. An air of discipline shall be prevailing, at all times, and everywhere.

So, this is how we humans can simplify it all. We need to fashion everything in our life, like our wants, desires, and reactions, in an object oriented manner. And the objects remain independent, having no influence on one another, unless explicitly activated thus. In which case, for example, neither shall hunger, shorten one’s temper, nor will gratification, cause a celebration.

Human Society - A Quick Fix

Human Society - A Quick Fix

There is plenty of literature available on topics that discuss human race, especially the question, what is wrong with human race. All of those agree on one point. That humans behave in a manner that is destructive to the planet, all its occupants, and everything else, not to miss the very first victim, human race itself. However, all such discussions centre around possible remedies, and a plethora of wise suggestions appear at regular intervals, making an already complex life, a little more involved. Nowhere could I find an inquiry into a fundamental question, why should humans cause a danger to their planet, if they are as much a natural constituent of the planet, as others? Or, is human society, the unnatural one?

No, human life should not pose a danger to the planet, more so, when it is a part of it. But in reality, it does. Why? I think, humans do not live the way they should have been living. Human society, or the way humans interact with the rest of the universe, is not a natural construct. This line of thought is not at all a strange one. In fact many propositions arise from a variety of thinkers, and, almost all of those are but suggestions about how humans can release themselves from the artificial ways of life, they follow. Though they only happen to follow such a life in the natural course of events. But, as mentioned, all of these adds to the existing complexity of living as a human. And, it won’t be incorrect to say that almost all of the damages we do to our environment originate out of this complexity.

Now, let me see how we can put this right. How to make our life, less complex? Based on the experience gained over last many centuries, and making copious allocation for the potential for further awareness that may turn all these upside down, let us look for new conclusions. What exactly is wrong with human life? Why is it so involved? What is the one thing, the regularization of which can put the whole race back on track, assuming, like all other species of life, humans also are meant to flourish in some environment, where the environment also gets enriched in return?

One common error I have observed with almost all who dwell on human life is, they consider human as just another form of life. And while doing so, they naturally get unduly influenced by the living style or other peculiarities of all those forms. Each form of life has a common character or ability that is shown by all members of the species, while they all could differ widely in their appearance. But human is predominantly a character that has life, where each human, while comparable to another in appearance, is entirely different from the other in character or ability.

We therefore need to study personalities, or, examine which part of our personalty is not going well with the environment, or leading to irreversible changes to it. I studied this aspect, and I have noticed one thing that stands out. Which is common among all humans, rather, it is the only thing common to all. Which is nothing but the propensity to have at any time, and at any age, whatever be the circumstances, one or a set of priorities that take the primal spot in life. One is able to forgo any or all the needs of living, if it helps in getting those preferences or goals met. Also for the same reason, one can hurt another one with no remorse whatsoever. And one will get the feeling that all one’s needs are met satisfactorily, when those priorities are met, even when one misses all the real needs of keeping oneself at the prime of health and in good comfort.

To find a cure for this, let us first see, how we came to adapt this as the signature character of human race.

Humans have to learn everything before they actually practise it. That includes the art of learning itself. Let us therefore see, how did the present style of learning, come about? Why we are learning things like addition, multiplication, and other minuscule parts of all forms of arts and science? I feel the answer is a simple one. Such a pattern was established by we grown-ups. We found it easy to appreciate those parts, rather than whole that enveloped all those parts. (I find there are better ways of learning. )

Situation is more or less the same, when we proceed with our lifestyle too. Lifestyle essentially is nothing but a collection of standardised ways of confronting, or putting forth issues. When one is confronted with an issue, or while one is putting forward something, one’s demeanour shall aways be coloured by one’s idea about the expectations of others, something that is dependent on the preferences or goals, each one entertains. There may be few, who will disregard totally, the expectations, or it may be a life and death issue, for some. But, the majority of us fall somewhere in-between.

Thus, we only need to establish a set of priorities for ourselves, which has the power to bring in a calming ambience at all times, whatever be the context. In fact we are lucky here. We can comfortably devise one, which, with the experience gained over many centuries of turbulence, shall be something that can promise a good future to our future. The set of priorities defining our lifestyle, gone shall be the days of frequent uproars, making human, as predictable as any other form of life.

Now let us talk of a brand new lifestyle. We have seen above, what is needed is nothing but establishing a fresh set of priorities that does not lead to turbulence. Our foray into physical entities, both things and phenomena, have already taught us an important axiom. That everything good or useful ceases to be desirable, when it is not in the median range of the possible variations, whatever be the entity in consideration. For example, a rotary pump will produce the designed output flow, only when it operates not in the extremes of permissible speed. Or, where the speed is more than a lower limit, as well as less than an upper limit.

If we take note of this, I think formulation of a new lifestyle will be quite easy. And it is easier to continue to adhere to it. Shun everything that is beyond the optimum, whether towards the less, the minus, or the damaging, or to the plus, the more, or the advantageous. In fact it is not difficult to make this happen. Stop competitions of any nature, though it is not easy to do so.

Each one then shall be free, or rather feel encouraged, to fend for one’s life, following one’s own approach, and behavioural parameters, that result, always in a desirable outcome. As long as the society deems good qualities like acuity, dexterity, sophistication, etc., as more acceptable and celebrated, which should anyway be occurring to us naturally, flow of life shall continue to be smooth.

I feel vindicated once again. I have been writing about the danger posed by the extremes. That the adverse effect is the same, whether because of good things, or due to bad ones. Constantly, we are nurturing both the ones. One, by promoting it beyond ourselves, and the other, by not opposing those with enough force, or by opposing, only if it proves to be posing an urgent and serious threat. And, if we happen to notice any such instance as a danger, we go to the extremes there also, of correction, compounding the issue. That is, effectively, we are accommodating extremes everywhere. And this is what most of my books, hubs, or other articles say.

(By the way, the significant danger posed by the extremes is very well understood by the mankind, as far as man’s foray into science and technology goes. It is well known - the specified behavoir of an equipment, system, etc., is valid, or reliable, only while the system’s operation, or the measurement, or whatever, is in a region that is neither inching towards the minimum, nor near the maximum. Such a region is generally identified as the linear range of the parameter of interest. By choosing appropriate values for size, weight, electric potential, impedance, and a host of other variables, the designer or the engineer has to ensure that operation does not go beyond the linear range. Or, an operating range is specified for the entity in question, within which, a linear relationship can be assured. I feel, we need to dovetail and incorporate such concepts in our life too.)

All of this is okay, but, if this is all that was needed to keep the society healthy and vibrant, why it did not happen so far? Why is that we have overlooked it all these while? And what can make it happen?

You see, we continue to live as a society, both by enjoying the extremes, where it is pleasant, and by making it simple to overlook the danger posed by these, where it isn’t so. But for social living, both would have been impossible. The question need to be asked therefore is, what is making us live as a society. There are two main forces keeping the humans organized. Which are, language, and religion. Look carefully. One can see that both are not essential at all for any of our metabolic needs, and comes into play only for those activities that are offshoots of social living.

Let us examine each. What do language do. We have always seen language as means of communication, and have been nurturing those to ease, or to enable, wider exchanges. But, more important is its appropriateness as an expedient for whatever, the speakers desire to achieve, like its role as a vehicle of thought. But, when the choice of language is based solely on ease of communication, we are letting random exchanges, whether meaningful or not, and that have no relevance in the absence of a society, flourish. When looked in this light, a common language becomes a liability, mainly by promoting unnecessary exchanges and other forms of communication between all and sundry. This, while adding nothing of any value an individual, keeps the prevailing ambience, one well appreciated and desired, which effectively prevent humans from progressing with the activity that yields the richest dividends, namely, thinking.

This in turn make the idea of society, stronger, and the role of its constituents pretty insignificant. Whereas, in the absence of a society, each one of us would have been choosing one’s language based entirely on its ability to spark thoughts, one would like to pursue. Also, each will continue to be a reckon-able force at all times.

Now let us see how religion comes in here. One result of such widespread exchanges is that sooner than later, all worthwhile topics of exchanges shall meet its culmination. Surely and completely, if the end is a success, while prolonging, say partially, otherwise. The discussion, exchange, or talk, naturally will have to veer towards the irrational, if it is to remain. Irrational, since only such topics can continue to serve an exchange without the fear of a culmination, while giving a boost to artistry, imagination and creative thinking. The longest surviving topics of this genre are the ones that get identified, collated, and are widely accepted as religions.

I think, the following we can surmise from the above.

One way to bring peace is to identify and choose a language, as well as religion, strictly on the basis of one’s own personal preferences, which will bring all issues with the human race to an end. You see, for whatever reasons, if people are to go irrational, or cross the limits of another’s tolerance, eruptions can still be expected to occur. But, unlike now, where such eruptions multiply and strengthen in the vast canvas provided by a common language and culture, those would smother each other, being of random nature, and not well understood or appreciated by all. And, gone shall be the days of recurring turbulence.

Another way is to modulate the tendency to go for the ultimate, or the maximum, and avoid the significant danger posed by the extremes. Here, one can continue with one’s language as well as religion, but for the necessary moderation.

Humans - An Alien Pedigree?

Well, human society always is, unlike that of all the other forms of life, a bunch of contradictions. We consider or take pride in all those as unique features of our race, venerating or celebrating it at every chance. But, by doing so, we are losing a valuable opportunity - one to learn more about ourselves. In fact, rather than examining critically and analysing it, as we do for all other matters in relation to the living and the non-living, we are dumping a clear paradox like this, for no worthy reason. And we don’t realize it, being blinded by the pomp and the glory we accord to human race.

Why are there such contradictions within the same race? Is each human made up of a different life altogether, unlike all other species? The reason for such a disparity between human and all the other species of life could be attributed to the origins of each, I think. Perhaps, rather than a cultured monkey, our forefather is a descendant of something extraterrestrial.

One such possibility is, we could be having our origins in a comet like object.

Say, a life like constituent of such an object got dropped here during one of its visits, and it successfully endured the earth. Further adaptation occurred over many centuries, during which, it acquired the shape, size and other traits necessary to survive and flourish in this planet, progressively losing some or all of the original characteristics or features. Also, the possibility of intermingling between at least one of the many forms of life here, and the visitors, cannot be ruled out. Either, by the time the comet made another visit, they or descendants were not able to recognize each other, or, another visit is yet to take place. In fact all the observations and deductions of human evolution fits here perfectly well. Which can also explain easily, the existence of intermediate forms for the human, like Neanderthal, and the absence of any such, for all the other forms of life.

This could be fitting quite well with findings and discoveries of anthropology. Think of human nature, to start with. They begin their life as terribly weak ones, unable even to stand erect for some time, unless supported. Thereafter, one grows up to become capable of doing all that, but in a rather error-prone manner, unlike all the other occupants of this planet. They need to spend much of their life, just to learn, how to live. And then there is a need to practice, what one learns. Now, can’t we imagine of a different planet, whose ‘g’ shall not prevent the new-born ones from standing erect? Followed by a long period needing every sort of attention? One that has a different ambience, where our nature will be error free, like that all the other species of life?

Or, think of our actions. On the whole, the most admired ones are those that lead to destruction, of the current social order, or the way we progress our life. Think of a few great names chosen at random and one can easily confirm it as a fact. Like, Hannibal, Napoleon, Karl Marx, Abraham Lincoln, Mahatma Gandhi, Jesus Christ, Buddha, or Muhammed Nabi.

Think of resources. Those available in this planet are constantly depleting, posing a threat to the seamless continuation of human species. Either our pattern of utilization, that is our life itself, is wrong, or we belong to a different part of this universe where human specific needs are never in short supply.

Think of human child. Unlike the new ones of all other species of life, why should there be a need to learn everything afresh, like learning to walk? Or, why should it be told what not to eat?

Think of human lifestyle. One that is totally unsuitable for rest of the life, and the planet, little reflection can show. And also, constantly adding difficulties to the race itself?

Think of human intellect. One that is always coming up with fresh ideas. Mostly with the potential to cause some harm to humans themselves, if not to destroy the race completely. But, on a few occasions, such ideas could result in something good too. And, by extolling beyond all proportions, the latter, the former, though abundant, gets overlooked easily.

What do all these indicate? Humans do not belong to this planet? I feel so. The forefathers of humans would have been the constituents of a different planet, or a comet as mentioned before. And some of them happened to reach earth, which would have been uninhabited.

Say, some of them would have survived the new environment. They would have been spending their days in total discomfort, trying meet the necessities of life with whatever limited was their adaptability to the planet. The initial generations faced severe issues related to food, shelter, coverings and all, setting in motion, evolution. And successive generations adapted well, putting a brake to it.

So, our roots could be elsewhere. Where, the prevailing environmental parameters would have been a suiting one, whether for humans, or for the real stock of that species, to live in total comfort, all through one’s lifetime. And as a result, all their intellectual transactions get absorbed in a seamless manner. We are yet to locate their descendants, or they haven’t been able to meet their ones of this planet, or each of them is unable to recognize the other one.

My Philosophy

Unlike the popular view, I think nothing much is wrong with the humans, and there is no need of a cure,  except for a little(or much) moderation everywhere.

Another Try at Peace

We are always in a state of discord, and turbulence like war, racial discord, religious hatred, class differences or political instability is always present. The fault, I think is that we are yet to devise a lifestyle for ourselves. The present one, of course is nothing but a copy of whatever other species do.

My Predictions, again

As days go by, my predictions regarding the future of humans,  (mentioned in my book: The Unsure Male) seem to be becoming more and more aligned with reality. Events of significance are taking place one after the other, that too with the pace turning quicker every day.
"A considerably violent social atmosphere is rampant in most parts of the world. A lingering discontent that can flare up for the silliest reason shall be identified as the distinct feature of all societies. And this discontent is not likely to be recognized as such, having the appearance of societal turbulence like racial discord, religious hatred, class differences or political instability."
The attacks on democracy is another form of turbulence. 

Book Review: 'The Necessity of Atheism'

What are we? Whence do we come? and whither do we go? Is birth the commencement, and is death the conclusion of our being? What is birth and death? These are some of the questions, PB Shelley examines in this book. Though most often, the answer to all the above questions veers around God, the author disagrees, saying, 'God is an hypothesis, and, as such, stands in need of proof'. The book then goes on to revisit the popular arguments in support of intelligent creation, control and other managerial responsibilities of the universe.

The book ends with a unique assertion.

'This desire to be forever as we are; the reluctance to a violent and unexperienced change, which is common to all the animated and inanimate combinations of the universe' is, indeed, 'the secret persuasion which has given birth to the opinions of a future state', and of God, who can make it happen. Or, Newton's first law of motion explains why there is theism.

Go Back to Nomadic Lifestyle?

A New Lifestyle 

I have written many articles, each of which featuring a new or varied look at some part of human nature. I think most of it veers around one idea. How incorrect or misplaced we are, when we continue to react, appreciate, or sense, as we currently do. A few of the questions that were examined illustrate this, like, how harmful is unity, why the current pattern of education is fit for a change, etc. And it is not difficult to come to this conclusion, whatever is common to all these issues is the one that deserves to be attacked first. 

If we are to proceed with the re-examination of all that we currently consider as wrong, unsuitable, or inappropriate, the very first entity that pops up is our current lifestyle. I think there should be no doubts about this, since it is a prime common factor, which in fact engulfs everything else.

Our current lifestyle is one of permanent settlement, and the earlier one can be considered to be a fully nomadic one.  When we compare both, one thing stands out.

In a settled life style, everything good or bad in a society gets distributed in a rather narrow centralized way, limited both in time and space. Whereas in a nomadic one, all this happens in a broad, decentralized manner, spreading fast in all dimensions. 

As a result, in the former case, people get fed up of good things fast, since they are virtually confined to the same spot, where they are repeatedly exposed to the same ambience. And when we look at the bad things, the torment continues with no respite. In spite of all this, people continue to revel in their fortunes, since they hardly get a chance to learn of any other way of life. 

But in the latter case, exact opposite happens. Here, the good gets distributed, making more people happy. When the bad follows suit, inconveniences smooth out due to spreading. Also, at any time, they shall remain better informed about whatever possibilities that may occur about enhancing their means, outlook, and happiness, always being in touch with a wider cross section of the world.

Undoubtedly, the nomadic approach is the better one. 

But we chose to be otherwise. And are continuing to remain to be so. Perhaps farming did the trick, the agrarian community of that era couldn’t have afforded to be always on the move. We hence follow a lifestyle of settlements and communities, even though the good dies here fast and the bad lasts longer. But, since the original compulsions of the agrarian society are no more applicable to us, we can very well do a rethink.

Now, if we are to utilize the benefits of the progress, we made so far in the areas of science and technology, we can make a suitable mix of these two lifestyles. This can let us enjoy the benefits of both, while avoiding the many disadvantages, each have.

How to Assume a Lifestyle

Human lifestyle is constantly evolving, and, all the disquiet that is seen in our societies is a direct result of this. What is necessary is to have a theory of evolution in this regard, which can guide the populace to arriving at their priorities in life.

Another go at Peace

Why is that humans have the practice of identifying each one by a unique name that does not carry any form of information or intelligence? In fact it seems long back in history, names always carried some information that is relevant to the society, surviving old names, like Miller, Smith, etc., show.
An important lesson we all learn in our initial days of association, be it with programming, engineering, medicine, science, or arts, is that the variables, constants, or other entities, especially the ones that are subject to manipulations, are to be named in an intuitive way. Which will obviate such entities getting mixed up, while ensuring a seamless flow of reasoning and judgement, an essential feature of success, anywhere.
Now imagine we all are named in such a manner. That is, each name will somehow indicate the salient features of one’s connection with the entity (constant, variable, etc) that is of current interest. Think of the benefits. Every social transaction shall be meeting its desired end, as there is no mismatch. Nobody shall be feeling the need to assert oneself, and neither will one feel the urge to ignore, since all those who take part in various transactions, are the ones made for each other. For example, if I need a loan, I can approach the person whose name shall be indicating, say a big heart, or if I need to dispose off something, I can ask the ones whose name sound needy. Gone are the irritated, disappointed, or the thankless, and ones who are otherwise pissed off.
You see, life is so simple.
Aren’t humans an interesting lot? They know, having a meaningful way of identifying an entity, makes it easy, everything that follows. And they apply this logic everywhere, in things living or abstract.
But they have been carefully avoiding this in naming themselves, which would have altered history. And by doing so, they opened up an easy way for misunderstandings, redundancies, and other negative aspects, to prevail, leading to social disharmony and danger of self annihilation. (This is another proof to my theory that humans have an ulterior interest to keep life complex!)
Then they rightly identified the prevailing danger and its cause, and is constantly instituting corrective measures. Surprisingly, almost all remedial measures are aimed at making humans more accommodating to such divergent views, ideas, and practices. Whereas, a more meaningful name would have eliminated the possibility of such dividing forces, in the first place.
What do we need to do? Why can’t we think of rolling names? One is given a name at birth, which could point to the salient features that are of significance, at that age. The name can undergo changes at every stage that necessitate addition or deletion of features, like completing education, gaining experience, or other eventualities of interest. When we communicate, each of us would naturally assume relevant roles, for example, one of authority, one of receptiveness, or submission, such that there isn’t any loss. And, each and every one will feel encouraged to live up to one’s name, making peace only, to prevail.

Comments Please

During my naval service, the activity I liked best was ‘regularising’. Anything wanted or unwanted could be made into anything unwanted or wanted, by this action. And it was in great demand, for those of us who are prone to indiscretion. What role can it play in bringing peace to our society? 

NEEM A Tree For Solving Global Problems?

Neem is a fascinating tree. On the one hand, it seems to be one of the most
promising of all plants and may eventually benefit every person on the planet.
Probably no other yields as many strange and varied products or has as many
exploitable by-products. Indeed, as foreseen by some scientists, this plant may
usher in a new era in pest control, provide millions with inexpensive medicines,
cut down the rate of human population growth, and perhaps even reduce
erosion, deforestation, and the excessive temperature of an overheated globe. NAP report, Neem: A Tree for Solving Global Problems, is a good summary of the versatile nature of this plant.

The people of India have long revered the neem tree (Azadirachtaindica).
For centuries, millions have cleaned their teeth with neem twigs, smeared skin
disorders with neem-leaf juice, taken neem tea as a tonic, and placed neem
leaves in their beds, books, grain bins, cupboards, and closets to keep away
troublesome bugs. The tree has relieved so many different pains, fevers,
infections, and other complaints that it has been called "the village pharmacy."
To those millions in India neem has miraculous powers, and now scientists
around the world are beginning to think they may be right. Two decades of
research have revealed promising results in so many disciplines that this
obscure species may be of enormous benefit to countries both poor and rich.
Even some of the most cautious researchers are saying that "neem deserves to
be called a wonder plant."
Thus, neem may also be the harbinger of a new generation of "soft"
pesticides that will allow people to protect crops in benign ways. And goodbye to many issues!

What do you say?

Success in life depends on three things. Ability, opportunity, and synergy. Ability leads to synergy, which could contain many an opportunity. Opportunity provides the window, where ability can excel. And it is synergy that maintains the tempo. Each on it's own, is no good.

Cells?

Should we be celebrating human nature this lot?

Drinking?

I have heard this repeated often, alcohol, in moderate amounts is good for health, while being a social stimulant. Hence I read with great interest, a study about drinking that put this view to test. 

Where, the researchers looked at the standard model of research for moderate drinking studies – dividing people into never drinkers, moderate drinkers, and heavy drinkers – to find that moderate drinkers were the healthiest of the bunch. And they did one more thing. Something really clever. They added in some more parameters. Like socio-economic status, and healthy lifestyle. Now they find, people who are in a comfortable economic status follow a healthy lifestyle, while being moderate drinkers. One can therefore say, these people are moderate drinkers for the sake of health, and not otherwise.

I feel, in such a case, rather than a full fledged attack on drinking, which may incur great costs, why don't we look for improving the socio economic status, at the same cost.

Book Review: The Creation Story: Mrs G Intervenes, by David Pearce.

This book is about G, creation, and Mrs G. It begins by exploring the ‘event horizon’ before time itself is to begin. What triggered the big bang? Was God playing with matches, fireworks, and the fantastic results from those?

While discussing these questions the author mentions that as God is already married, Mrs G has a part to play. Many of the finer elements of the Big Bang would contain the signature of Mrs G. How Mrs G foresees the blatant sexism that is to befall on mankind if G is to go ahead with the depiction of the female sex as it was planned. Not withstanding the cold shoulders, how Mrs G contributes to the beauty of creation by suggesting the inclusion of plains, valleys, sandy beaches, nightingales, and all. Also, how her ideas get overlooked routinely, resulting in many instances of disharmony, the cause of much of the troubles to follow.

Well written book, deeply enjoyable, while it offers a new twist to known ideas.

Stray Ideas

Why people who are notorious for ill temper or bad mouth are quite polished when in my company? I was always at a loss about this. Till I read this. “You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who are good for nothing.” Yes, all my friends are quite worthy ones on their own merit!

Denisovans reached Tibet at least 160,000 years ago. Is it an Indian connection with the ancestors of Neandertals?

Why is life difficult?

I think there is something seriously wrong with the way humans live. All the issues we face can be seen to be a direct result of the priorities we have set for our life, or the living style we are following. We now admit, the early humans maintained many an erroneous idea, like those about the objects in the sky. Why should the errors they made be limited only to those objects? Doesn't this call for a re-examination of every idea that has come from the past?

What makes a Country Peaceful?

I have noted elsewhere, for various reasons, human society is perpetually in turmoil. I think, like all other species, we humans also live in a society that always face some unrest. But, unlike all other species, such disturbances do not get cancelled out, mainly owing to mutual exclusivity, a human trait. Since we entertain a set of priorities, named beliefs, the disturbances gather in strength, where those are in tune with those beliefs. Only in societies that maintain or celebrate the presence of a wide variety in every facet of life, such disturbances stand to get weakened by mutual opposition.
One can easily confirm this by examining the social atmosphere prevalent in a society vis-a-vis the cultural diversity existing in it. An examination of the ten most peaceful and least peaceful nations of the world can prove this beyond doubt. The peaceful nations can be seen to be constituted mostly be non homogeneous, multicultural societies, whereas the opposite is true, as far as other nations go. Moreover, all those non-peaceful nations have many temporary or local divisions with acute dissonance, in spite of the cultural homogeneity.
When I examine the least peaceful societies, an interesting fact comes to light. All of these are made up of quite homogeneous societies. However, there are many artificially separated sub-societies that are perpetually at war with each other. And when I examine the most  peaceful ones, the exact opposite is true. All these societies are made up of people of dissimilar cultural backgrounds. And here, mutual respect and admiration seems to be the uniting force.

Iceland, Austria, Canada, Denmark, etc. belong to the peaceful ones, and Sudan, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, etc., to the others.

This leads me to my next Maxim: The less homogeneous a society, the more peaceful, the life.

Book Review: The Selections from the Principles of Philosophy

This book, by René Descartes, is airing the author's thoughts on a variety of issues of philosophy. The first part of the book begins with the principles of knowledge, the significance of doubt and the role of free will, the absolute need of a god and the necessity for examining the secrets of creation, and how our mistakes are our own while our good deeds are not. The second part deals with the principles of things, where it pontificates on issues like the grounds on which the existence of material things may be known with certainty. How space is not in reality different from corporeal substance, how the world is indefinite, and what motion is, and many other questions of such nature are discussed here. The third part discusses the world that we view. Why we need not think too highly of the works of God, why all things can be thought to be created for the sake of man, are a few questions covered here. Next and final part looks at the earth, how should we perceive, what we perceive. The book concludes with a statement, 'I desire no one to believe anything I may have said, unless he is constrained to admit it by the force and evidence of reason'.
I have come across this quote, I think, therefore I am, many a time. Almost always for justifying one's limitless foray into thoughts, while rest of the mankind waits for some action. I found in this book, rather than thinking, the author gives great importance to the result of thinking, doubts. Doubts are specific to humans, the book proclaims. 
It is as though 'I doubt, therefore I am' should have been the idea we grasped. Had we done so, we would have been seeing a different world now.

Water Woes

Why is water an issue? Once we treat water as a medium, there should be no problem. By instituting appropriate steps for cleaning, and revitalizing, we can think of reusing it.
In fact we then shall be treating water just like we treat air. You see, we happily breathe the air that might have gone through many cycles (natural ones) of use - re-energize - reuse.

Why slavery persists?

Many a study I went through. The argument everywhere is focused on the desire for quick wealth, scant regard for law, the fall in moral standards, and a few more of this ilk. And, the bulk of attention falls on the slave trader. I think one important issue is being forgotten. People chose to become slaves, whether willingly or otherwise, since they already would have been in a condition worse than slavery. Or, they found slavery, a lesser evil. If we concentrate here, slavery also will make a fast exit.

Irrational, again

Human, like all other forms of life, like to to indulge with the irrational, that too without any worry about the repercussions.
Sometimes the irrational happens to be helpful to oneself, appealing to all, or generally beautiful. Sometimes not. When it is the former, we see intellect, providence, luck, or hard work, and we venerate, celebrate, or reward appropriately. Call it science, good conduct, correct principle, divine gift, etc.
But when it is the latter, and only when we can't close our eyes to it, we object.
Things like faith, art, knowledge, and all other facets of human nature would have originated from this.

Many Tongues?

Why there are so many different languages for humans? Scientific American says, the way we eat can actually alter jaw anatomy. And the consequences can alter the way we speak. Our upper and lower teeth aligned to form a flat line, the top ones resting directly on the bottom set. Tooth wear brought about by chewing hard foods, such as un-milled grains or seeds, the reduced challenge of consuming soft foods such as porridge and cheese, and other personal preferences in food could have been the culprits.

Brainwashing

We humans like to 'waste' time, for the reasons discussed in my book, 'The Unsure Male. I also propose there, the best way to waste time is to be busy with something irrational. Brainwashing oneself, as well as others, is one of the ways we adopt for this. Naturally those who have more brains, do this more often. 

And we constantly do this with our newborns. But each one of us is certain that one is not brainwashed. Yes, one can recognize easily when someone else is being brainwashed. Why? 

I think the answer is this. All those who feel that they are not of the brainwashed lot are those who has been brainwashed twice; once, when they are brainwashed, and again when they are made to believe that they are not brainwashed. In fact, that is why, all people react in a similar manner, whether in third world societies or in the progressed ones. People continue to behave irrationally, in the former countries, with no conviction, and in the latter, with proud proclamations of independent thought and judgement.

Both Burn

Book Review: How to Analyse People

How to Analyse People on Sight, by Elsie Lincoln Benedict and Ralph Paine Benedict.  Well, this book is about a subject on earth, in which every individual is most interested — the one, oneself. It begins by saying, Most of us are much more interesting than what the world thinks, we are. But the most interesting side of ourselves remain hidden away. And we seldom get a peep into what actually, we are. 

The book, in fact divides human personality into five types. The Alimentive Type or The Enjoyer, The Thoracic Type or The Thriller, The Muscular Type or The Worker, The Osseous Type or The Stayer, and The Cerebral Type or The Thinker. The book then describes the constitution of each type, how they differ from all others, the chief distinguishing marks, etc. Just as the progress humans made so far is a story of our success in taming the environment, our future growth shall be mainly determined by our success in understanding ourselves, it posits. 

Truly, the book comes up with a lot of helpful hints to put this into practice. 'A fat man seldom dislikes anybody very hard or for very long, holds few grudges, and is rarely, a theorist.' 'Though progressive, unselfish, and highly civilized, impracticality, dreaminess, physical frailty and his tendency to plan without doing, are the traits which stand in the way of his success, as far as the Cerebral Type go.' 

A chapter about the suitability of each type as marriage partner to all the other types adds further value to this book. Maturity, Affection, Manly or Womanly nature, the readiness to Accommodate, and many other issues that are relevant for social exchange are discussed here. 

A very interesting discussion, indeed.

How is Society Possible?

'How is Society Possible?' by Georg Simmel (American Journal of Sociology, vol. 16, 1910-11) is an essay that pontificates on a topic dear to me. Humans, it says, see the other person not simply as an individual, but as colleague or comrade or fellow partisan, or other epithets chosen for the moment. If so, what made human society possible?
Society exposes an individual into a conflicting situation. One, where one is just a part of a whole, and two, where one is a closed organic whole. Which could lead one to two logically antithetical determinations - being produced by, and contained in, society, and moving around its own center. Hence, society is a structure of unlike elements. Some kind of valuation process, of persons, of performances, of positions, is always present, which essentially is preventing any sort of equality of persons, in composition, in life-contents, and in fortunes. Notwithstanding this, the book says, society becomes "possible" only through the reciprocal determination of the individuals, the significance of the individual and that for the totality of the other individuals.
The book echoes many of my questions, some of which I am trying to address through my books. I wish, the book, rather than dealing with those issues in the abstract, came out with definite reasons and clear answers.
In any case, I felt very happy. Right or wrong, my books, not only address this question, but also come up with a reason, why it should be so!

About Language, Again

THE THEORY AND STRUCTURE OF LANGUAGE
Erasmus Darwin, grandfather of Charles Darwin, correctly, as I am inclined to say, defines words as abbreviations of other modes of expression. (I think other modes truly reflect whatever one has in mind. One only needs to pay attention here, to get the real meaning, for example, of what, one is being told) And that the first aim of language was to communicate our thoughts, and the second, to exchange it. Thus there are two categories of words, those, which were necessary to express our thoughts, and those that are abbreviations of those words, the rearrangement of which, is the process that goes on when we think. That can cause words to suggest more than one idea. A theory for language needs to be analyzed thus.
His book, The Temple Of Nature, then goes on to examine each individual component of a language, like nouns, pronouns, adjectives, conjunctions, and prepositions, noting the way it might have eased the expression of thought. And arrives at a conclusion - the great variety of changes of termination in all languages consists therefore of abbreviations of existing words used, rather than additional words.
The book deviates from the common idea we entertain about languages - that it is a means for expression. The idea proposed here - that it is for mainly meant for communicating our thoughts, is closer to mine - that language is primarily for enabling us to think, and then only, for communicating it.

Book Review: Fundamental Rights

'ARGUING FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS' Edited by AGUSTÍN JOSÉ MENÉNDEZ This book is an exploration of one of the outstanding works in contemporary
legal and constitutional theory, Robert Alexy’s A Theory of Constitutional
Rights, (hereinafter A Theory). The book begins with an overview of the concept of fundamental rights, describing the many aspects of the concept: formal, substantial, and procedural. It then examines the theories of rights, like,
that human rights has evolved naturally, since it is indispensable to the maximization of individual utility, that it signifies cultural development of human race, that it is simply making explicit what is necessarily implicit in human practice, that human beings since are created by God in his own image, there is good reason for considering a value for them, etc.
This is followed by a detailed discussion, about the implementation of such rights, and many procedural issues that might come up, like balancing opposing principles or with
principles supporting opposing rules. Which is succeeded by another one about the ways, these concepts are practiced in UK and the European Union.
I never knew such complex facets existed for the relatively straight forward rights, we citizen have in every country. Facets, which would come to fore whenever a contentious issue crops up, and would be dealt by legal lights.

Where we err

Where we err, especially, the male among us.
In the physical world, operating range of an entity is a term that is widely understood as a significant influence, for any decision involving that entity. It is everybody's desire that nothing goes beyond this range. Since this, which also is known as linear range, specifies the single most important parameter that can enable or prevent a physical system to meet its ends. That is, whatever entity one is interested in, it can be guaranteed to perform in the desired or specified manner only within this range. So, our effort always is to control all relevant parameters such that deviations from the average are avoided, or kept to the minimum.
In short, we always celebrate the average.
We are more or less in line with the above, when we come to our domestic animals too. Whether for carrying loads, or distances to run, or for whatever else, we see that the animals are neither stressed beyond a limit, nor left without a load.
But when it comes to we, ourselves, such precautions are observed only in its absence. We consider a fellow human worthy of adulation, or reproach, if and only if one's performance reaches the extremes. Not only that, we shower with awards and extol for long, those who go further. (This is where, we err)
As a result, each one of us is always striving to perform beyond one's linear range, which effectively puts one in the realm of the unstable. Naturally, we respond to various triggers in an unpredictable manner. And we are perpetually busy, rewarding or awarding the few responses, that is, those that happen to be beneficial to us, and punishing the rest. (It needs to be noted, such abnormal conduct always will lead to a mix of benefit and harm.)
Is there any wonder, unlike all other forms of life, man tends to lead a life of discomfort (and altruistically inventing reasons, why it should be so!). Also, he chooses to grapple with the unfamiliar at every opportunity, and keep looking for a fresh challenge, even when it is known to be a dangerous one.
In short, human is irrational by default.

Book Review: The Economy of Abundance

Book Review: "The Economy of Abundance or The End of Poverty" By Víctor Saltero is a call to recognize all the opportunities presented by the new economic environment. The old one was based on a notion of insufficiency, which caused the problems the mankind faced, like the great depression, lingering unemployment, etc.  And how, the new economy would finally be born, around 1970, as the product of the definitive elimination of gold as the monetary standard in each country. Where, the standard used would be the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) and a series of other variables such as working
capital needs, inflation, etc.
But we have not yet realized the possibilities and dimensions of the new model, the author says. Hence economic crises frequently afflict us, including the one of 2008. We need to derive the benefits of living in this exciting age, the age of the economy of abundance.
"If we are able to predict and correct the risks it poses, we may find ourselves in the first era of human history in which poverty is no longer an insoluble problem, as it can be solved with the possibilities that this economic model offers for the creation of hundreds of millions of jobs around the world, once all nations learn how to apply it and abandon the practices and mentalities, still prevailing in many places, of the economy of scarcity."
This is a book, which is challenging many ideas, I entertain. I therefore went through it with interest. It would have been better, if the book could offer some practical suggestions or examples for each of the lacuna that is brought out or the corrections that are are implemented.

A Probable Letter from A Neighbor, to all Earthlings

Hello

I am your neighbor. I dwell in a star that is closer to you than any other body in space. We have coiled the space around us, to entertain ourselves with the childish experiments that goes on around your globe, and act, if things go out of hand. As a result, you are yet to sight my abode.

I keep visiting you often, of course a few times in a millennium, going by your measures. My first visit was a little long ago, when I was a child. Your lands were very fertile, endowed with fruits, flowers, seeds, and other things needed for enjoying merrily, one’s life. And you all had a lot of free time, which you used to spent for everything other than this.

It was amusing to see you all engaged perpetually in a few repetitive activities like choosing kings or rulers, who would then continue to keep you entertained, with day to day affairs, wars, things of magnificence like the pyramids, and so on. I found, a few among you continue to come up with imaginative ideas of the past, present, and future, of both the real, and the abstract. As a result of all this, and as generations went by, the esoteric stories that kept you entertained, took position as entities beyond understanding, and encompassing all affairs of life and living.

Let me come to the visits, I have been making, approximately once in a few centuries. On every visit, I could observe many a change. However, your obsession with imaginative ideas and an incessant thirst for novelty was seen as a permanent feature. As. on each visit, what used to attract my attention most, is the penchant you all have for fetching and immersing in the uncommon or the esoteric.

At any time, both the past and the future can be seen, equally acceptable as feeders for such ideas. Some, who are more imaginative, resourceful, and patient since ideas may take some time to fructify, opt for the future. And others, who generally are not endowed much, remain happy with the past, and align even more happily with all those fantastic ideas you attribute to the ancients. You see, an idea that can keep one enamored can come from the past, only when one include the irrational, that is, by throwing to winds, the need for a semblance of logic. (Religion comes to the rescue here. One can identify many such ideas through the theistic doctrines of the day and some more with the reigning philosophical and literary thought) These ideas hence turn out to be a force to be reckoned with, as their content, though may be devoid of substance, take a position of prominence.

For many visits, I could see a war going on between the two. One group taking religious identity as the prime sign, and another, whose identity being always on the move. At any instant, if the former was made to feel overwhelmed by a new proposition by the other group, and the threat from whose unbridled celebrations lasting for a while, they were quick to re-arrange their narrative to accommodate seamlessly, any such proposition. (This ability, however is on the decrease, the experience of my past visits tell me. As I am eagerly looking for changed parameters, I can see all around the globe, highly spirited attempts to align with the past, which is currently on the increase.)

Digital Goverment

We can turn democracy into a very efficient and trouble free form of governance, if we can remove the bumps that are always associated with the governmental machinery, primarily of the decision making process. And for this, when we utilize the incomparable capability of modern computers, one can expect fantastic results.
There are many options. One, where each and every voter can be given the choice of suggesting any name, except one's own. The one getting the maximum mentions can then become the representative. Two, voters can choose directly the government, doing away with the necessity of representatives, or of a house itself. Three, all can be given the opportunity to approve, modify, or discard each and every decree or other relevant activities of the government, which can do away with the need of an elected part of government, altogether.

Universal income

Guaranteed income, like the recent announcement by RG, or of Govt, is not at all a usual gimmick. If looked at in this way.
A society comprising of people who can take care of themselves, can continue to flourish, if nothing occurs to prevent it. The aim of every welfare state should be to become one such society.
Because of extreme disparity, some people are not in a position to look after their needs, and, to help them there, welfare measures are introduced by the state. Hence, the state's attention needs to be on removal of such disparities. This is what all welfare states do.
The issue here is, only an insignificant part of the money spent reaches the needy, the expenses of running a huge governmental machinery taking the rest, and the disparities continuing to exist. How much ever be the outlay, only part, a small amount, will reach the needy. In case of guaranteed income, these expenses can be minimized, since there can be direct payment. The money, then shall get circulated through the hands of many small and big players. Which means, almost all of it gets transacted, each and every member of the society standing to gain. Since all of this points to a greater value for velocity of money, a small outlay should be leading to a big benefit.

About Fear of Death

What is the origin of the rather irrational fear of death, we humans have? We are quite willing to forgo anything, or happy to inconvenience ourselves to a great degree, just to extend our life span. Which is easily noticeable, since all other forms of life show such struggles only when the end is inevitable.
Think of an activity, say, a game. All those who take part in it can be divided broadly into two. Those who are doing very well and belonging to the winning side, and those who are unable to register a win. For the former, the final whistle is of no consequence. Rather, they shall be eagerly looking forward to it. And for the latter, at every moment, the final whistle shall be an imminent threat.
I think the fear of death too, needs to be seen in this light. Agree, each and every form of life show some resistance, when  one's life is in danger. But for humans, fear of death is much more than that, it effectively is the primary determinant for everything in life. An all pervasive, acute form of fear, which, I am sure, needs more explanation.
Here, the thoughts I expressed in my book, 'The Unsure Male', is a perfect fit. Humans, especially the males, seem to be on the losing side, as far as the most significant activity of life, namely, the one of perpetuating it, is concerned. Who shall therefore find in the final whistle, a big threat. Also, studies in this regard exist, which talks of gender differences in the manifestation of this dread. Women seem to be less frightened about death, though they show a higher degree of anxiety over private or personal losses that can happen as a result.
Woman acts as a member of a winning side, and man, as one of the losers.

Intolerance, my view

However tolerant I am, that will be gone, the moment I am no more. And so, for all. But, if the society is tolerant, however intolerant I am, tolerance shall reappear, the moment I am gone.
A good question therefore is, how to make the society tolerant.
A society is constituted by abstract citizens, whose fundamental aim is to maximize one's own benefit. (Our system of bringing up the next generation essentially is nothing else but efforts to make us forget this aim!)
People can be divided into two, those who have their eyes set on the present, and those who look far ahead. The former always look for immediate gain, and the latter shall have a wider view.
For both of these, one will choose to be tolerant or not, based on the comparative benefit that can accrue. See, it is possible for an intolerant one to maximize one's benefits, only in a tolerant society. Hence, if we find intolerant people everywhere, it is an indication the the society is a tolerant one.
The West and the East are good examples. Societies of the west are open to change, but an average westerner is not. But look to the east. Societies full of individuals that revel at the traditional, and a society that has accepted the most.
I therefore feel, we need not find fault with our society on account of the levels of tolerance shown by its members. We in fact should be letting such individual expressions flourish, knowing well that the society will gladly and wholeheartedly accept a change, as and when it happens.

The Irrational in Us, Once Again

Our society constantly faces many explosive issues. A current one relates to the ecological disaster, the coastal region of Alappat is waiting for. Where amelioration is feasible by erecting suitable structures, or by reappropriating the composition of soil, or other scientific measures. But, rather than focusing on this, our society is busy with loud accusations, mainly about how such an issue came to be. And forgetting totally, the need of the hour as far as the damages that have already taken place.
Say, the finding regarding the ill effects of mining is fully right. Assume we stop mining notwithstanding the inconvenience, it could lead to. Isn't this too high a price, that too with no real gain, except perhaps the difficulties associated with the discontinuation of mining.
Hence, ask the right questions. Can the land be restructured, and if so, how?

Another recipe for peace

Why is human society not peaceful? I think this question has been attracting a lot of attention ever since the very beginning of mankind. And over the years, many reasons has been proposed. Class rivalries, religious strife, and cultural divides, are only some of those, each bringing out certain differences, like that of standard of living, beliefs, or outlook and behavioral traits. Which gave rise to an elaborate mechanism for keeping the human society in check. The vast structure of religions, sects, and countries belong to this. Do we really need it? Is there such an unease?
I tried to go a little deeper, and found that whatever be the origin of this unease, it gets compounded by many reasons.
All those probing into this naturally shall then identify this compounded version as the one needing attention. Since it will be having many different, prominent features depending on the particular force that acted on it, differing theories can arise, from those analyzing the uneasy society. And a host of variables shall be found to act here, like political, cultural, or religious differences. Each of those variables calling for the attention of a dedicated reformer, we have come to accept human society as an imbroglio.
But all of them miss one point. The unease has to originate somewhere, perhaps in something not so complex. The search for this is taking me to matter itself, in which I now see new possibilities. (In fact, notwithstanding our best efforts, human society remains to be a turbulent one, since we are yet to identify the primary cause)
Life, and sub-atomic particles
It seems the behavioral quirks of sub-atomic particles are quite similar to the peculiarities we see in the way life manifests. A distinct feature of life, presence of the element of free will, is almost the same as the conundrum associated with the behavior of sub-atomic particles, which we currently explain by terms like superposition, or uncertainty.
Hence one may say, the rather unpredictable nature or the element of chance present in matter when it is at the sub-atomic level, compares well with that associated with life as a whole. Which could portend a totally new approach to life. Like, quelling unease should necessarily involve redefining ease.

What can one learn from income tax?

Should income be taxed? Even when we see tax as the only way of income for the government, I find no justification at all, for income tax. Especially since a government can choose between many kinds of taxes. It looks economically illogical that we tax the productive output of a society. Taxing anything means you will get less of it. Which means, by taxing the income, each one earns from one's efforts, we are making ourselves 'progress' towards a less productive society. At least, the productivity will be much less then what it would have been, had income not been taxed. Why have we been ignoring this, since long?
Also, why did't we start to tax expenditure? The rich, who spends more, would have been taxed also, more.
Hence income tax is one more instance, which proves that our natural propensity is to the irrational.

Mismanaged?

How we could have handled the issue of women’s entry to temple, better.

It is well known, any changes to the status quo shall invite the opposition, at least from the few who would have been feeling fortunate to be part of the permitted ones. Since this can make them feel at a loss by not being able to be privileged, as earlier. And it becomes an ego issue.

At any organization, those responsible to implement and manage such changes need to follow some pattern. Introduce certain requirements that give an air of authenticity, or selection, to those permitted anew. For example, we could start with permitting the entry of women of such age groups who have undergone certain special rituals. Like visiting a few notified temples. The more complex we make such rituals, more bliss, the disciples shall be feeling.

In such a scenario, the matter would not have gone to the judiciary at all.

Book Review: 'Intelligent Universe'

'Intelligent Universe', by Ilyan Kei Lavanway. This book has a proposal . The entire universe is alive and intelligent. It is designed and patterned after the human brain... every star is connected to at least one other star at any given moment by a wormhole whose opening is generated by the dynamic forces working within the star. As an important object in the skies, there is black hole. Inside a black hole, everything outside is observable. Outside a black hole, nothing inside is observable. Could the throne of God be at the center of a super massive black hole, or something similar?
I liked the new line of thought, the author proposes, and progress he makes in connecting logically, the current scientific theories with it. But I feel, enough justice is not being done by this book, to such a good idea. The author takes refuge in rather obscure reasoning, which in any case is a staple part of all forms of literature dealing with any god. This apart, the book offers me some more logical challenge.

Book Review: The Psychology of Revolutions

I believe while our planet is revolving, some revolution also is in the making. (In fact the essence of every revolution can be thought of as our dormant desire to engage with the irrational. Think of the middle ages, where it would have been irrational to be a progressive one, and few became pioneers of great repute by being so. And think of the current times when there is a visible urge to embrace the past, which also is exactly for the same reason)

I happened to come across a book, “The Psychology of Revolutions” by Gustav le Bon, a treatise about the many facets of a revolution.

It begins with a discussion about the general characteristics of revolutions. Which are:

i) a sudden transformation of ideas, beliefs, or doctrines

ii) a large crowd swayed by sentiments but waiting for a leader; even though the spark may be of rational origin

iii) the slower and more unremarkable, its events and occurrences, the more long lasting, the effects

The book then goes on to examine the role, people play. A realization of history and the appreciation of stability of the old, and a desire to embrace the future, needs to meet at a point, which should be letting the savage in every one, free to bloom. People behave differently, the book notes, when in individual capacity, and as part of a crowd. In this connection an interesting experiment is done by Prof Glosson, showing the power of suggestion and leadership. “I prepared a bottle filled with distilled water carefully wrapped in cotton and packed in a box. After several other experiments I stated that I wished to measure the rapidity with which an odour would diffuse itself through the air, and asked those present to raise their hands the moment they perceived the odour… . I took out the bottle and poured the water on the cotton, turning my head away during the operation, then took up a stop-watch and awaited the result… . I explained that I was absolutely sure that no one present had ever smelt the odour of the chemical composition I had spilled… . At the end of fifteen seconds the majority of those in front had held up their hands, and in forty seconds the odour had reached the back of the hall by fairly regular waves. About three-quarters of those present declared that they perceived the odour. A larger number would doubtless have succumbed to suggestion, if at the end of a minute I had not been forced to stop the experiment, some of those in the front rows being unpleasantly affected by the odour, and wishing to leave the hall.”

What follows is surprising, the book says. The earliest of revolutions took up the ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity. But over time, both equality and fraternity, the natural elements of living beings, are being discarded. We however hold on to equality, a contradiction, both in biology and in economics.

I agree with the author, But the premise is to find these as a peculiarity of humans, being a species with abstract needs. And I disagree here. The answer to the questions raised in this book is well covered by my reasoning about human nature, as presented in my book, The Unsure Male.

Beware

An extract from my book, "Today, among the different cultures or societies of the world, the repressive views, especially those pertaining to male-female equality and suppression of female sexuality, do face, wide, effective opposition only because the moderates are in a decent, reckon-able number. Won’t in future, with the differential rate of population growth when moderates become a minority, the regressive majority will find themselves empowered enough to take whatever steps necessary to cement the existing gender inequalities, if not furthering them? Or extermination of billions of people on Earth, incredible suffering, and many devastating upheavals result from their actions, which always will be of the extreme? Can’t this be considered as the most serious problem facing the mankind?"
Events unfolding today in different parts of the world, in connection with BREXIT, about Sabarimala, the threat to science in the US, etc., amply support this.