Hello again. I’ve been thinking about a ‘panacea’ for human beings – whether it actually exists or not. I do not know why, but I have a very strong belief in this adage: Ignorance is bliss. Maybe I’m terribly wrong, but according to me all other living beings are extremely happy in their lives; they are blissfully unaware of their lives being in constant danger (usually from us). So, thinking on the same lines, I realized that the primary thing that separates us very-often-miserable humans from the happy-and-contented animals might be our ‘Superior Intellect’.
So, in my quest for the elusive cure-all, I had stumbled upon the exact opposite of that: the root cause of all the miseries for us humans. Ladies and Gentlemen, allow me to present the culprit: “Numbers”. Yes, the seemingly innocuous counting units that we have learnt and mastered. Counting, according to me, is that which separates us humans from other animals (I am also aware that research shows that certain primates do have a sense of counting but I believe that is acquired rather that innate).
Good or bad, we are obsessed with numbers; we want to measure everything we see and discover. Also, numbers are the basic units of comparison which, in turn, is the first step in ascertaining the inferiority/superiority of an object. Undeniably, we crave for ‘better’ numbers in all the material things in this world, like better bank balances, better grades in schools, better clock-speeds in processors, better values of HDL Cholesterol and so on. This has ensured one thing: No one can have the ‘best’ because there is always a better number than you have. Materialistically speaking, this means that no one can be absolutely happy.
I have also realized that the things that give us true happiness are the things that cannot be counted: Love, pleasure and even happiness itself. This means that these things cannot be compared and hence everyone can equally be absolutely happy without the need for comparing who is more/less happy. That is why I think animals are innately happy; they do not compare among themselves who is better and who is not, and in fact, they cannot because all are equally happy. Thus, ignorance is bliss.
Take care,
Ravi Teja R.
Sunday, November 27, 2005
Saturday, November 12, 2005
Why did Man invent God?
Thanks for coming back. If you didn’t know earlier, let me tell you in advance that I am an atheist and assure you that I shall remain so until further notice. This time around, I’m thinking about why we men (and women) invented ‘god’, which is something that is as intangible as ‘love’ or ‘fear’, but very less perceivable when compared to these. How could the majority of people (assuming that atheists are a minority) have such a very singular notion? Maybe god really invented (or created) man and not vice-versa; after all 80% (a wild guess) of the people can’t be wrong! As I stressed before in my blog, there are no definitive ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers to questions; most of them are ‘maybe’.
We human beings are in an eternal quest to understand everything; we want everything to make sense. In that pursuance, we naturally encounter many things that do not make sense. So, how do we proceed? I learnt that Mathematicians give such things arbitrary names such as ‘x’ or ‘y’ until their actual ‘value’ or ‘meaning’ is found out. We, being very analytic creatures, applied the same principle for our quest too.
As a result, whenever we encountered something inexplicable by any one of us, we placed it a set of unknowns: the ‘god’ set. It was a natural escape route for us to give an answer to all those questions we didn’t have a logical answer for; just attribute it god – no questions asked. So, in early days of man, the ‘god’ set, comprised a lot of things. As time progressed, we found out reasons for many things like ‘Gee… Lightning is caused by oppositely charged particles; god has nothing to do with it, after all’. Naturally, we decreased the size of the ‘god’ set.
This leads us to many questions: Will a time come when all stuff will make sense? Will god be no longer necessary then? My answer is ‘no’. My brother (who, by co-incidence, is, in quest of god) read somewhere a quote: ‘As knowledge increases, ignorance unfolds’. So, when we learn something new, we realize that there are many others still to be learnt and understood, which would be attributed to god. Hence, the ‘god’ set continually increases and decreases but never can become void.
Thus, in a quest for answers, we needed something that could give a ‘don’t-ask-any-more-questions’ kind of an answer for unanswerable questions. That is why we invented god. Why do I ask such questions and try to answer them? : god knows why.
Bye-bye,
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Am I still a poet?
Good to see you again. After I wrote 'Lobotomy' (see previous post: 'Am I a poet?'), I really liked it to the extent that I decided to write a few more poems. As you will soon find out, all of the following poems are based on classroom-related incidents. I tried to rhyme in some of these poems which, according to my opinion, demeaned the 'raw quality' of my thoughts. Anyway, here goes nothing:
Corporal Punishment
Struggling to get away
Wriggling out of trouble's way
Hatred over fear and anger is winning
Tormentors are icily grinning
Screaming as loud as silence can be
When, oh when, will we be free?
Brownie Points
Counterfieted smiles on the front row
Individuality takes a backseat now
No one cares if it's good or bad
Blind compliance makes it funny-sad.
Sleep Deprivation
Eyelids shutting comprehension down
Voids eating my cranial nerves
Bluebirds flying in numerous forms
Old Rip calling with outstretched hands.
Notes:
For the first and last time on my blog, let me be personal. I hated school-days; I wanted to get out of it as soon as possible. The only solace for me was with my English teacher - now he was a 'diamond in the rough' kind of person; these poems are about the others - the vicous kind. The cultural stereotyping in India (at least in Tiruvallur) meant that the teachers could do anything they wanted to and get away with it. Hence the reference to the 'Fear -> Anger -> Hatred' theory as to how a student feels by being subjected to such torturous brutes.
I do not mean that all students were treated this way; you need to be a 'bootlick' to be in their good looks. The respect was always demanded; never commanded (with the exception of my English Teacher). So, all you need to do is sit in the front row, do whatever they wanted you to, say 'Sir, yes Sir!' to all the say and voila! you are the best student. Hence my poem on brownie points.
So, what does a regular, self-respecting student do? Sleep. What if that too is denied? Sleep Deprivation. Rip van Winkle was always a role-model for me during those days.
That's enough poems for some time, I guess; back to my Philosophies, then.
Ta-ta,
Ravi Teja R.
Corporal Punishment
Struggling to get away
Wriggling out of trouble's way
Hatred over fear and anger is winning
Tormentors are icily grinning
Screaming as loud as silence can be
When, oh when, will we be free?
Brownie Points
Counterfieted smiles on the front row
Individuality takes a backseat now
No one cares if it's good or bad
Blind compliance makes it funny-sad.
Sleep Deprivation
Eyelids shutting comprehension down
Voids eating my cranial nerves
Bluebirds flying in numerous forms
Old Rip calling with outstretched hands.
Notes:
For the first and last time on my blog, let me be personal. I hated school-days; I wanted to get out of it as soon as possible. The only solace for me was with my English teacher - now he was a 'diamond in the rough' kind of person; these poems are about the others - the vicous kind. The cultural stereotyping in India (at least in Tiruvallur) meant that the teachers could do anything they wanted to and get away with it. Hence the reference to the 'Fear -> Anger -> Hatred' theory as to how a student feels by being subjected to such torturous brutes.
I do not mean that all students were treated this way; you need to be a 'bootlick' to be in their good looks. The respect was always demanded; never commanded (with the exception of my English Teacher). So, all you need to do is sit in the front row, do whatever they wanted you to, say 'Sir, yes Sir!' to all the say and voila! you are the best student. Hence my poem on brownie points.
So, what does a regular, self-respecting student do? Sleep. What if that too is denied? Sleep Deprivation. Rip van Winkle was always a role-model for me during those days.
That's enough poems for some time, I guess; back to my Philosophies, then.
Ta-ta,
Ravi Teja R.
Thursday, September 08, 2005
Am I a poet?
Hello there. I’ve been thinking about writing poems since when I was very young. A couple of days ago, I sat down to write a few. It was then I realized that as long as I was bounded by the fetters of rhyme and reason (which are very essential for good poetry), I couldn’t write poems. So, I decided to take a break (from the ordinary) and just started following my brain. Till now, I’ve come up with some that have really amazed me. Here is the first one:
Lobotomy
The windows screaming with open mouths
Clouds doing little barrel rolls
The air carries some weighted lies
Asphalt’s hissing on some rattle-snakes
Electrons releasing light on bulbs
Heart’s pumping like a giddy top
Thunder rumbling on paned glass
Neurons routing ways to empty paths.
Notes:
Lobotomy (Lobo - lobe; tomos - slice, to cut ) is a surgical procedure that involves the removal of the connecting nerves for the frontal lobe of the brain. This is usually done for mentally challenged people and people with brain tumors that pose the risk of spreading to the healthy parts of the brain (see movies “And One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest” and “From Hell”).
Here, the poem is set in such a way that the poet has undergone lobotomy and is unable to relate things properly. The ‘links’ in his brain have been destroyed, leading his thoughts to switch from topic to topic. But, since he can still vaguely remember things, the topics being switched having a very fine thread of connection.
The open windows remind him of people screaming; Clouds remind him of the recent air-show he’s been to; He remembers his Physics teacher telling him that air has weight. The word weight leads to a phrase called ‘weighted lies’. Then, he thinks about the movie where they show the desert with rattlesnakes on the scorching road.
The thought about the sun leads him to think about light, thereby light bulbs and electrons. From electrons, he goes to the ‘Conduction of heartbeat’ lesson in his Biology class. He then remembers the teacher in his primary school telling him that the heart was like a top. Heartbeat reminds him of thunder, leading to rumbling and the recent earthquake that caused the window panes to rumble. The final note is about his neural pathways that still exist in the other portions of his brain, with no way to go; hence they are empty paths.
Thus, the train of thought of a man devoid of the ability to properly connect things is written in the poem. I have used my own 'bad-linked' memories (I just followed the next thought that popped up in my mind, without reasoning) to get 'into' the mind of the lobotomized person. The rest, like most of us un-lobotomized people, is plain guesswork.
More poems to come,
Thanks!
Ravi Teja R.
Lobotomy
The windows screaming with open mouths
Clouds doing little barrel rolls
The air carries some weighted lies
Asphalt’s hissing on some rattle-snakes
Electrons releasing light on bulbs
Heart’s pumping like a giddy top
Thunder rumbling on paned glass
Neurons routing ways to empty paths.
Notes:
Lobotomy (Lobo - lobe; tomos - slice, to cut ) is a surgical procedure that involves the removal of the connecting nerves for the frontal lobe of the brain. This is usually done for mentally challenged people and people with brain tumors that pose the risk of spreading to the healthy parts of the brain (see movies “And One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest” and “From Hell”).
Here, the poem is set in such a way that the poet has undergone lobotomy and is unable to relate things properly. The ‘links’ in his brain have been destroyed, leading his thoughts to switch from topic to topic. But, since he can still vaguely remember things, the topics being switched having a very fine thread of connection.
The open windows remind him of people screaming; Clouds remind him of the recent air-show he’s been to; He remembers his Physics teacher telling him that air has weight. The word weight leads to a phrase called ‘weighted lies’. Then, he thinks about the movie where they show the desert with rattlesnakes on the scorching road.
The thought about the sun leads him to think about light, thereby light bulbs and electrons. From electrons, he goes to the ‘Conduction of heartbeat’ lesson in his Biology class. He then remembers the teacher in his primary school telling him that the heart was like a top. Heartbeat reminds him of thunder, leading to rumbling and the recent earthquake that caused the window panes to rumble. The final note is about his neural pathways that still exist in the other portions of his brain, with no way to go; hence they are empty paths.
Thus, the train of thought of a man devoid of the ability to properly connect things is written in the poem. I have used my own 'bad-linked' memories (I just followed the next thought that popped up in my mind, without reasoning) to get 'into' the mind of the lobotomized person. The rest, like most of us un-lobotomized people, is plain guesswork.
More poems to come,
Thanks!
Ravi Teja R.
Friday, July 29, 2005
Is all this for nothing? - An introspection
Note: Please read my previous post, "Is all this for nothing?" prior to reading this one.
Hello there. After posting 'Is all this for nothing?', I read the whole post all over once again. After doing so, I was surprised that I left out the most important aspect of life: Suffering. The primary reason why people fear death is suffering. Since death is common to all, people try to eliminate other causes of suffering. That, is why we need 'virtues', and comforts; just to avoid suffering and be happy. Hence, I strongly believe that the primary purpose (assuming that we have a purpose) in life is the avoidance of suffering: both for us and for our children.
Since suffering cannot be absolutely avoided, what we call 'virtues' are certain set of rules, which, a person, upon practising in life, can avoid suffering to the maximum extent. That is also the main reason why these virutes change from time to time, and, in certain cases, person to person. What I mean is that way to happily live one's life is not a universal constant. Early men, in the dark ages, had many causes for suffering. So, what they did was to form certain rules (mostly by trial and error) to avoid suffering so that they and their future generations need not suffer in the same way. Thus, the rules underwent many changes to become the rules (virtues) that we have now.
This leads us to the question: Are we suffering any lesser than the people in the dark ages? Well, the answer is yes and no. Yes, because we need not fear saber-toothed tigers entering our homes and devouring our children; No, because they never worried about large metal birds crashing onto their caves and killing them all. I personally think that the 'yes's outweigh the 'no's but I might be very wrong.
So, are we better off after all these years of evolution? I don't think many people have an answer for that. The only thing that we can do about it is continue doing our job of trying to eliminate suffering for us and for our children.
Cheerio!
Ravi Teja R.
Hello there. After posting 'Is all this for nothing?', I read the whole post all over once again. After doing so, I was surprised that I left out the most important aspect of life: Suffering. The primary reason why people fear death is suffering. Since death is common to all, people try to eliminate other causes of suffering. That, is why we need 'virtues', and comforts; just to avoid suffering and be happy. Hence, I strongly believe that the primary purpose (assuming that we have a purpose) in life is the avoidance of suffering: both for us and for our children.
Since suffering cannot be absolutely avoided, what we call 'virtues' are certain set of rules, which, a person, upon practising in life, can avoid suffering to the maximum extent. That is also the main reason why these virutes change from time to time, and, in certain cases, person to person. What I mean is that way to happily live one's life is not a universal constant. Early men, in the dark ages, had many causes for suffering. So, what they did was to form certain rules (mostly by trial and error) to avoid suffering so that they and their future generations need not suffer in the same way. Thus, the rules underwent many changes to become the rules (virtues) that we have now.
This leads us to the question: Are we suffering any lesser than the people in the dark ages? Well, the answer is yes and no. Yes, because we need not fear saber-toothed tigers entering our homes and devouring our children; No, because they never worried about large metal birds crashing onto their caves and killing them all. I personally think that the 'yes's outweigh the 'no's but I might be very wrong.
So, are we better off after all these years of evolution? I don't think many people have an answer for that. The only thing that we can do about it is continue doing our job of trying to eliminate suffering for us and for our children.
Cheerio!
Ravi Teja R.
Saturday, June 18, 2005
Is all this for nothing?
Hello again. This question might be similar to 'Do we have a purpose?' but here I have decided to take a very pessimistic (realistic?) view on the issue.
Is 'all this' for nothing? By 'all this', I mean everything; everything we do, we know, we see and remember. Aren't we all in a linear process that we call 'life' which starts at birth and ends at death? If so, of what use is it to us the way we live?
Let me take two men who have gone through this linear process; Messrs. Karamchand Gandhi and Adolf Hitler. While the former has lived a life of peace, the latter has gone through this process by means of war. The former is very famous and the latter is notorious for their ways of living their lives. Co-incidentally, both of them died in more or less the same way.
My point is, how are these two 'lives' different? Both of these people in question are dead; they are no more. So why should they worry if the future humans think of them as good or bad? What good is there to Mr. Gandhi when all of us are praising him or what bad is there to Mr. Hitler when we criticize him? They are dead, right? Why should they worry?
Thinking on these lines, why should anyone need to live in a 'good' way and uplift mankind? Why should he not live in a 'bad' way? It's not going to matter; he would die all the same. People may argue that if every inventor thought like this, we would still be like animals living in the dark ages. My answer is, what's wrong in such a life? The animals, they are born, live the way they want to and finally die. They don't look for 'virtues' or 'vices'. Is living like that 'bad'? Just think.
The only possible answer to this might be that we want the future humans to be in a 'better' place than we are. We want to tell them that 'fire is hot', 'jumping from cliffs leads to death' and other things so that they are in a better place than us. But how do we know that these are 'better'? If the first humans decided not to make their children be in a better place, we would be like them, like animals. Wouldn't that be wonderful?
Maybe death has a lot of answers to these questions.
Cheers,
Ravi Teja R.
Is 'all this' for nothing? By 'all this', I mean everything; everything we do, we know, we see and remember. Aren't we all in a linear process that we call 'life' which starts at birth and ends at death? If so, of what use is it to us the way we live?
Let me take two men who have gone through this linear process; Messrs. Karamchand Gandhi and Adolf Hitler. While the former has lived a life of peace, the latter has gone through this process by means of war. The former is very famous and the latter is notorious for their ways of living their lives. Co-incidentally, both of them died in more or less the same way.
My point is, how are these two 'lives' different? Both of these people in question are dead; they are no more. So why should they worry if the future humans think of them as good or bad? What good is there to Mr. Gandhi when all of us are praising him or what bad is there to Mr. Hitler when we criticize him? They are dead, right? Why should they worry?
Thinking on these lines, why should anyone need to live in a 'good' way and uplift mankind? Why should he not live in a 'bad' way? It's not going to matter; he would die all the same. People may argue that if every inventor thought like this, we would still be like animals living in the dark ages. My answer is, what's wrong in such a life? The animals, they are born, live the way they want to and finally die. They don't look for 'virtues' or 'vices'. Is living like that 'bad'? Just think.
The only possible answer to this might be that we want the future humans to be in a 'better' place than we are. We want to tell them that 'fire is hot', 'jumping from cliffs leads to death' and other things so that they are in a better place than us. But how do we know that these are 'better'? If the first humans decided not to make their children be in a better place, we would be like them, like animals. Wouldn't that be wonderful?
Maybe death has a lot of answers to these questions.
Cheers,
Ravi Teja R.
Friday, April 29, 2005
What is the true purpose of religion?
Thanks for coming back. This time, the question is 'What is the true purpose of Religion?' Before getting to an answer, I would like to give what I think the true definition of religion is:
Religion (re+ligion) is something that was invented to re-unite people. It can be anything that brings two or more people together. For example, Internet is a religion (as it conforms to my definition). So, religion is there not to build walls around people but to really bring them together. Also, I would like to add to the fact that Religion has nothing to do with God; I believe Religion is often confused with Faith, which, in turn, has everything to do with God. This post is entirely about the former.
I believe that the true purpose of religion is to teach us this: Be Good; Do Good. Sadly, 'Good' is a term (like most terms) that can have a very relativistic sense. To give an example, 'good' for Mr. Laden would mean 'Jihad' and its pursuing; hence what he really does is 'good', according to him. But, 'good' would mean something exactly the opposite of Mr. Laden's idea of it to other people.
So, what religion does is try to give an absolute definition for 'good'. By absolute, I do not mean something not bounded by time; I mean something that is future-proof at least for a finite period of time. To make it more clear, 'good', according to some scriptures, meant pouring oil on some sacrificial fires; that might have been true during that finite period of time. As times have changed, 'good', right now is having a totally different meaning. So, what we must do is bring about 'new' versions of scriptures that are true for this finite time-period. (I really would like to see The Bible (2005 ed.), The Holy Qur'An (2005 revised ed.) and such stuff).
I believe that I have used the words 'religion' and 'scriptures' interchangeably because scriptures are nothing but the printed versions of religious teachings. This brings us to a big paradox: How come religion (which does not deal with God) and scriptures (which do preach about God) be the same? This can be cleared by applying the 'time-bound principle. At that time, maybe God was necessary; in this time-period, maybe (only maybe) we must replace 'God' by 'Good' to get the present day perspective. One final point:
We are what we are because of religion. Religion is the one that has taught us things like Love, Compassion, Pity, Mercy, Happiness and similar 'good' qualities. Yes, I mean to say that we human beings know everything that we know only from others; So these qualities must be taught. They cannot develop by genetic factors or by instinct. So, what told you to feel happy when you see a blind child in tears after learning his first lesson through Braille? The answer is religion. I don't think we have such qualities in ourselves by birth. Our parents/friends must have taught them to us. Likewise, who taught them? Religion.
Coming to the current scenario, people have spoiled the name of religion by attributing it to be the main cause for communal disharmony. I think saying that religion creates differences among people is like saying that a coat-hanger is used to wash dishes! In both cases, the words, by themselves, give their true meaning. So, if people really understand what religion really means, I assure you, it'll be an even more wonderful place to exist. That's it for now.
I remain,
Ravi Teja R.
Religion (re+ligion) is something that was invented to re-unite people. It can be anything that brings two or more people together. For example, Internet is a religion (as it conforms to my definition). So, religion is there not to build walls around people but to really bring them together. Also, I would like to add to the fact that Religion has nothing to do with God; I believe Religion is often confused with Faith, which, in turn, has everything to do with God. This post is entirely about the former.
I believe that the true purpose of religion is to teach us this: Be Good; Do Good. Sadly, 'Good' is a term (like most terms) that can have a very relativistic sense. To give an example, 'good' for Mr. Laden would mean 'Jihad' and its pursuing; hence what he really does is 'good', according to him. But, 'good' would mean something exactly the opposite of Mr. Laden's idea of it to other people.
So, what religion does is try to give an absolute definition for 'good'. By absolute, I do not mean something not bounded by time; I mean something that is future-proof at least for a finite period of time. To make it more clear, 'good', according to some scriptures, meant pouring oil on some sacrificial fires; that might have been true during that finite period of time. As times have changed, 'good', right now is having a totally different meaning. So, what we must do is bring about 'new' versions of scriptures that are true for this finite time-period. (I really would like to see The Bible (2005 ed.), The Holy Qur'An (2005 revised ed.) and such stuff).
I believe that I have used the words 'religion' and 'scriptures' interchangeably because scriptures are nothing but the printed versions of religious teachings. This brings us to a big paradox: How come religion (which does not deal with God) and scriptures (which do preach about God) be the same? This can be cleared by applying the 'time-bound principle. At that time, maybe God was necessary; in this time-period, maybe (only maybe) we must replace 'God' by 'Good' to get the present day perspective. One final point:
We are what we are because of religion. Religion is the one that has taught us things like Love, Compassion, Pity, Mercy, Happiness and similar 'good' qualities. Yes, I mean to say that we human beings know everything that we know only from others; So these qualities must be taught. They cannot develop by genetic factors or by instinct. So, what told you to feel happy when you see a blind child in tears after learning his first lesson through Braille? The answer is religion. I don't think we have such qualities in ourselves by birth. Our parents/friends must have taught them to us. Likewise, who taught them? Religion.
Coming to the current scenario, people have spoiled the name of religion by attributing it to be the main cause for communal disharmony. I think saying that religion creates differences among people is like saying that a coat-hanger is used to wash dishes! In both cases, the words, by themselves, give their true meaning. So, if people really understand what religion really means, I assure you, it'll be an even more wonderful place to exist. That's it for now.
I remain,
Ravi Teja R.
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Do we have a purpose?
Welcome back. Why are we here? Is it part of some plan or is it just plain fluke? If we are really a part of a big plan, how well are we playing that part? All right, enough questions for now; let me try to answer some of them.
Now, I believe that each organism in this world has a specific purpose. I learnt that a certain species of red ant helps the huge sequoia trees by providing the giant trees valuable nutrients (I do not know the exact scientific details). So, though the ant doesn't know that it's playing a part in a bigger plan (or maybe it does!), it merely lives its life and does the job. So things like Mutualism (association between species where both are benefited) and Commensalism (only one is benefited and the other is neither harmed nor benefited) are merely plans being worked out in this world. Of course, there the third kind of association called Parasitism; I strongly believe those kind of parasitic organisms are most similar to humans. This view is quoted by a computer program in the sci-fi movie 'The Matrix':
"I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I've realized that you are not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment. But you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague."
I believe that this is the truth. I believe that parasitic organisms like us are those which have stopped doing what they are supposed to do. I think we are here for a purpose; but we are not serving it right now. So, all these Tsunamis, Earthquakes and other natural disasters might be merely the attempts of the bigger plan to eliminate 'unwanted' or 'harmful' organisms. If we are not serving our real purpose, what is that real purpose?
We have been given the power that no other organism in this world has; The power to protect. The power to prevent other species from undergoing hardship, misery and even extinction. So, are we doing that?
As I tried to tell you in my previous posts, there are no only 'yes' or 'no' questions; There are answers like 'mostly, yes' and 'usually no, but...' because there is nothing like perfect cosmos (uniformity) or perfect chaos. In the same way, not all of us are playing their parts in the bigger plan. But, do we have a choice? Yes, we do. We can choose whether to protect or to destroy.
All these arguments are based on one singular probabilistic theory: 'We have a purpose and we are not here by fluke'. If that theory is wrong, what should we do then?
Well, some questions are there just for the asking.
Cheers,
Ravi Teja R.
Now, I believe that each organism in this world has a specific purpose. I learnt that a certain species of red ant helps the huge sequoia trees by providing the giant trees valuable nutrients (I do not know the exact scientific details). So, though the ant doesn't know that it's playing a part in a bigger plan (or maybe it does!), it merely lives its life and does the job. So things like Mutualism (association between species where both are benefited) and Commensalism (only one is benefited and the other is neither harmed nor benefited) are merely plans being worked out in this world. Of course, there the third kind of association called Parasitism; I strongly believe those kind of parasitic organisms are most similar to humans. This view is quoted by a computer program in the sci-fi movie 'The Matrix':
"I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I've realized that you are not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment. But you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague."
I believe that this is the truth. I believe that parasitic organisms like us are those which have stopped doing what they are supposed to do. I think we are here for a purpose; but we are not serving it right now. So, all these Tsunamis, Earthquakes and other natural disasters might be merely the attempts of the bigger plan to eliminate 'unwanted' or 'harmful' organisms. If we are not serving our real purpose, what is that real purpose?
We have been given the power that no other organism in this world has; The power to protect. The power to prevent other species from undergoing hardship, misery and even extinction. So, are we doing that?
As I tried to tell you in my previous posts, there are no only 'yes' or 'no' questions; There are answers like 'mostly, yes' and 'usually no, but...' because there is nothing like perfect cosmos (uniformity) or perfect chaos. In the same way, not all of us are playing their parts in the bigger plan. But, do we have a choice? Yes, we do. We can choose whether to protect or to destroy.
All these arguments are based on one singular probabilistic theory: 'We have a purpose and we are not here by fluke'. If that theory is wrong, what should we do then?
Well, some questions are there just for the asking.
Cheers,
Ravi Teja R.
Sunday, April 03, 2005
What is the Truth?
Hello again. What is the truth? How do you know that something is true? Is it because somebody (Parents/friends) had told you that? If it is so, how can you believe them? Maybe, (only maybe) they have told you all the wrong things!
All these statements lead to a very fundamental question: What IS truth? I believe that truth is something that everyone knows is correct; or something that can be proved so that everyone will know it is correct. Everyone knew the truth that earth was flat. Someone (Magellan?) proved that the earth was in-fact a sphere and everybody believed the 'new' truth. This means that truth is something that is not absolute in sense; it can be changeable. So, coming to another question: Are all truths based on previous truths? Yes? If so, then nothing new (different from previous truths) can be ever discovered. No? Then it is re-inventing the wheel (as the expression goes) all the time.
I believe that the answer to this is: Mostly, Yes. When you want to tell people something new (a new truth), you need to tell it in terms of what they already know. (If Magellan proved earth was round, he must have done it on previous truths (1. Ships travel on water; 2. When you reach a point from the same point and travelled a lot, you moved around a sphere and so on). Only if I tell you something in a language or sense you can understand, you can come to a point where you can accept my views. I say the answer is 'mostly', yes because of some exceptions; if Einstein wanted to prove that that length, mass and time were relative, he only could prove it by contradicting the 'then' truth that l, m and t were absolute. Even then, he needed most other 'then' truths to prove his theory (like 2 X 2 = 4, d/dt(m.a) = m.da/dt + a.dm/dt and so on).
Why am I telling you all this? The primary reason is, as put by Isaac Newton (recently, a book was published with this as a title by Stephen Hawking), we are all "On the shoulders of a giant"; the giant being all the previous inventors and discoverers. The view that we are getting is because we are so highly situated on such a giant. When we see something new, we see it by sitting on the giant. So our entire ideas are, can I say, corrupted by the possible mistakes the giant might have committed. As previously said, we (new-truth tellers) may not agree with the giant totally; but mostly, we believe what he has told us.
This sparks a great amount of 'What if?' questions: What if the first person who built the giant was wrong? Then all of us might be exactly in the wrong path. What if someone hadn't invented something? By inventing something like fire (is fire an invention or a discovery?) he had prejudiced the minds of his successors in favour of it. If he hadn't done it, we might have invented something better than it!
As a concluding remark, I would like to ask this question (is a question, a remark?): "Can we believe the 'now'-truths?; Do we have a choice?" After all, we are all on a giant; truth or lie, are we better than being on a giant than by being on the ground? The answer is very subjective; it tells you whether you want to believe something or not.
Cheers,
Ravi Teja R.
All these statements lead to a very fundamental question: What IS truth? I believe that truth is something that everyone knows is correct; or something that can be proved so that everyone will know it is correct. Everyone knew the truth that earth was flat. Someone (Magellan?) proved that the earth was in-fact a sphere and everybody believed the 'new' truth. This means that truth is something that is not absolute in sense; it can be changeable. So, coming to another question: Are all truths based on previous truths? Yes? If so, then nothing new (different from previous truths) can be ever discovered. No? Then it is re-inventing the wheel (as the expression goes) all the time.
I believe that the answer to this is: Mostly, Yes. When you want to tell people something new (a new truth), you need to tell it in terms of what they already know. (If Magellan proved earth was round, he must have done it on previous truths (1. Ships travel on water; 2. When you reach a point from the same point and travelled a lot, you moved around a sphere and so on). Only if I tell you something in a language or sense you can understand, you can come to a point where you can accept my views. I say the answer is 'mostly', yes because of some exceptions; if Einstein wanted to prove that that length, mass and time were relative, he only could prove it by contradicting the 'then' truth that l, m and t were absolute. Even then, he needed most other 'then' truths to prove his theory (like 2 X 2 = 4, d/dt(m.a) = m.da/dt + a.dm/dt and so on).
Why am I telling you all this? The primary reason is, as put by Isaac Newton (recently, a book was published with this as a title by Stephen Hawking), we are all "On the shoulders of a giant"; the giant being all the previous inventors and discoverers. The view that we are getting is because we are so highly situated on such a giant. When we see something new, we see it by sitting on the giant. So our entire ideas are, can I say, corrupted by the possible mistakes the giant might have committed. As previously said, we (new-truth tellers) may not agree with the giant totally; but mostly, we believe what he has told us.
This sparks a great amount of 'What if?' questions: What if the first person who built the giant was wrong? Then all of us might be exactly in the wrong path. What if someone hadn't invented something? By inventing something like fire (is fire an invention or a discovery?) he had prejudiced the minds of his successors in favour of it. If he hadn't done it, we might have invented something better than it!
As a concluding remark, I would like to ask this question (is a question, a remark?): "Can we believe the 'now'-truths?; Do we have a choice?" After all, we are all on a giant; truth or lie, are we better than being on a giant than by being on the ground? The answer is very subjective; it tells you whether you want to believe something or not.
Cheers,
Ravi Teja R.
Saturday, April 02, 2005
Why am I a liar?
Hi,
This is Ravi Teja R. (Just in case, if you wanted to know.) Now, let me tell you why I chose such a title for my blog. "I AM A LIAR" is a paradox (Something that leads to opposite proofs, I guess.) That becomes obvious if you try to trace the true meaning (true sense, rather) of such a simple statement. If I may, let me put forward the two possible ways of thinking to this :
1. The statement is a truth : If I said that I am a liar and if I really am a liar, that would mean that I said the truth, which in turn means that I am not a liar after all (Contradicting my first statement.)
2. The statement is a lie: If I said that I am a liar an if what I said was a lie, then I must be someone who tells the truth. But if I am someone who tells the truth, my first statement that I am a liar is a lie, which would make me a liar.
The only other possible way that I can explain this is that the opposite of a lie might not be a truth; it might be a partial truth. So, if I may not be a total liar (as most of us aren't total liars), I may tell some truths occasionally; that occasion being my first statement. So, what I did was invent a loop-hole for the statement. The main problem with a loop-hole is that it makes the statement lose its strength completely; the statement would not have a real 'kick' (figuratively speaking) anymore. I may tell you that I am a liar and still tell a truth because I am not contradicting what I said (remember, that in such case my statement is a partial truth.)
I still strongly believe that there is something more to this statement and its loop-hole than meets the eye; it really wants some more logical insight. Before signing off, a little food for thought (another paradox):
"THE LOSER WINS"
Ravi Teja R.
This is Ravi Teja R. (Just in case, if you wanted to know.) Now, let me tell you why I chose such a title for my blog. "I AM A LIAR" is a paradox (Something that leads to opposite proofs, I guess.) That becomes obvious if you try to trace the true meaning (true sense, rather) of such a simple statement. If I may, let me put forward the two possible ways of thinking to this :
1. The statement is a truth : If I said that I am a liar and if I really am a liar, that would mean that I said the truth, which in turn means that I am not a liar after all (Contradicting my first statement.)
2. The statement is a lie: If I said that I am a liar an if what I said was a lie, then I must be someone who tells the truth. But if I am someone who tells the truth, my first statement that I am a liar is a lie, which would make me a liar.
The only other possible way that I can explain this is that the opposite of a lie might not be a truth; it might be a partial truth. So, if I may not be a total liar (as most of us aren't total liars), I may tell some truths occasionally; that occasion being my first statement. So, what I did was invent a loop-hole for the statement. The main problem with a loop-hole is that it makes the statement lose its strength completely; the statement would not have a real 'kick' (figuratively speaking) anymore. I may tell you that I am a liar and still tell a truth because I am not contradicting what I said (remember, that in such case my statement is a partial truth.)
I still strongly believe that there is something more to this statement and its loop-hole than meets the eye; it really wants some more logical insight. Before signing off, a little food for thought (another paradox):
"THE LOSER WINS"
Ravi Teja R.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)