Friday, December 25, 2009

Random...

Randomness springs from a relatively structured root, whose parent ought to be even less random. I reached this conclusion after analyzing my own thought process. Behind all the random thoughts that I (or anybody) seem to have all the time, none of which lasts long or I can carry much ahead, I feel there must be a more structured framework of opinions, thoughts, ideas and instincts. Perhaps I skipped a few layers of randomness in between. But the point is that thoughts, like the universe, decrease in randomness as we move upwards towards their origin - the law of entropy as applied to thoughts. The external structure that we assign to what we speak or write is not really the structure of our thoughts. Nor do our thoughts emerge at such a slow rate. The spoken structure is a conscious alignment of desired thoughts which are retrieved in appropriate intervals and arranged in the right sequence so as to make sense as a whole, and with a specific direction.

The concept of energy was taught to me in the middle-school. It was introduced as capacity to do work, and the definition stayed at that even later. I always viewed the concepts of work and energy with skepticism (and I still do). I first expressed it when I was in the 11th standard, to some of my friends, but they didn't seem to bother. Just this morning, as I was jogging, I realized that defining energy as capacity to do work reflects how science and its perspectives emerge from our very human nature. (Are you wondering how?) It seems natural, of course, because we are human beings, and we have to think like humans. (What does it mean to not think like a human? Are there other ways of thinking? Are there limits to how or what we can think? If yes, is it possible to breach such limits by conscious effort?) And science, above all, is expected to solve human problems, explain phenomena in ways useful to us, create stuff to make human life easy. (Discover the truth, How & What God Thinketh... but think why we want to know that.) If there are bounds to who or what we work for, then are we not selfish? (Self here is an enhanced image of oneself, seen in association with all the entitites one relates himself/herself with, and to the extent he/she chooses to.) If yes, and I think the answer is yes, what does it mean to be not selfish?

Being selfish is not really considered bad by most people. Yet poeple are confused between the conflicting axioms of life taught to them, and the ones which drive their instincts. For example, the whole world thinks capitalism, each working for his/her own self-interest, would serve the interests of society the best. But then we are also taught tenets of team-work, cooperation etc., which, probably, are necessary to get things done in the first place - strong means for a great end, which has its importance and motivating ability only if one is selfish enough, which the concept of capitalism on top ensures. And the society sees progress, since both the means and ends achieve the best form within this framework. But such frameworks are for people devoid of feelings, emotions and desires. In real world, people are capable of, need to, want to and crave for love. But our institutions are designed for machines. Our formulas can't incorporate human power struggles - the strong, the weak and the shades of gray, the limits placed by cultural differences and natural (hate to use resources) endowments working together.

Furthermore, is society bigger than a human being? Is a country bigger than a human being? Is a culture more important than human life? Why should one be patriotic? why should there be inner (coz one is selfish beyond) bounds to selfishness? Love is certainly not the opposite of selfishness. But can someone truly Love and be Selfish at the same time?


Short-Termism - Focus on Today at the cost of Tomorrow

"Strategies don't come out of a formally planned process. Most strategies tend to emerge, as people solve little problems and learn...