Friday, December 28, 2007
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
How do you know you are friends?
Really how do you decide whether someone is an acquintance or a friend? How do you differentiate?
And how do you know which relationship is a matter of convenience and which of choice?
In my case, I know some people for years but I also know they are not my friends (or rather I am not their friend) even though I meet them regularly and enjoy their company.
So this definitely is not a perfect measure.
And there are people I do not meet very often or know them not for very long but consider them friends.
And when (and how) do you know someone is your friend?
I wonder and seek answers.
And how do you know which relationship is a matter of convenience and which of choice?
In my case, I know some people for years but I also know they are not my friends (or rather I am not their friend) even though I meet them regularly and enjoy their company.
So this definitely is not a perfect measure.
And there are people I do not meet very often or know them not for very long but consider them friends.
Time is also not a prerequisite.
I have had 'friends' with whom I have had lots of arguments and fights (and ego was part of sometimes and in some cases I have not spoken to them since but still remember/consider them as friends) but still survived.
So the concept of "no ego" also doesn't work.
It is so easy to introduce someone as a friend but when do you honestly mean it?And when (and how) do you know someone is your friend?
I wonder and seek answers.
Monday, December 24, 2007
You talkin to me
Disclaimer: This is just a rough draft and initial thoughts.
When was the last time you had a conversation? When the last time you met someone interesting?
Chances are some of you might say, today, yesterday, or maybe some time in the near past.
But did you really have a conversation or there were two or more people talking about themselves - all talking and no one listening.
It has become so difficult to find someone you can talk to, have a discussion, say or listen to meaningful words.
I believe there are many reasons why we cannot have a conversation.
The primary culprit is our inward focus. ‘I’ has become the center of the universe. We are so concerned about our needs and concerns that we do not pay any attention to things around us. And this need is largely materialistic. I for example - and this is also true for lots of people I know and meet - find it so difficult to think of things which are not management. Success is measured in INR or USD or GBP. My role models are people who are richer than me. People no longer listen to others and are not interested in their thoughts. Only words which offer personal gratification are of our interest everything else nothing but white noise.
We have become a society of cynics.
Third and the biggest killer of conversation are our limited range and interests. Money, money, money. Management books today probably outsell the more relevant books. We find so difficult to pick up a book that will make us think. Frivolous books, talk shows, reality shows have a wider audience than radical thoughts and ideas.
When was the last time you read about a real issue and if you did, you found someone to share and discuss it?
We indulge in many personal monologues but have no conversation.
Remember words change the world even before action does.
Conversation is about listening,
Conversation is about understanding,
Conversation is about sharing.
Last words –
"You want people walking away from the conversation with some kernel of wisdom or some kind of impact." Harry Dean Stanton
When was the last time you had a conversation? When the last time you met someone interesting?
Chances are some of you might say, today, yesterday, or maybe some time in the near past.
But did you really have a conversation or there were two or more people talking about themselves - all talking and no one listening.
It has become so difficult to find someone you can talk to, have a discussion, say or listen to meaningful words.
I believe there are many reasons why we cannot have a conversation.
The primary culprit is our inward focus. ‘I’ has become the center of the universe. We are so concerned about our needs and concerns that we do not pay any attention to things around us. And this need is largely materialistic. I for example - and this is also true for lots of people I know and meet - find it so difficult to think of things which are not management. Success is measured in INR or USD or GBP. My role models are people who are richer than me. People no longer listen to others and are not interested in their thoughts. Only words which offer personal gratification are of our interest everything else nothing but white noise.
"Years ago, I tried to top everybody, but I don't anymore, I realized it was killing conversation. When you're always trying for a topper you aren't really listening. It kills communication." - Groucho Marx
We have become a society of cynics.
Third and the biggest killer of conversation are our limited range and interests. Money, money, money. Management books today probably outsell the more relevant books. We find so difficult to pick up a book that will make us think. Frivolous books, talk shows, reality shows have a wider audience than radical thoughts and ideas.
When was the last time you read about a real issue and if you did, you found someone to share and discuss it?
We indulge in many personal monologues but have no conversation.
Remember words change the world even before action does.
Conversation is about listening,
Conversation is about understanding,
Conversation is about sharing.
To listen well, is as powerful a means ofinfluence as to talk well, and is as essential to all true conversation.
Conversation is about being alive to the world around you.Last words –
"You want people walking away from the conversation with some kernel of wisdom or some kind of impact." Harry Dean Stanton
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Progress needs men - Contd.
Nobel Laureates
Women - 34
Men - 743
Total No.of women who won Nobel Prize for Science: 12
Last Year in which a woman won Nobel Prize in Chemistry: 1964 (Total 2)
Last Year in which a woman won Nobel Prize in Physics: 1963 (Total 3)
No. of women to win a prize in Economics: 0
Women - 34
Men - 743
Total No.of women who won Nobel Prize for Science: 12
Last Year in which a woman won Nobel Prize in Chemistry: 1964 (Total 2)
Last Year in which a woman won Nobel Prize in Physics: 1963 (Total 3)
No. of women to win a prize in Economics: 0
Parting thoughts - A couplet from Baba Bulle Shah
Rati jage kare ibadat
rati jagan kute
tethon ute
Phokan band te mool na hunde
Jah rori te sute
Tethon ute
Kasam apne da darr na chhad de
Bhave bajan jute
Tethon ute
Bulleh Shah koi rakh vihaj leh
nahi te baazi leh gai kute
tethon ute
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Evolution depends on men
Now that I have made a habit of making sweeping statements why break the pattern.
So here comes another hare-brained theory.
I believe the reason why men have been at the forefront of most of the inventions and discoveries cannot be attributed just to the simplistic explanation of opportunity.
Most would argue that lack of contribution by women can be attributed to the fact men repressed women and they were always at a disadvantage due to the constraints that the society imposed on them.
There is no denying these facts but the fact also remains these shackles have been more or less negated in the last 50 years and despite this the contribution of women especially in the field of science (or any other field for that matter) is at best miniscule if not negligible.
“Exceptio probat regulam.”
When I say inventions I have in mind products or thoughts which changed the course of a field or changed the paradigms of thinking and living.
Time for the explanation – personal and without any scientific basis.
The way men think is random and without any order. If you have ever watched two men or a group of men having a conversation, it can be quite an irksome experience for any outside observer. The conversation will travel from the inane to the profound. In the same sentence you can find a man quoting Socrates while discussing about the finer points of Angelina Jolie’s legs. The conversation never sticks to a single topic and can range from movies to religion to terrorism to philosophy of Nietzsche to latest office gossip to any other idiotic or ridiculous or reflective theme. And this change of topic is fluid. No man finds anything out of the ordinary when the change happens. It’s normal. It’s natural.
Against this the conversation between women or with a woman is more linear in structure. Discussion is focused and exchange measured. I am not disparaging the quality of the theme; it can be as thoughtful and weighty as it comes. But the conversation never wavers; it does not traverse any heights or depths like a male banter.
So how does this simple comparison prove that men help societies evolve? Is just the conversation?
My dear Watson, conversation is just an analogy for the male mind.
Think of male conversation/mind like dots - what seems random, when connected can sometimes create a masterpiece. The beauty of the male conversation/mind lies in juxtaposing disparate thoughts and subjects next to each other and that opens a realm of possibilities.
Only in chaos you can find order.
So here comes another hare-brained theory.
I believe the reason why men have been at the forefront of most of the inventions and discoveries cannot be attributed just to the simplistic explanation of opportunity.
Most would argue that lack of contribution by women can be attributed to the fact men repressed women and they were always at a disadvantage due to the constraints that the society imposed on them.
There is no denying these facts but the fact also remains these shackles have been more or less negated in the last 50 years and despite this the contribution of women especially in the field of science (or any other field for that matter) is at best miniscule if not negligible.
“Exceptio probat regulam.”
When I say inventions I have in mind products or thoughts which changed the course of a field or changed the paradigms of thinking and living.
Time for the explanation – personal and without any scientific basis.
The way men think is random and without any order. If you have ever watched two men or a group of men having a conversation, it can be quite an irksome experience for any outside observer. The conversation will travel from the inane to the profound. In the same sentence you can find a man quoting Socrates while discussing about the finer points of Angelina Jolie’s legs. The conversation never sticks to a single topic and can range from movies to religion to terrorism to philosophy of Nietzsche to latest office gossip to any other idiotic or ridiculous or reflective theme. And this change of topic is fluid. No man finds anything out of the ordinary when the change happens. It’s normal. It’s natural.
Against this the conversation between women or with a woman is more linear in structure. Discussion is focused and exchange measured. I am not disparaging the quality of the theme; it can be as thoughtful and weighty as it comes. But the conversation never wavers; it does not traverse any heights or depths like a male banter.
So how does this simple comparison prove that men help societies evolve? Is just the conversation?
My dear Watson, conversation is just an analogy for the male mind.
Think of male conversation/mind like dots - what seems random, when connected can sometimes create a masterpiece. The beauty of the male conversation/mind lies in juxtaposing disparate thoughts and subjects next to each other and that opens a realm of possibilities.
Only in chaos you can find order.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Bitch
There is a concerted effort in the media today debunking the artificial beauty.
And who are these synthetic beauties - the wafer thin models parading down their wares on the ramps, adorning the billboards and generally peering down on us from every shop window.
The rationale for branding this class as non-natural -not unnatural or ethereal but non-natural -
is the fact that they make the everyday woman feel inadequate. They bring psychological and physiological disorders and are proponents of general misery in the majority.
Today every writer worth his ink is championing the cause of the everyday woman – “the real beauty”.
Hmmm… interesting.
Logical.
Maybe yes, maybe not.
But is it possible we decode the above mentioned sentiment in some other manner and stretch the argument in another “irrelevant” direction.
Tiger Woods is not a golfer.
Somerset Maugham is not a writer.
Brendo is not an actor.
Why?
Because the years of dedication, hard work and commitment they put in to perfect their craft, change what is acceptable, set new standards, is nothing but a devious ploy to deride us.
Those bitches and bastards punish their bodies and minds just to humiliate us.
It is not a commitment to their art and craft but a conspiracy against us – “the real people”.
That pain is not real.
It is just a sham.
That reminds me of a conversation that a “real beauty” had with a “synthetic beauty”.
Real Beauty: “You are not real, I am”
Synthetic Beauty: “True. I am a thing of dreams and you an ugly reality.”
Accept the fact you lack the commitment to exercise.
Accept that you cannot resist those delicacies.
Accept the fact you don’t have the resolve to get up every day and burn that fat.
And accept you are fat ugly blob.
Or Celebrate mediocrity.
And this post makes me a writer par excellence, Hemingway is a just a figment of our collective imagination.
P.S: And don’t you write back about eating disorders, bulimia or any such thing. I am not condoning any such acts. It is our hatred towards anything that tries to rise above the average that disgusts me.
And who are these synthetic beauties - the wafer thin models parading down their wares on the ramps, adorning the billboards and generally peering down on us from every shop window.
The rationale for branding this class as non-natural -not unnatural or ethereal but non-natural -
is the fact that they make the everyday woman feel inadequate. They bring psychological and physiological disorders and are proponents of general misery in the majority.
Today every writer worth his ink is championing the cause of the everyday woman – “the real beauty”.
Hmmm… interesting.
Logical.
Maybe yes, maybe not.
But is it possible we decode the above mentioned sentiment in some other manner and stretch the argument in another “irrelevant” direction.
Tiger Woods is not a golfer.
Somerset Maugham is not a writer.
Brendo is not an actor.
Why?
Because the years of dedication, hard work and commitment they put in to perfect their craft, change what is acceptable, set new standards, is nothing but a devious ploy to deride us.
Those bitches and bastards punish their bodies and minds just to humiliate us.
It is not a commitment to their art and craft but a conspiracy against us – “the real people”.
That pain is not real.
It is just a sham.
That reminds me of a conversation that a “real beauty” had with a “synthetic beauty”.
Real Beauty: “You are not real, I am”
Synthetic Beauty: “True. I am a thing of dreams and you an ugly reality.”
Accept the fact you lack the commitment to exercise.
Accept that you cannot resist those delicacies.
Accept the fact you don’t have the resolve to get up every day and burn that fat.
And accept you are fat ugly blob.
Or Celebrate mediocrity.
And this post makes me a writer par excellence, Hemingway is a just a figment of our collective imagination.
P.S: And don’t you write back about eating disorders, bulimia or any such thing. I am not condoning any such acts. It is our hatred towards anything that tries to rise above the average that disgusts me.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Don't cry for me Delhi
I left Delhi some three years back. And I have some fond memories of the place.
Once in a while I think about shifting back to the place but these bouts of insanity are cured thanks to some timely meeting with a Delhite (when I say Delhite, pls read archtype North Indian).
Lets count the habits which would ensure that I stay away from the place as far as possible. And do I pray for the day when habitation on other planets would be a possibility.
1. The overbearing habit of over-familarity. The first meeting will start from"I have shared your underwear" relationship. Hey, I am meeting you for the first time, we are not lost buddies and lets keep it that way. And i do not share my underwear with anyone in any case.
2. And if best buddy syndrome was not bad enough, god forbid, if the gentleman you are meeting belongs to the same state, or has just transited through the city you belong, that would make him your bonafide relative. Dude, even by the highest ratio of the improbable probability if i had met you earlier, chances are i would have ignored you there also, if not kicked your butt out of the stratosphere.
3. "I am the undisputed lord of the universe". Me lord, you job is at the lowest end of the corporate food chain. My best wishes are with you, but till you become what you are not, I would prefer you behave and stay like a minion that you truly are.
4. They would end professional meetings not with a handshake but with a hug, and if you are not quick in your reflexes, you might get treated witha slobbering kiss also. Stay away from me you sex depraved pervert.
I can probably continue but I really need to go and take a bath.
Om Shanti Om.
Once in a while I think about shifting back to the place but these bouts of insanity are cured thanks to some timely meeting with a Delhite (when I say Delhite, pls read archtype North Indian).
Lets count the habits which would ensure that I stay away from the place as far as possible. And do I pray for the day when habitation on other planets would be a possibility.
1. The overbearing habit of over-familarity. The first meeting will start from"I have shared your underwear" relationship. Hey, I am meeting you for the first time, we are not lost buddies and lets keep it that way. And i do not share my underwear with anyone in any case.
2. And if best buddy syndrome was not bad enough, god forbid, if the gentleman you are meeting belongs to the same state, or has just transited through the city you belong, that would make him your bonafide relative. Dude, even by the highest ratio of the improbable probability if i had met you earlier, chances are i would have ignored you there also, if not kicked your butt out of the stratosphere.
3. "I am the undisputed lord of the universe". Me lord, you job is at the lowest end of the corporate food chain. My best wishes are with you, but till you become what you are not, I would prefer you behave and stay like a minion that you truly are.
4. They would end professional meetings not with a handshake but with a hug, and if you are not quick in your reflexes, you might get treated witha slobbering kiss also. Stay away from me you sex depraved pervert.
I can probably continue but I really need to go and take a bath.
Om Shanti Om.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
3:10 to Yuma
Fantastic dialogue in the movie...
"A man has to be big enough to realise how small he is"
"A man has to be big enough to realise how small he is"
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
A thought
I face two perennial problems.
One I find myself unable to put my thoughts across to others in a cohesive manner, that means most of words that come out of my mouth are jumbled and without structure. Second problem is my failure in retaining some knowledge that I try to garner from books which I have enjoyed.
I really enjoy reading. And I read all kinds of stuff - pulp fiction, business books, comics, graphic novels, non-fiction, anything and everything that catches my fancy.
Ideally I would like to make some of these ideas part of me -words crafted so beautifully, thoughts expressed, connected, organized, weaved as l would never – my thoughts, my ideas, just said so much better.
As someone said once, the knowledge becomes part of you if you say it. Now, if you would remember the first sentence that is a problem – incoherent speech.
One day, I have no idea how; I found the solution to both my tribulations. A single action that would help address both the issues.
Read slowly.
The manner you read, is the manner you think and is the manner you speak.
Read fast, you tend to think fast and that means ideas and words flow in your mind in a supersonic pace, without structure and must come out at the same pace – without logic, without structure – confused audience.
Imagine it like a long chain of unconnected bogies of a train, each following the other and moving at the same pace. Each bogie is a thought which you want to convey to a passenger.
The way this will work is only when the passenger is able to board each bogie and if he misses one, the subsequent bogie cannot be boarded leading to an incomplete journey.
Now since the bogies are unconnected so the one in the front cannot control the next one, if you slow your pace, all the bogies would crash into each other, leading to a carnage of conversation and thoughts.
Ideal solution is to slowdown the pace.
Pace your thoughts and that would automatically pace your speech.
Read slow.
P.S: Can someone corroborate the theory?
One I find myself unable to put my thoughts across to others in a cohesive manner, that means most of words that come out of my mouth are jumbled and without structure. Second problem is my failure in retaining some knowledge that I try to garner from books which I have enjoyed.
I really enjoy reading. And I read all kinds of stuff - pulp fiction, business books, comics, graphic novels, non-fiction, anything and everything that catches my fancy.
Ideally I would like to make some of these ideas part of me -words crafted so beautifully, thoughts expressed, connected, organized, weaved as l would never – my thoughts, my ideas, just said so much better.
As someone said once, the knowledge becomes part of you if you say it. Now, if you would remember the first sentence that is a problem – incoherent speech.
One day, I have no idea how; I found the solution to both my tribulations. A single action that would help address both the issues.
Read slowly.
The manner you read, is the manner you think and is the manner you speak.
Read fast, you tend to think fast and that means ideas and words flow in your mind in a supersonic pace, without structure and must come out at the same pace – without logic, without structure – confused audience.
Imagine it like a long chain of unconnected bogies of a train, each following the other and moving at the same pace. Each bogie is a thought which you want to convey to a passenger.
The way this will work is only when the passenger is able to board each bogie and if he misses one, the subsequent bogie cannot be boarded leading to an incomplete journey.
Now since the bogies are unconnected so the one in the front cannot control the next one, if you slow your pace, all the bogies would crash into each other, leading to a carnage of conversation and thoughts.
Ideal solution is to slowdown the pace.
Pace your thoughts and that would automatically pace your speech.
Read slow.
P.S: Can someone corroborate the theory?
Friday, December 07, 2007
Whose life is it anyway?
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimcry, their passions a quotation." Oscar Wilde
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
what?
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
what?
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Baby Talk
Last month I was travelling to Delhi with my daughter.
As we were being transferred via the transit bus to our aircraft, the bus came to stop in front of a plane.
Avni is all happy and excited to see the plane.
She looks at the plane, turns to me and says "Dada, look plane nose"
She then again points to the plane and says "Dada, look plane eyes"
After which she gazes at the plane with quizzical expression for some time, turns towards me and asks "Dada, where plane teeth?"
Is the human brain wired to see everything from a single lens or we train it to find a reflection of ourselves in all objects?
I wonder, is this the reason we are so disdainful & inhuman towards anything - animate or inanimate - which is not US?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
