What if ......

your alter ego is of the opposite sex ? Does that person become your soul mate ? Me being a he, my alter ego will henceforth be referred to as she.

She should complete me. Isn't that what conventional wisdom is all about - the completely overrated concept of equillibrium ? If she is everything I am not, the two of us would be made for each other. What is she ? The absence of every trait that makes me, me ?

Lets see now, we'll never like the same things. We'll never agree on anything. All life would be a compromise. This is like Game theory. One person's loss becomes another person's gain. A perfect zero sum game. My misery becomes her happiness and vice versa.

Do opposites really attract ?

Beneath the glossy veneer of this irrationally romantic illusion lies the harsh reality that most people tend to comfortably ignore.

She wont complete me. She will end up pissing me off and i'll end up returning the favour. Not neccessarily in that order.

If she is perfect, just to reinforce my initial assumption - she is my alter ego and not a person, (it's really easy for people to get carried away with this line, so i'm being just a little cautious) as in she is everything I am not - I can never love her, but given the right circumstance(s) I can come to hate her.

Life with her will always be like Game theory, but it should never be a perfect zero sum game. All her misery should not become my happiness or vice versa.

If a little of her misery becomes a lot of my happiness AND a little of my misery becomes a lot of her happiness, now that is a she, I will definitely be interested in. For this to happen, she should never be perfect.

She should never be everything I am.
She should never be everything I am not.
She should always be something I am and something I am not.

Who is she ??

If I ever write a book ......

Not a bad idea. My one chance to make an impression on this pathetic, miserably misled world. Me likey. I decide to take it further.

What will be the name of my book ? I wouldn't like to make it sound very profound. It might scare people away from reading it. Atleast the title needs to be appealing. I cant think of a name.Ahaa. Something clicks in my head. I think, what if I dont name my book ? The title of my book would be - Untitled. Excellent. I like it.

What should I write about ? I consider the broad genre of topcis. Fiction - no. Religion - no. Philosophy - no. Biography - no. Autobiography - Hmm (I think) ... no. I cant think of an appropriate topic. Thats when I decide to create my own topic. Something peculiar, which a majority of whom we call rational people would find irrational. Thats where i decide to leverage my ability to write ad hoc statements. I have the audacity to think i can get away with it.

The next phase. I need to add form, structure and substance. I have no idea what that means. Typed it 'cos it sounds cool. Another thought springs in my head. I think, what if I dont write anything in my book ? I try to imagine.

I put myself in the place of a reader entering a book store looking for the latest publication. The reader sees a book named - Untitled. The reader is curious. The reader picks up the book and opens it to see what the book is about. The first page is blank. The reader doesnt think too much of it as most books have a blank first page. The reader flips to the second page. Finds that also to be a blank page. The reader turns to the third, fourth, fifth page - all blank. The reader quickly brushes through the entire book. Finds the entire book to be blank. The reader stops to think. Maybe its a printing error and that copy was placed on the stands by mistake. Puts that copy aside and picks up the next copy. The reader, after the first experience, is quick to realise that even the second copy is all blank. Thats the point where the reader thinks - its a prank. The reader puts the book down, calls the writer (ironically), namely me, an insane little #$%^@# and leaves.

I come back to reality.

I realise thats exactly what i'm looking for. A book which most rational people would think is irrational.

Ahaa, I'm a genius.

The poet in me ... or so I like to think

the subtle submergence of silken veneer brings forth the facade, a visage that deceives ...
a venial offense forgiven by the sacrament of confession ...
the cardinal vice that can veer a man's sights ...
the opulent charm of fully blossomed purple ...
i offer my enamored self to your comely virtue ...

wrote that for a friend of mine ... not sure if i used the right words or even if the metaphors mean what i intended them to ... kinda liked it ... putting it here.

Why don't we write letters anymore ?

Let me guess - Email is way too cool. Mobile phones are cheap. Lets all embrace technology and allow ourselves to be consumed by it.

Sure. I've heard the talk about how technology has brought the world closer. Who would have thought of outsourcing if not for technology and not to mention generations being brought into this world not knowing what they have missed. India vs. Pakistan playing not in a cricket match, not a hockey match, not on any open air field, but in a virtual world of 3d games.

What happened to the good old blood, sweat and guts theme ? What happened to the personal touch ?

It is in the nature of man to seek out the path that yields the maximum return with least possible effort. Simple cost benefit ratio. Lets see now. Writing a letter vs. sending an email. Cost benefit reveals the following:

Cost(s) associated with Writing a letter:

=> You need paper. Jeez, who uses those things anymore.

=> You need a pen. The 16 year old's of right now don't know what that is, something to do with exams being conducted on a computer. The concept evades me.

=> Once the above mentioned items are in possession, there is of course the archaic, time consuming, physical act of writing.

=> You do need some semblance of grammer when you write to make sense, which means more of an effort in performing the physical act which is labour intensive as is.

=> Of course you need the envelope, the stamp and the complete postal address. Yes, "postal address" exists. Address does not always mean, who@idontcare.whatever. (this thing actually hyperlinks automatically, you see what i'm talking about)

=> To top it all of, the act of walking, jogging, running, riding or driving to a post box and posting the letter.

Benefit(s) associated with Writing a letter:

=> The person reading the letter gets to see your handwriting. Considering that the physical act of writing has not been performed in a long time, it is bound to be horrendous. Why do I feel this should also go in the cost section. In the interest of fairness, i'll leave it here. Handwriting, as sad as it may be, is a little more personal than electronic characters on a screen.

Now, lets try the same thing with email.

Cost(s) associated with Typing an Email:

=> You need a computer, laptop, or whatever cool gadget that allows you to send an email. (Possible arguement: C'mon who doesn't have one of these things at home, work, in the mobile.)

=> You need an internet connection or whatever cool technology that has replaced it. (Possible argument: Oh please, who has a computer or whatever without one of these things to go with it.)

Really cant think of anything else to put in here. But trust me, the benefits thingi is going to be a lot better.

Benefits(s) associated with Typing an Email:

=> It's probably easier to own a computer now than to set up a mailbox outside your home.

=> You dont have to be educated to type an email. Nobody uses the English language to type an email. Some sort of pseudo written english thing has taken over. Really not sure what this lingo is called even. (u get dis!!!)

=> You can send the same email to more than one person at the same time. Cool huh.

=> You can set rules, put your email in different places, chooe to ignore some. All automatically. Sounds like a secratary's job back in the 60's.

=> No more envelopes, stamp, postal address, nor the act of finding a post box. The "SEND" button conquers all. (It actually only takes care of the post box part but you get my drift right ??)

I could go on, but then i'd be stating the obvious.

So, do I still write letters ? The answer is no. Why ?? Not because of the cost benefit stuff I typed out just now. My equations are different.

Benefit:
I get to communicate with people. There are few amongst people, at large, whom I dont communicate with, but then i'm not typing this post for them. So, I couldnt care less.

Cost:
What cost ?? Approx Rs. 1/- per MB of data transfer is cheap.

I get to overcome my guilt for not having time to keep in touch with people I like using the sheer economic gains that can only be attained with the use of technology.

Thats why I dont write letters anymore.

Sciences and Man

“The only way to overcome temptation is to give in to it” – Oscar Wilde, Picture of Dorian Gray

At the onset it would seem like an irrelevant statement to the topic at hand. On the contrary, it has everything to do with the topic being discussed here. To dwell into the psychological realm of human kind clearly falls outside the purview of this post, but to try and understand the circumstances that determined the course of human development is the ultimate purpose of this post.

At a holistic level, I will attempt to articulate the connection between natural sciences and social sciences. George Soros in his Theory of Reflexivity talks about the same undeniable connection between the two, which he also successfully tested with the stock market as the test arena and the various participants as the subjects.

Man is driven by needs and wants. There is a fundamental difference between need and want. A need is something which is essential for man’s survival. A want is more of a luxury, something that manifests itself when the primary urge for the need has been completely satisfied.
For example: A man “needs” food for survival. A man “wants” pizza for a meal. I think the example is self explanatory.

Man has various different requirements at different points in time. But there is always a reasonably defined path that is followed when the change starts to occur. Darwin, in his theory of evolution, talks about survival of the fittest. That is man’s first and foremost, primary need. Survival, security, sustainability and eventually growth are probably the driving needs for all of man’s actions. These are social needs which attempt to rationalize man’s actions. In this case, man’s actions being the development of natural sciences or, in common parlance, technology.

The growth of technology is driven by man’s obsession to consolidate the satisfaction derived from one level in the hierarchy of needs and eventually to move on to the next. Right from the time when man learnt to make fire down to the latest development in the various area’s of science, the motive has been to consolidate and grow.

When one need has been satisfied, man moves on the next level of need. What we now know as industrialized nations, what we now call as commerce, and what we now see as economy is a result of the development in man’s social needs.

It is man’s social requirement which drives man’s creativity. It is creativity which leads to man’s insuppressible urge for curiosity. Both of which combined have now led us to this point in time where the creativity and the curiosity have overcome their dependence on man’s social needs and have come to exist as a self sustaining force.

It is my opinion that it is the psychological needs of man which has led to the growth of technology. It is also my opinion that mankind is at a stage where the rate at which technology is growing does not commensurate the rate at which man’s social needs are evolving. The ultimate need for man is a feeling of accomplishment, a feeling of satisfaction. That is a void, attempting to fill that void is the reason why we are still left innovating.

Economics in real life

Business ... Finance ... Politics ... the underlying economics is undeniable. This is pretty cool stuff.

Me, Myself and Moi

I think I have finally become articulate enough where I have found the right words to express one of my innumerable flaws.

I think I am consumed by the sheer unemotional force of logic, for the most part at the cost of passion.

Cant help but think of one of Murphy's laws - "Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence".