Tea with Mara

2009-06-12T12:38:00.000-07:00

I have moved to www.thingsundone.wordpress.com

2009-06-10T17:32:00.000-07:00

Riz Khan (Al Jazeera) interviews Anand: 1,2

2009-06-10T12:58:00.000-07:00

"If your everyday life seems poor, don't blame it; blame yourself; admit to yourself that you are not enough of a poet to call forth its riches"

-- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters To A Young Poet, Letter 1

2009-05-30T11:15:00.000-07:00

Arthur Clarke's 3rd law of prediction reads: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. "

Upon reading Dan Dennett, I would translate this as: any sufficiently advanced crane is indistinguishable from a skyhook.

2009-05-06T16:53:00.000-07:00

Infernal world, and thou profoundest Hell
Receive thy new possessor: One who brings
A mind not to be chang’d by place or time.
The mind is its own place, and in itself
Can make a Heav’n of Hell, a Hell of Heav’n.
What matter where, if I be still the same,
And what I should be, all but less than he
Whom thunder hath made greater? Here at least
We shall be free; th’ Almighty hath not built
Here for his envy, will not drive us hence:
Here we may reign secure, and in my choice
To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav’n.
-- John Milton (1608-74)Paradise Lost, I:242ff.

2009-04-24T10:46:00.000-07:00

"¿Hay mensajeros? Sí,
cuerpo tatuado de señaleses
el espacio, el aire es invisible
tejido de llamadas y respuestas.
Animales y cosas se hacen lenguas,
a través de nosotros habla consigo mismo
el universo. Somos un fragmento
-pero cabal en su inacabamiento-
de su discurso. Solipsismo
coherente y vacío:
desde el principio del principio
¿qué dice? Dice que nos dice.
Se lo dice a sí mismo. Oh madness of discourse,
that cause sets up with and against itself!"

-- Extract from Octavio Paz's "Pasado En Claro" (A draft of shadows)

[Are there messengers? Yes,
space is a body tattooed with signs, the air
an invisible web of calls and answers
Animals and things make languages,
through us the universe talks with itself.
We are a fragment --
accomplished in our unaccomplishment --
of its discourse. A coherent
and empty solipsism:
since the beginning of the beginning
what does it say? It says that it says us.
It says it to itself. Oh madness of discourse,
that cause sets up with and against itself!

-- Translated by Eliot Weinberger ]

(The Deepak Chopra type mood is unintended)

2009-04-23T15:21:00.001-07:00

Beating a dead cliche

2009-04-20T13:21:00.000-07:00

Gregory Stock: To upgrade is human

2009-04-15T15:03:00.000-07:00

Tales of Mere Existence

Procrastination
Conversation
How To Cope With Depression
Saturday
I Have To Get Ready
...Take Shoes Off?
A Typical Conversation With My Mom

2009-04-07T17:42:00.000-07:00

Darwin's Dangerous Idea

Body and Soul: 1,2,3,4,5,6
Born Equal?: 1,2,3,4,5,6
Birth and Death: 1,2,3,4,5,6

2009-04-01T12:41:00.000-07:00

Germaine Greer on women creating art

2009-04-01T00:36:00.000-07:00

René Magritte. La Condition humaine. 1933. Oil on canvas.

"In front of a window seen from inside a room, I placed a painting representing exactly that portion of the landscape covered by the painting. Thus, the tree in the picture hid the tree behind it, outside the room. For the spectator, it was both inside the room within the painting and outside in the real landscape.
...
This is how we see the world. We see it outside ourselves, and at the same time we only have a representation of it in ourselves. In the same way, we sometimes situate in the past that which is happening in the present. Time and space thus loose the vulgar meaning that only daily experience takes into account"

2009-03-25T00:44:00.000-07:00

Chiefs, Thieves, and Priests -- Matt Ridley

"Why is it that with nothing but improvement behind us we anticipate nothing but disaster before us?" -- Lord Macaulay, 1830

2009-03-10T11:18:00.000-07:00

One line movie summaries

I played this game with a friend on facebook. You have to summarise a movie in one sentence. Reposting my take here.

Sideways: Grape Expectations.

Asoka: King Khan gloriously emerging from bathwater to romance a thinly clad Kaurvaki, and other bollywoodian shenanigans set to a backdrop of some Kalinga claptrap.

Devdas: Alcoholic loser hangs out with dancer-types before dying pathetically amidst colorful sets.

Kabhie Khushi Kabhie Gham: Stinking-rich people letting loose lachrymose family valves over family values in phoren country.

Any Seagal movie: Look at my grumpy face, I'm gonna kick yer ass, punk!

American Beauty: Pimply faced kids are about as beautiful and filmable as a free floating plastic bag before they turn into dysfunctional, materialistic, joyless grown-ups.

Any of the Die Hard movies: I'm like "duh" when it comes to anything remotely modern, but mess with my family and bam!! Duh!

Eight Mile: I'm pissed off, so I'll rap, cut some albums, make this movie and make y'all watch it.

Rocky: Underdawg beats topdawg after some incoherent grunts, setbacks and montage shots of unconventional training methods using meat and shit, yay!

The Terminator: He needs to time travel to the past so he can make babies to live in the future so that he can time travel to the past to make babies.

Arlington Road: Holy crap, the neighbors may be terrorists!

Snakes on a Plane: Snakes on a plane.

My Cousin Vinny: Whipped Italian-American fellow is a better lawyer than he is.

Thelma and Louise: Bored wimin beat the crap outta people and take off.

Spielberg speshul
-----------------
AI: Creating androids is nice, but this can soon turn into a bigass mess!
Jurassic Park: Recreating dinosaurs is nice, but this can soon turn into a bigass mess!
Minority Report: Predicting the future is nice, but this can soon turn into a bigass mess!
Napolean Dynamite: Nerdiness is next to danciness.

Sphere: All you have to sphere is sphere itself.
Eyes Wide Shut:Lust can be unpredictable, meanwhile watch this orgy.
Most of the superhero movies like superman, spiderman, daredevil, aquaman, broccoliman, batgirl, electra, catwoman, roachwoman, crappolagirl: I am so super, but I have super issues to agonize over, mmmok? boohoo! give me $9.5 and I will feel better *sniff*, *sniff*.
Groundhog Day: Groundhog day, groundhog day, groundhog day, groundhog day, groundhog day, groundhog day, groundhog day ...

2008-12-23T16:32:00.001-08:00

Meta, the morality of Haidt

2008-12-08T12:00:00.000-08:00

Turing writes, circa 1950

2008-12-04T15:12:00.000-08:00

Next stop, Wonderland?

"I will stand here for humanity, and though I would make it kind, I would make it true. Let us affront and reprimand the smooth mediocrity and squalid contentment of the times, and hurl in the face of custom and trade and office, the fact which is the upshot of all history, that there is a great responsible Thinker and Actor moving wherever moves a man; that a true man belongs to no other time or place, but is the center of things. Where he is, there is nature.
...
We owe to our first journeys the discovery that place is nothing. At home I dream that at Naples, at Rome, I can be intoxicated with beauty and lose my sadness. I pack my trunk, embrace my friends, embark on the sea and at last wake up in Naples, and there beside me is the stern Fact, and sad self, unrelenting, identical, that I fled from. I seek the Vatican and the palaces. I affect to be intoxicated with sights and suggestions, but I am not intoxicated. My giant goes with me wherever I go."
-- Emerson

2008-11-22T15:43:00.000-08:00

'To die, to sleep ... To sleep, perchance to dream. Ay there's the rub, for in that sleep of death what dreams may come when we have shuffled off this mortal coil, must give us pause...' - Hamlet

- Status quo bias

- A report by the president's council on bioethics: Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness

Excerpt:
"... Yet if there is merit in the suggestion that too long a life, with its end out of sight and mind, might diminish its worth, one might wonder whether we have already gone too far in increasing longevity. If so, one might further suggest that we should, if we could, roll back at least some of the increases made in the average human lifespan over the past century.
These remarks prompt some large questions: Is there an optimal human lifespan and an ideal contour of a human life? If so, does it resemble our historical lifespan (as framed and constrained by natural limits)?* Or does the optimal human lifespan lie in the future, to be achieved by some yet-to-be-developed life-extending technology? Whatever the answers to these intriguing and important questions, nothing in our inquiry ought to suggest that the present average lifespan is itself ideal...”

- A book reco: Flowers for Algernon

- And lastly a rant. Notice how a lot of SF stories and movies tend to be alarmist? There is a new invention which makes humans superhuman, or AI is developed to aid humans, or a new drug is discovered, or a paleontological species is recreated, or humans overcome odds to grow brains to travel across space. In the end, there is always a catch, and things go horribly wrong and threaten extinction, some calamitous catastrophe or at least a few shrieking kids later, a hitherto incompetent but large-hearted doofus saves everyone, or a flaw in the thingamacascafadr-that-is-hitherto-not-discovered-by-super-intelligences-but-the-reader/audience-can-get-in-one-cinematic-revelation brings the adversary to its suspiciously anthropomorphic knees. Sick.

2008-11-21T00:54:00.000-08:00

Two quotes that I came across recently I liked:

"Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself" -- A. H. Weiler

"A good horse runs when it sees even the shadow of a whip" -- The Buddha

2008-11-13T12:07:00.000-08:00

Deep wisdom, good advice, metacognition

Have you had a conversation with someone on a subject you did not quite know much about, or read a write-up on a subject on which you have limited expertise, and subsequently remarked "Now, that is deep". Better even, have you asked someone for advice regarding something you did not know how to handle, and subsequently remarked "That is good advice". I have, and recoiled at the metacognitive gaffe. (Subsequently, the occurrences of my these utterances have diminished.)

(In order to know that the wisdom is deep, your own wisdom of the subject matter must be deep. In order to know that the advice is good, you must have a way to judge good and bad solutions.)

I think perhaps, this is explainable as a matter of terminology:

- When one says "This is deep", one doesn't really mean that one can gauge the depth of the wisdom. One just means that the wisdom is/was sufficiently nontrivial, that one's mind could imagine that the path to it must be hard.

- When one says "This is good advice", one perhaps doesn't really mean that one metacognitively examined the quality of the advice against other solutions and realized it's superiority, but instead means

the solution given meets some desirability criteria (known a priori) that would be common to unknown solutions to the problem at hand.

the solution to the problem makes one feel emotionally good.

Or is this another thing to be expected of the status seeking missiles that are humans? i.e. upon encountering depth, or quality, humans want to signal themselves and others that they possess the metacognitive ability to evaluate it? Or is this just an ack, to make the other person feel better?

2008-11-07T17:58:00.001-08:00

2008-11-02T21:44:00.000-08:00

Intention, Free Will etc.

'When the real demonstration came he had us walk on stage, and he hypnotized us in front of the whole Princeton Graduate College. This time the effect was stronger; I guess I had learned how to become hypnotized. The hypnotist made various demonstrations, having me do things that I couldn't normally do, and at the end he said that after I came out of hypnosis,instead of returning to my seat directly, which was the natural way to go, I would walk all the way around the room and go to my seat from the back. All through the demonstration I was vaguely aware of what was going on, and cooperating with the things the hypnotist said, but this time I decided, "Damn it, enough is enough! I'm gonna go straight to my seat." When it was time to get up and go off the stage, I started to walk straight to my seat. But then an annoying feeling came over me: I felt so uncomfortable that I couldn't continue. I walked all the way around the hall.'
...
'So I found hypnosis to be a very interesting experience. All the time you're saying to yourself, "I could do that, but I won't" -- which is just another way of saying that you can't.'

------- Richard Feynman, "Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman"

'I am a brain, Watson. The rest of me is a mere appendix.'
--------- Sherlock Holmes, "The Adventure of the Mazarin Stone" by A.C. Doyle.

Enter the I of the vortex

2008-10-20T13:40:00.000-07:00

Quick Gun Meran

The update on the WCC match between Kramnik and Anand is that Anand selected what appears to be a brilliant strategy of turning the tables on Kramnik. To counter Kramnik's longstanding "Safety with Black, push with White" strategy, Anand seems to have adopted the "Safety with White, attack with Black" strategy. And so far it has worked brilliantly.

Anand leads the match 3.5 - 1.5 having won 2/3 Black games. With 7 games to come, Kramnik faces a precipitous uphill climb. Kramnik needs to play in an unprecedented manner to have a shot at the title from here on.

Interestingly, Anand has shown that he can ditch his loyal preference for 1. e4, which he has consistently stuck to over a very long, eventful and brilliantly successful career, by choosing to move 1. d4 against a player who is one of the current experts on both sides of the d-pawn opening. Moreover, Anand has energetically entered the Meran lines of the QGD semi-slav while responding to 1. d4, which makes for sharp chess which suits Anand style, in positions he has had a lot of success in the past.

Kramnik has to do something extra-ordinary to stage a comeback, and while this is not unheard of in WCC matches, it promises great chess for the next few days.

2008-10-15T17:32:00.000-07:00

An excellent paper on the economics of moral righteousness: Thinking the unthinkable: sacred values and taboo cognitions

2008-10-03T13:03:00.000-07:00

A classical duel: The aging lightning kid takes on the ice king

The paths of two shooting stars in the chess world will cross in a few days, in an event that will be noted with at best mildly passing curiosity (I am basing this on history for guide) by all but a few geeky woodpushers across the world. This championship match is of historical importance, for it marks the end of an era of controversy in the chess world. Probably the most popularly held view is that the rarefied area at the top of the world of chess is split in the middle, with Vishy Anand wearing the crown handed down from Wilhelm Steinitz from champion to champion, when the previous champion of the bloodline lay it on the line in a tournament style championship held under the auspices of FIDE. FIDE held the championship tournament in 2007 to unify the bloodline title with the FIDE world championship title. Traditionally leaning chess fans feel strongly about the handing over of the bloodline title over a tournament, which they feel doesn't establish the head-to-head superiority of the champion over the challengers. Vladimir Kramnik will be playing Vishy Anand for the unified world championship title in a head-to-head 12 game match.

Vishy Anand: Known for his extremely quick calculations, however in classical games, speed of calculation is usually not of prime importance. Anand's style is sharp but safe and probing. His creative approach does open up vulnerabilities in his camp OTB, but at the same time prods the opponent into areas of tactical possibilities where Anand out calculates his rival. He is known to play the so called "open game" in almost every game of his career with White, by choosing to move 1.e4. This will be a potential weakness for him, since Kramnik is expected to play neutralising lines from the Petroff defence 1...e5, 2.Nf3, Nf6 and so on, which have proven very hard to crack so far. However, Anand does have a more incisive track record with Black than Kramnik, but Kramnik is known to be close to undefeatable with White. Anand's nerves could be a problem for him, especially if he lets Kramnik take the lead early.

Vladimir Kramnik: Known for his deep positional play. Kramnik is known to play for positional long term advantages, especially with White. He is known to seek positions that offer slow gradual improvement, which Kramnik usually exploits to grind down the opponent until he/she pops. Kramnik has been criticized by fans for his extreme passive play with Black, where he firmly places the burden-to-prove-advantage on the player playing White. With Black, he is known to avoid all complicating and risky lines, and is content with entering drawing lines at the earliest opportunity, unless the opponent blunders. This strategy has proven very efficacious for him in all three WC matches he has been part of. His solid playing style and ability to come back from losing the lead make him a formidable match opponent, although his style is not well adapted in winning tournaments where one has to win a lot of games.

The two opponents go back a long way, with Kramnik holding a tiny lead over Anand in head-to-head classical games. I think that this will be a very interesting match, with Kramnik somewhat of a pre-match favourite. I would put it at 55%-45% in favour of Kramnik.

2008-09-18T10:41:00.001-07:00

We are all individuals!

2008-09-16T22:20:00.000-07:00

(I attempt at haiku)

I pause from pithy
prose and my dry doggerel
to write bad haiku
--------

Ages pass it seems
until the one asks you how
you have felt lately
---------

A jaundiced moon beamed
down on old 101
and she rode with me
----------

I watched her recede
and walk away out of sight
the sun was way harsh
-----------

Mid happy chatter
I rise for a quick breath
of isolation
-----------

Thought that burns right through
the fabric of a subject
like a cigarette

2008-09-15T13:53:00.000-07:00

Have hit a dry spell w.r.t. evocative thought. Might take a break from the parables, hyperbole... ellipses too, and stick to some laconic sections for a while.

2008-08-23T18:28:00.000-07:00

Sheep in Scotland, and bullet-biting

"I've burned my own house down, the torch is in my hand.
Now I'll burn down the house of anyone who wants to follow me" -- The Bijak, Kabir

A philosopher-joke runs like this:

An engineer, an experimental physicist, a theoretical physicist, and a philosopher were hiking through the hills of Scotland. Cresting the top of one hill, they see, on top of the next, a black sheep. The engineer says: "What do you know, the sheep in Scotland are black." "Well, *some* of the sheep in Scotland are black," replies the experimental physicist. The theoretical physicist considers this for a moment and says "Well, at least one of the sheep in Scotland is black." "Well," the philosopher responds, "on one side, anyway."

You will notice it is possible to go further in the one-up-man-ship game emphasized in the joke. For instance, a philosopher' (or a pseudo-quantum-collapse-philosopher, if you will) may say "One side of the sheep is black when you look at it".

Let us go exactly opposite to the trend highlighted in the joke in analysing it. What the joke captures is a tendency I often encounter: the tendency to steer clear of that beast called falsifiability. Notice how the 'hierarchical heros' of our joke steer ever so clear of abstraction and universalizing, and by doing so, carefully disentangle themselves from falsifiability.

Notice however, that falsifiability is intimately coupled with hypothesis-building, and by consequence - learning something new, above-and-beyond what is experientially true at this point. A non falsifiable statement is content-free, contains no new information, or doesn't impinge on the real world.

Metaphorically speaking, it behooves us to leave our safe havens of terra firma and step on the rocky boats of falsifiable hypotheses, if we ever intend to discover unknown and exotic worlds.

Bite the bullet. It holds the sweet juice of anagnorisis.

2008-08-17T14:12:00.000-07:00

For those who came in late to the postmodern party..

One common pattern that executes itself repeatedly in human history is the following loop:

Step 1. Individual (small-collection) nonconformism with prevailing philosophies and establishments.
Step 2. A successful nonconformist movement gaining establishment status.
Step 3. A different counter-culture looping back to Step 1.

The transition from Step 1 to Step 2 is curious. This is where large numbers of individuals consider themselves unique in their nonconformism. This is where people are occasionally surprised to learn that there already is an 'ism' in prevalent language for their espoused brand of antiestablishmentarianism.

One such contemporary phenomenon is self-proclaiming (in a sense) definition-defying postmodernism. (Although, I believe that it is now generally considered that we have left the postmodern era behind us, or are in the process of doing so.)

The following are excerpts from Paul Newall's introduction to postmodernism:

" ... we could say that postmodernism is skeptical of theoretical viewpoints that are foundational (as we discussed in our fifth article) or grounded in some way, and critical of theory in general. Sometimes a distinction is made along the following lines:
Affirmative postmodernists: theory needs to be changed, rather than rejected
Skeptical postmodernists: theory should be rejected, or at least subject to severe critique ..."

"... Although we must be careful to over generalization or oversimplification, opposing modern to postmodern we have:
Structure opposed to anarchy
Construction opposed to deconstruction
Theory opposed to anti-theory
Interpretation opposed to hostility toward definite interpretation
Meaning opposed to the play of meaning or a refusal to pin down
Metanarratives opposed to hostility toward narratives
The search for underlying meaning opposed to a suspicion (or certainty) that this is impossible
Progress opposed to a doubt that progress is possible
Order opposed to subversion
Encyclopedic knowledge opposed to a web of understanding ..."

"... Another telling criticism is to note that to be anti-theory is still to have a theory; that is, the theory that we shouldn't have a theory. Rejecting the need for criteria (whatever their purpose) is still a criterion. Is it possible to be as playful as some suggest, not holding beliefs or methodological approaches and instead refusing to define or pin down narratives? How lightly can we hold our ideas before we end up either holding nothing at all or become certain of them without realising it? ..."

"... Are long, complicated words being used as part of a specialist language or because postmodernists have nothing of consequence to say and want to hide this fact behind their rhetoric? Often the answer is a matter of opinion, or of saying that even a difficult writer can sometimes offer a comment clearly enough to raise an eyebrow before plunging back into a thicket of terminology. Since a key assumption of this series is that anything worth saying can be said clearly, it may be that some people are reluctant to wade into postmodernist thinking for fear that their time will be wasted; unless the writer is composing his thoughts merely for the amusement of himself and a few select friends, this is a difficulty that still restricts the impact that postmodern ideas can have. ... "

The following are excerpts from Richard Dawkins' polemic on postmodernism: Postmodernism Disrobed reviewing the book "Intellectual Impostures"

Quoting Medawar: "... Style has become an object of first importance, and what a style it is! For me it has a prancing, high-stepping quality, full of self-importance; elevated indeed, but in the balletic manner, and stopping from time to time in studied attitudes, as if awaiting an outburst of applause. It has had a deplorable influence on the quality of modern thought . . . "

and

"... No doubt there exist thoughts so profound that most of us will not understand the language in which they are expressed. And no doubt there is also language designed to be unintelligible in order to conceal an absence of honest thought. But how are we to tell the difference? What if it really takes an expert eye to detect whether the emperor has clothes? In particular, how shall we know whether the modish French 'philosophy', whose disciples and exponents have all but taken over large sections of American academic life, is genuinely profound or the vacuous rhetoric of mountebanks and charlatans? ..."

The following link leads you to a new, automatically generated "postmodern" article, each time: http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/

The postmodern mara-dragon has slippery and multi-speckled skin of indeterminate colour. It is said to spew flames of rhetoric with a hiss that is said to sound like "Who is to say?".

The postmodern Rainman writes up a self-referenced, anti-structural, high-style null-truth-value (what is that?) interpret-me-if-you-dare write-up and gloats to his brother: "I made a falutin'! ".

2008-08-15T12:41:00.000-07:00

Upon encountering passive and active resistance, and apathy regarding my persistent (- but I will be the first to note, of questionably formal precision -) focus on logic, rationality, limits, formalism: I ponder some more on the relationships of the above to emotions, building of opinions and changing of minds.

It was said that logic, formalism, rationality and evidence are all fine and dandy, but they do not comprise what it takes to influence minds into doing XYZ. It was said that people make up their minds, change them et. al. based on emotions and no strength of logic will get Joe/Jane to do something they wouldn't do if it weren't for another's influence. In other words, an appeal to people's reason is inconsequential. Shouting against the wind. Also, who is to say nonformal, haphazard, inconsistent or whimsical means, methods and frameworks do not contain truth or do not offer equally valid approaches at getting at answers.

There is a lot of truth in the above statements, and they contain little I would disagree with if presented as such. However, I have to state where logic, formalism, demonstration of evidence, appeal to reason etc. do play a role. Perhaps I will present this as a laundry list.

We are minds that do not start out with complete knowledge of everything. In other words, we need to learn to fill in the incompleteness in our knowledge.
We need to exchange information in order to learn.
If it were true that one needs to influence a mind in a write-only (or more write-only than read-write) fashion, then a formal system that uses logic, reasoning to build on established ideas and principles is probably not the most effective instrument.
I am more interested in the "read" part of "read-write" than in the "write" part.
The "read" part of "read-write" is important. This is what enables learning.
For the read part of read-write to be effective, demagoguery is not the right instrument. The below bullet-points on this.
If my mind were to provably advance in knowledge-update, it has to convey information to another mind in clear, transparent ways where the path traversed to labels are visible to the other mind. Elaboration in next bullet.
When a held position and its motivations are transparently exposed to another mind, that is when the other mind can offer checks and guidelines to further knowledge-update to my own mind. By occluding the traversed paths i.e. introducing any non-transparency, I may protect myself from criticism, but I will be stubbing out learning along that unexposed vector.
The above bullet point means that while an argument by emotion, or to emotion, such as appeal to emotion may hold truth value and may convey truth to a mind, this truth value may not be establishable in a framework where the path-transparency is guaranteed. In other words, this truth that may be felt is not provable leading to lack of transparency, leading to lack of utility in further guaranteeable knowledge update.
This is why, while a statement such as "I'll vote for Clinton, because I feel good about her" may hold intrinsic appeal and may be above reproach, and that is how people may decide on their voting, its intercommunicability-value with another mind is low. Lack of transparency means lack of communicability on a commonly establishable basis.
The role of logic, formalism and reasoning is to provide a framework which if accepted by minds engaging in answer-seeking, lead to establishable ideas the trails to which remain transparent, and further provide transparent trails to other ideas following the same system that led to the labeling of intermediate nodes.
This, in my opinion is the value of reasoning and frameworks. It is "establishability" of meaning that can be held common across minds.

2008-07-28T12:25:00.000-07:00

Daniel Dennett: The self as a center of narrative gravity

2008-07-24T14:14:00.000-07:00

Autopiloting, Bonsai minds and a Yodaism

"Boy: Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead only try to realize the truth.
Neo: What truth?
Boy: There is no spoon.
Neo: There is no spoon? "

We like the comfort of our beliefs and positions. They are our old friends. We have spent a lot of time coochi-cooing with them, ironing out every annoying crease of disformity. Using the chisel of cognitive dissonance, we have sculpted our mind for maximum fit with the undulations of our container beliefs, like a bonsai plant.

No wonder then, new beliefs and new ways of thought appear unpleasant, and rightly so, need to be extensively studied and checked for contaminants under the torchlight of logic, before sweet, happy uptake. Yet, like John Lennon said "Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans", we do not step outside life, the universe* and everything, while we happily evaluate options.

We continue to make choices, execute decisions based on our current philosophies - considered, happened upon, underevaluated et. al.- the only thing common to them is we have grown comfortable to them - and reap the benefits/pay the price for the consequences.

Waiting to commit to a (any) school of thought is in consequence, an endorsement of our subscribed (by default) school of thought (which may not have been subjected to the same rigour to which the new school is subjected). (This is different from the argument by verbal skullduggery that starts with "Atheism is also a religion because it is the belief in non-existence of ..." and so on.) There is safety in (default) loyalty to our beloved beliefs, but this safety comes at a price.

The fence is illusory. Do or not do. There is no fence.

* Archimedes said "Give me a place to stand and I shall move the earth". Change "earth" to "universe", and 'Houston, we have a problem!'

2008-07-19T23:15:00.000-07:00

Prof. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi on flow

2008-07-19T17:35:00.000-07:00

the meditation on mara

mara is the omega to the alpha. Agent Smith to Neo. Mr. Nobody the busybody. The serpent seducing you to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The tail of the Ouroboros that has to be consumed to complete the circle of life.

mara is always at hand when you need him and when you don't. He has handy easy-to-understand low negentropic answers to every question you have thought of, and to those you haven't yet thought of.

He speaks of random walks in the dance of rationality. Of destinations the bridges to where have long been burnt.

Your refusal to commune with him is what he wants. Or maybe not. Call him in for a tete-e-tete and ask Ananda to make some tea.

2008-07-18T01:31:00.000-07:00

Jessica L. Lakin, Tanya L. Chartrand: Need for inclusion with in-groups, nonverbal behaviour, reaction to exclusion, nonconscious mimicry

"Exclusion from social groups has negative emotional, psychological, and behavioral consequences. Yet it also seems important to explore the potential positive consequences; perhaps after exclusion, individuals engage in behaviors that help them affiliate with new people or re-establish themselves in the excluding group. The research described here demonstrates an affiliative behavior that occurs after exclusion – nonconscious behavioral mimicry."

2008-07-17T15:03:00.001-07:00

Some dogs do not want to have their day: Learned helplessness

2008-07-13T17:55:00.000-07:00

this post has no title - nonduality: muness: superficiality in fiction

"In The Simpsons episode Itchy and Scratchy Land during a robot attack Lisa attempts to defeat the robots with the liar paradox only to find they have already been introduced to it unlike Homer who go crazy trying to figure it out."

The writers of The Simpsons imagined a Homerian brain going crazy upon encountering the liar paradox. However this does not demonstrate to me the dumbness of the H-brain. Unsmartness, perhaps. By going loopy over the paradox, Homer's mind redeems itself quite well imo and demonstrates its nondumbness. A truly dumb H-brain (Homer*) may (I am speculating here) not see the paradox at all; in any case, may not consider it even slightly noteworthy. I would have Homer* go looking for donuts or something, upon encountering the paradox.

2008-07-07T19:53:00.000-07:00

One instance of the failure to self-diagnose the fallacy of composition that I have come across in a real conversation is this: Person X that I am conversing with says "Anything you observe in the universe has a cause/has something else outside of it/there was a time before which the thing existed. There has to be a cause for the universe/there is something else outside of it/there was a time before which the universe existed." This fallacy is very common, but this example is one of the classic ones.

Check out these two portentous videos: Reassembling modular robot, Replicating robot

2008-07-05T20:32:00.000-07:00

Origins of bungee jumping (I haven't done any research on any competing claims.)

2008-07-02T01:17:00.000-07:00

A paper on effective rationality

2008-07-01T21:51:00.000-07:00

Prof. Axelrod on the evolution of cooperation

2008-06-25T15:47:00.000-07:00

Right afterwards, when the Buddha had retired for the night, Govinda turned to Siddhartha and spoke eagerly: "Siddhartha, it is not my place to scold you. We have both heard the exalted one, we have both perceived the teachings. Govinda has heard the teachings, he has taken refuge in it. But you, my honoured friend, don't you also want to walk the path of salvation? Would you want to hesitate, do you want to wait any longer?" #

“Men nearly always follow the tracks made by others and proceed in their affairs by imitation.” -- Machiavelli

“When people are free to do as they please, they usually imitate each other. ... A society which gives unlimited freedom to the individual, more often than not attains a disconcerting sameness.” -- Eric Hoffer

Informational conformity
Sensation transference

Siddhartha awakened as if he had been asleep, when he heard Govinda's words. For a long tome, he looked into Govinda's face. Then he spoke quietly, in a voice without mockery: "Govinda, my friend, now you have taken this step, now you have chosen this path. Always, oh Govinda, you've been my friend, you've always walked one step behind me. Often I have thought: Won't Govinda for once also take a step by himself,without me, out of his own soul? Behold, now you've turned into a man and are choosing your path for yourself. I wish that you would go it upto its end, oh my friend, that you shall find salvation!" #

#Siddhartha, Chapter 3

2008-06-20T16:59:00.000-07:00

Taylor and Brown defend their position that

"
...self-aggrandizing self-perceptions, an illusion of control, and unrealistic optimism are widespread in normal human thought ... ... maintain that these "illusions" foster the criteria normally associated with mental health...
"

and conclude that

"
...work on illusions and mental health has gone beyond the simple questions of "Do illusions exist and are they associated with mental health?" The questions we should be asking now are, "When are positive illusions most in evidence?", "Do they ever compromise mental health, and if so, when?", "Are there conditions when they damp down or disappear altogether?", and "Do such conditions address the paradox of how people can hold positive illusions about themselves, their world, and their future while still coping successfully with an environment that would seem to demand accurate appreciation of its feedback?" On these questions, recent research suggests that progress is being made.
"

Interesting questions all; I look forward to unearthing more findings.

2008-06-20T12:23:00.000-07:00

Rationality, not!

[This is a follow up to an earlier post, where I said I was looking for a more comprehensive discussion regarding rationality. Conversation at that point focused on the relevance to "real life" of rationality research, as well as applicability, generality and conclusivity of research findings. This review addresses these subjects.]

Extract:

"SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Various arguments have been made disputing the accumulation of findings that show people systematically violating fundamental normative principles of reasoning, judgment, and decision. This review suggests that the violations cannot be dismissed as either random or trivial, nor can they be attributed to experimenters’ misinterpretation of answers that are actually appropriate to alternative, valid interpretations of the problems. The systematic and well-documented findings cannot be attributed to simple computational limitations, nor does it appear that inappropriate types of questions are being asked or inappropriate norms applied. The compelling nature of the rationality critique is having an ever greater impact on work in neighboring disciplines, most notably in the increasing popularity of behavioral economics (Rabin 1998, Sunstein 2000, Thaler 1992, 1993). It may eventually help alter the social sciences’ view of the human agent. "

2008-06-18T13:18:00.000-07:00

Prof. Daniel Dennett on Darwin's Dangerous Idea: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

2008-06-08T13:59:00.000-07:00

Intellectual Integrity and Social Bonding

We live in a society that values and prioritises social bonding, while providing lip service to intellectualism (and often times deploring it).

Seemingly intellectual questions are asked and tackled in social settings. However, the main purpose of such transactions appears to be a collective indulgence in the emotions evoked by probing areas of the brain (mind) *, analogous to the communal eating of a chocolate cake. Favoured questions are of the kind "What is true (sic**) love?", which offer maximum juice from squeezing the touchy-feely centres of a mind. The name of the game is to play with the cognitive tools that are at our disposal to engage in a joyful (not necessarily pleasurable) wallowing in the titillations*** provoked by the analysis, and there is no actual effort to get at an answer. For example, if a deviant offers a fundamental neuroscientific attempt to honestly answer the above question, he/she is cast as a killjoy (- which demonstrates the game-nature of the transaction.)

This norm leads to positive reinforcement of social bonding at the cost of intellectual integrity ****. People routinely* demonstrate tendencies to form social bonds. It doesn't take much (little things like shared gossip, sense of humour, fashion-sense, common joke-targets, willingness to participate in fake discussions such as the above and so on) to establish and sustain a social bond. Intellectual support structures are a lot rarer to come by*****.

Intellectual integrity consists in sticking your neck out, saying something that you are honestly attempting to explore and understand to your best capability. It consists in saying things which are extremely likely to be misconstrued, and while knowing this factoid as well. It consists in saying things that reflect your best expression of your current understanding, which may be exposed as untrue upon further deliberation and fact-seeking (aka google-searching). It consists in saying unpopular things that you hold true, and in losing the popularity contest of social bonding.

Not saying something meaningful - for it cannot be backed up by a mountain of data, or maybe disproved later, or it takes away social brownie points, or it is ("only") a (meaningful) generalization - is losing perspective of this.

* Generalizations are not evil. Generalizations are intended to convey information, and to encourage thinking along a direction. It is valueless to point out that generalizations have exceptions.

** "the real world", "true happiness", "true friendship" -- these and scores of similar loosely used terms (very often, incorrectly*) assume i. the existence of their opposites, and ii. your compliance in accepting point i.

*** Use of written language is another example. Some writers get so lost in their wallowing in the ornamental possibilities that a language offers, that they pay a lot of attention to asking high-flying questions and setting up beautiful sounding phraseology and conundrums, and lose track of meanings that need to be conveyed. This is equivalent to getting charmed by the gift-wrapper, and never getting to the (presumably more valuable) present within.

**** Social bonding and intellectual integrity are not inherently at odds. It is the transactions we set up, and the attitudes we adopt that make it appear that way.

***** Intellectual support when offered is rarely recognized, is spurned, viewed as threatening, evangelical, hubristic, or offered for ulterior purposes such as status-building.

2008-06-03T17:21:00.000-07:00

Notes on signaling theory

Extracts:

Signaling status through the display of time-wasting pastimes is an interesting example that was raised by Veblen. He noted that displaying leisure is an important signal of status, of membership in the class of those who need not toil endlessly at some income-producing enterprise. Yet an abundance of leisure cannot be directly observed, for not very many people will watch you do nothing, day after day, year after year. Veblen proposed that the time-consuming acquisition of impractical accomplishments was a way of displaying leisure, and he listed among such accomplishments the ability to speak a dead language, knowledge of proper spelling, the occult sciences, and fashion and the breeding of fancy dogs (Veblen 1899). Someone with less financial resources would need to use much of their time in gainful employment; only someone with the leisure that comes with wealth would be able to display such accomplishments.

...

People are ingenious, and for most signals, there will be ways that someone, somehow, will find a way to fake a seemingly unfakeable signal. Unlike tigers, we can always find a way to stand on a box to seem taller, to bleach our hair to be blonder, to borrow an impressive car.

...

A winter tan is a costly signal of wealth and leisure: it is a signal that one has bountiful time and money, enough to vacation somewhere warm, sunny and far away. For a while, it was a fairly reliable signal. Then tanning parlors came along, and people with far less time and money could sport a winter tan4. Humans are inventors, and inventing cheaper and easier ways to signal a desirable quality – often in the absence of that quality – is a driving force behind much creative design.

See also this related post by Wray Herbert.

2008-06-02T10:11:00.000-07:00

- Politics and the English Language - George Orwell.
Using ready made terms and phrases short-circuits thinking.

- On reclaiming objective truth - Paul A. Wagner.
Sensitivity, aesthetics, presentation, avoiding conflict, (... and happiness of believing an objective untruth) are less important than the pursuit of truth.

2008-05-28T19:42:00.000-07:00

Whatchamacallit this thingamajiggy?: a psychobabble kōan

The teacher told Psinga: "When you tell Whatsisface 'A lot of Thingamajiggies are Whatchamacallits', Whatsisface resists, and says 'How do you know? Have you asked a lot of Thingamajiggies? Are you saying this because you are yourself a Whatchamacallit?'. Whatsisface doesn't want to pause to understand that:
i. Whatever else Whatsisface considers a Thingamajiggy to be, is also a type of Whatchamacallit.
ii. You may have traversed an inferential distance and arrived at the conclusion 'A lot of Thingamajiggies are Whatchamacallits', and may not be starting with the assumption that 'A lot of Thingamajiggies are Whatchamacallits.'"

Psinga instinctively started to resist, but suddenly stopped short, for he understood. He said "I must take care not to be like Whatsisface." And he took his first step across the inferential bridge.

2008-05-22T15:05:00.001-07:00

The pleasure of finding things out

2008-05-19T13:08:00.000-07:00

Overanalyze this!

[Jail. Inmate Bulldog walks up to inmate Newbie. Bulldog is a hulk of a man, with false teeth, gruff baritone voice; his sunburnt skin is covered with swathes of scars and tattoos. A Hulk Hogan type towering mass of testosterone. Newbie is an excuse for a man, deathly pale, speaks in squeaks and whimpers; spectacles too heavy for his face. Napolean Dynamite type. They've been forced to introduce themselves to each other by the warden.]

Newbie: Wh-wh-what you in for, sir?

Bulldog: Terrorism, genocide, baby-killing, drug-peddling, running over 5 wives for insurance money, producing chemical weapons in my bathroom...

Newbie: I..I..

Bulldog: ..and I kicked a 3 legged puppy on the way here. What did you do, you little *$%#$?

Newbie: I.. (clears throat) computed the value of pi to the 1349193136497th decimal place..

Bulldog: So? that's not a crime, you ^$#% $%%!

Newbie: ..and then.. (there is lightning and thunder, amidst sudden pitch darkness as Newbie's voice deepens to an inhuman bass. Mephistophelian music is heard) ..I - computed - the - 1349193136498th - decimal - place!

Bulldog: (shrieks incredulously) Aayiiiiiiiie! No, you didn't!

Newbie: (solemnly) Yes, I did.

Bulldog: (Horrified) You heartless, vile, subhuman cretin! (Retreats to the corner, lies down, to assume fetal position and cower).

What the hell is overanalysis and what is so evil about it?

2008-05-15T17:05:00.000-07:00

Human Universals per Donald Brown

2008-05-12T12:51:00.000-07:00

HazaaroN KHwahishaiN ‘eisee ke har KHwahish pe dam nikle

HazaaroN KHwahishaiN ‘eisee ke har KHwahish pe dam nikle
bohot nikle mere armaaN lekin fir bhee kam nikle
nikalna KHuld se aadam ka sunte aayaiN haiN lekin
bohot be_aabru hokar tere kooche se ham nikle
magar likhwaaye koee usko KHat, to hamse likhawaaye
huee subah aur ghar se kaan par rakhkar qalam nikle
mohabbat meiN naheeN hai farq jeene aur marne kaa
usee ko dekh kar jeete haiN jis kaafir pe dam nikle
KHuda ke waaste parda na kaabe se uThaa zaalim
kaheeN ‘eisa na ho yaaN bhee wohee kaafir sanam nikle
kahaaN maiKHaane ka darwaaza ‘GHalib’ aur kahaaN waaiz
par itana jaante haiN kal wo jaata tha ke ham nikle

-- Mirza Ghalib (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9)

Swanand Kirkire's Bawra Mann from the movie Hazaaron khwahishen aisi.

bawra mann dekhne chala ek sapna,
bawra mann dekhne chala ek sapna...

bawre se mann ki dekho bawri hain baatein,
bawre se mann ki dekho bawri hain baatein,
bawri si dharkanein hain, bawri hain saasein,
bawri si karwaton se nindiya door bhage,
bawre se nain chahe bawre jharokhon se, bawre nazaaron ko takna.

bawra mann dekhne chala ek sapna,
bawra mann dekhne chala ek sapna...

bawre se iss jahan mein bawara ek saath ho,
iss sayani bheed mein bas haathon mein tera haath ho,
bawri si dhun ho koi, bawra ek raag ho,
bawre se pair chahe, bawre taranon pein,bawre se bol pe thirakna.

bawra mann dekhne chala ek sapna,
bawra mann dekhne chala ek sapna...

bawra sa ho andhera, bawri khamoshiyan,
bawra sa ho andhera, bawri khamoshiyan,
thartharati louh maddham, bawri madhoshiyan,
bawra ek ghoongta chahe, haule haule mooh batae,
bawra ek ghoongta chahe, haule haule din batae, bawre se mukhre se sarakna.

bawra man dekhne chala ek sapna,
bawra man dekhne chala ek sapna...

2008-05-07T17:34:00.000-07:00

The shortcomings of decision by majority: An economics-professor's take.

2008-05-05T17:28:00.000-07:00

Check out this insightful (imo) take on how behavioral economics can address normative questions. It argues against assumptions of people as hyper-rationalistic agents as bases for economic models.

I suspect this tendency is true at a layman level as well. On one hand (normal) people understand and rationalize what is considered (- and all too common in conversations -) "human nature", but when posed normative questions, people apply rationalistic principles. I think this also contains a pointer to how people's responses to hypothetical scenarios from questionnaires do not necessarily represent their behaviour when actually faced with said situations. Example: A lack of sales of goods for which people indicated demand in market surveys.

(Also, this paper made me speculate a bit on how hypnosis works.)

2008-05-02T15:59:00.000-07:00

How people consume strength & reliability of evidence: application to investing

2008-04-17T15:02:00.000-07:00

Derren Brown's cold reading

Cold reading : Confirmation bias : Selective validation

It seems that quite a few people find the following argument logically invalid (i.e. they refuse that statement 3 follows from statements 1 & 2), because they do not distinguish their beliefs regarding true-false values of statements from their logical validity within a context.

* If it rains I will get wet.
* If I have my umbrella I won't get wet.
-> Therefore, if I have my umbrella it won't rain.

2008-04-15T01:50:00.000-07:00

Yes,but-ism and Aha!-addictedness

"All I Really Need To Know I Learned In Kindergarten" is the sensational title of a book of essays. I haven't read it, and this post is not about that. The more common variant of this is more like "All I Really Need To Know I Learned By Age 15". In fact, most widespread is an implicit position - "All I Really Need To Know I Learned By Yesterday".

Yes,but-ism is one of the mechanisms through which we cling to yesterday's beliefs. A tendency to a habitual "Yes, but ..." reaction as the first line of defence should set off alarm bells in a watchful mind, for potential belief-updates are being summarily blocked. Assuming that the Yes,but-ist is not bigoted, under what conditions then is he/she going to update his/her beliefs? I think that some Yes,but-ists wait for "Aha!" moments to update their beliefs of yesterday.

I first came across the Aha! terminology several years ago when I was reading about Gestalt therapy. I reproduce here an extract from Baker-Sennett & Ceci(1996)/Abstract:

"The most basic premise of Gestalt psychology suggests that the task of human perception and thinking involves the organization and recognition of patterns in the environment (see Koffka, 1935; Kohler, 1947; Wertheimer, 1959 and reviews by Epstein, 1988; Ohlsson, 1984a; 1984b). Kohler, Wertheimer, and others argued that at some point while searching for a solution, the problem is spontaneously restructured, a pattern comes in to perspective, and the problem is solved. Upon arriving at a problem solution, the solver experiences an immediate feeling of correctness otherwise known as an "AHA!" experience."

The story of the discovery of the Archimedes' principle, and Kekule's inspiration for the structure of benzene come to mind as outstanding examples. But it is a tall order to fundamentally expect Aha! moments to trigger belief-updates. Registration of something as profound vs. commonplace is actually a trait of the labeler's mind, not of the phenomenon being studied. Just to cite one example, what Tesla presumably considered profound and important enough to dedicate his life to pursue, are now a few "ho-hum", "banal" chapters in an engineering textbook, presumably not possessing the potential to inspire an Aha! experience for many Yes, but-ists.

Aha! moments are few and far between, and furthermore are functions of the Yes,but-ists' minds rather than the subject matter. (On top of that, people tend to ascribe low Aha!-potential to a phenomenon - even a complicated one - that has already been explained, even if they don't understand the explanation, and regardless of if the original explanation-quest happened through historical, momentous Aha! moments.) The entirety of painstakingly accumulated collective knowledge on the other hand is out of our bounds owing to its sheer overwhelming vastness; even if we were to constantly strive to update our beliefs of yesterday through proactive bromidic means - let alone wait for the luxury of Aha! moments.

2008-04-09T15:40:00.000-07:00

Death and literature, religion/spirituality

Death is a powerful device employed in literature to create lasting impact on readers' minds.

The human mind is not especially given to rational reasoning, but is wont to employ heuristics of association that practically lead to local near-maxima for goals important to the human organism, viz. happiness, security and so on, but are hence subject to biases. For example, the scarcity->value association is heuristically employed to sometimes conclude the wrong implication. For instance, people may
- value hard-earned wealth over bequeathed wealth.
- not think highly of a hypothetical futuristic pill which when swallowed provides all the health benefits of exercise.
Another example - people may use "short-cuts" of associativity by making choices that are based on a different criterion than the one immediately applicable to the issue on hand. For instance, people may
- use "likability" or "family values" as important criteria to elect a president.
Advertisers and politicians are aware of these associations and use them to their advantage. Thus, the attractively clad supermodel next to a sports car that needs to be sold, and campaigners offering voters rides to poll booths (illegal in a lot of democratic establishments).

Fascination with the mystery and awe of death, as well as its finality makes it an especially effective instrument to lend gravity to a literary idea. An eager mind may be induced to conclude that a cause that needs to be paid for with death must be an overarchingly important one, since it exacts the ultimate price. Morbid plot lines stimulate zones of fascination and mystery in the mind increasing the appeal of the subject-matter. Killing a character after painstakingly developing him/her makes the story more compelling by evoking such associative tendencies of the reader's mind. Hence for instance the larger lasting impact of Shakespeare's tragedies over his comedies.

Most religious and spiritual literature concern themselves with ideas of death such as "embracing death", afterlife, reincarnation, salvation/nirvana as an escape from birth and death, the soul and its immortality, hell/heaven, eternity and so on. Hypotheses regarding death play a major role in the memetic survival quality and longevity of religious/spiritual credos. There are some who have explored this relationship. For example, consider this psychological experiment referred to by Wray Herbert, and see Umberto Eco's philosophical take on another related topic.

2008-04-07T14:02:00.000-07:00

Der Erlkönig, Goethe, Art Song, Schubert

Wer reitet so spät durch Nacht und Wind?
Es ist der Vater mit seinem Kind.
Er hat den Knaben wohl in dem Arm,
Er faßt ihn sicher, er hält ihn warm.

"Mein Sohn, was birgst du so bang dein Gesicht?"
"Siehst, Vater, du den Erlkönig nicht?"
Den Erlenkönig mit Kron und Schweif?"
"Mein Sohn, es ist ein Nebelstreif."

"Du liebes Kind, komm, geh mit mir!
Gar schöne Spiele spiel ich mit dir;
Manch bunte Blumen sind an dem Strand,
Meine Mutter hat manch gülden Gewand."

"Mein Vater, mein Vater, und hörest du nicht,
Was Erlenkönig mir leise verspricht?"
"Sei ruhig, bleibe ruhig, mein Kind;
In dürren Blättern säuselt der Wind."

"Willst, feiner Knabe, du mit mir gehn?
Meine Töchter sollen dich warten schön;
Meine Töchter führen den nächtlichen
Reihn Und wiegen und tanzen und singen dich ein."

"Mein Vater, mein Vater, und siehst du nicht dort
Erlkönigs Töchter am düstern Ort?"
"Mein Sohn, mein Sohn, ich seh' es genau:
Es scheinen die alten Weiden so grau."

"Ich lieb' dich, mich reizt deine schöne Gestalt;
Und bist du nicht willig, so brauch ich Gewalt."
"Mein Vater, mein Vater, jetzt faßt er mich an!
Erlkönig hat mir ein Leids getan!"

Dem Vater grauset's, er reitet geschwind,
Er hält in den Armen das ächzende Kind,
Erreicht den Hof mit Mühe und Not -
In seinen Armen, das Kind war tot.

[Narrator
Who rides so late through the night and the wind?
It is the father with his child.
He holds the boy in his arm,
grasps him securely, keeps him warm.

Father
"My son, why do you hide your face so anxiously?"

Son
"Father, do you not see the Elf-King?
The Elf-King with his crown and train?"

Father
"My son, it is only a streak of mist."

Elf King
"Darling child, come away with me!
I will play fine games with you.
Many gay flowers grow by the shore:
my mother has many golden robes."

Son
"Father, father, do you not hear
what the Elf-King softly promises me?

Father
"Be calm, dear child, be calm--
The wind is rustling in the dry leaves."

Elf King
"You beautiful boy, will you come with me?
My daughters will wait upon you.
My daughters will lead the nightly round,
they will rock you, dance to you, sing you to sleep."

Son
"Father, father, do you not see
the Elf-King's daughters there, in that dark place?"

Father
My son, my son, I see it clearly:
it is the grey gleam of the old willow-trees."

Elf King
"I love you, your beauty allures me,
and if you do not come willingly, I shall use force."

Son
"Father, father, now he is seizing me!
The Elf-King has hurt me!"—

Narrator
Fear grips the father, he rides swiftly,
holding the moaning child in his arms;
with effort and toil he reaches the house--
the child in his arms was dead.]

(..don't know the translator)

Der Erlkönig

2008-04-03T20:53:00.000-07:00

Fields of possibility

You have probably encountered the new-age-ish refrain "Anything is possible" especially in the context of human endeavours. I have. In the past, my first reaction has been to counter it. I also note that by sufficiently redefining the meanings of the words 'anything' (especially), 'possible', and 'is', I suppose a vague justification of the sentence is possible. The more vaguely redefined the terms need to be, the more the degree of untruth of such statements.

But ponder the 'how' of it, rather than its truth-value. That is, what is it that makes something possible? Consider a couple of specific instances of possibilities for humans, and the theory of evolution proffers an explanation. It is possible to up our capacity to run several miles, for our ancestors have passed on possibilities of augmenting (through training) lung capacities, strengthening leg muscles and so on that aid in running, - such abilities naturally selected for their hunter ways. Our evolutionary ancestors braved the cold climes leading to selections that allow us to put on layers of fat for training to swim in very cold climates. Spatial visualization possibilities selected to survive in prehistoric jungles make it possible to "intuitively" understand classical mechanics, a theory built on physical collisions of bodies of sizes comparable to those of objects encountered in the everyday world.

The inability to visualize a 4th dimension (or for that matter a 5th, 6th, 7th etc. dimension for string theory) is explained by the absence of positive evolutionary selection pressures exerted for that to come about, since an intuition for a 4th dimension does not improve survival possibilities of said ancestors. Similarly, not being able to develop an "intuition" for quantum entanglement is understandable considering the scales at which QM operates is without value for surviving in a "life-sized" world. Feynman said “I firmly believe if you cannot explain a principle of physics in common language and terms, then you probably do not fully grasp the principle in the first place.” Unfortunately, while the value of this dictum is self-evident, it applies in most but not all cases.

Consider now and compare a novice chess player NN, and a grandmaster GM. NN approaches the game as an area where he/she can eagerly demonstrate his/her proficiency in wild gambits, spectacular sacrifices and tactical melees. GM however, understands that the elegantly simple rules of chess set up complex fields of positional, strategic possibilities which allows the harmonious delicate dances of pieces on the board. NN, consumed by his/her myopia, does not recognize the source of the power he/she professes to possess. GM however, has understood that true mastery is an unraveling of the possibilities allowed by the rules of the game.

The game is paradoxically smaller than NN and yet larger than GM. A quote comes to mind - I am sure I paraphrase, please point me to the original if you are aware of it - "The apprentice laments 'My art has failed me', while the master says 'I have failed my art'".

2008-04-01T16:38:00.000-07:00

The bias blind spot

Pronin, E., Lin, D. Y., & Ross, L. (2002). The bias blind spot: Perceptions of bias in self versus others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 369-381.

2008-02-24T17:16:00.000-08:00

Why write?

George Mallory is famously supposed to have responded "Because it is there" when asked "Why climb Everest?". More recently some have criticized this as the essential colonial impulse to conquer and tame anything that appears enigmatic, challenging or out of reach. The question is at least as intriguing as the answer. Recently, I ask myself the question "Why write?". This question belongs among a generic class of questions such as "Why run?", "Why learn a new dance?", "Why learn to ski?", "Why live?" or "Why do anything at all?". This classification reminds me of the concept of NP-completeness in complexity theory.

I attempt an allegorical answer. Suppose you have blue litmus, and a solution. You can either let the litmus stay blue, or you can attempt to learn something about the solution, i.e. its possible acidity. But not both. You already know that the litmus is blue, but when you risk the changing of its colour, that is when you learn something about the nature of something. Of course, you'll astutely observe that this raises the question "Why learn something about something?", and we are back in the realm of our above basket of questions.

Pegging as an impediment to learning.

Pegging, the way I use it here, is the active endeavour of the mind to hold on to old patterns and experiences while attempting to learn something new, be it an activity such as skiing, or a language such as Spanish. It is the neurotic drive to relate what we learn to something we already know - this manifests in "trying not to go down too fast" while attempting skiing ("too fast" is relative to our earlier experiences of walking/running etc.), and trying to discover parallels and similarities with English usages while attempting to pick up a new Spanish construct. This inner neurotic struggle continues as we try to further peg what we have already learnt in a field, and resist learning anything that violates a pre-established "rule" which represents our current state of knowledge. Thus, we are doomed to progress in a ladder-rung like climbing manner, where every bout of learning must be neurotically resisted, and then followed by pegging to establish patterns that can oppose further learning. The other option of choosing ungroundedness may offer opportunities for uncontrolled learning, but one runs the risk of skiing off the precipice of sanity.

Contrarianism during discussions.

Contrarianism is the proclivity to oppose a mainstream or prevalent idea. To swim against the current. For some, this comes naturally, or habitually. Habitual contrarians love argumentation, and hence like to take a position of maximum contrariness in a debate, are anti-establishment (rebellious), like the under-dog over the top-dog and so on. They attack stereotypes, and preferentially oppose qualitative assertions. Regarding the former, - almost anything nontrivial that is ever said to convey meaning is a generalization i.e. a stereotype. In fact, considering every stereotype evil is itself a generalization performed by such a contrarian. (This is a bit more meaningful and less self-serving than the speciously clever 'The statement "Every rule has an exception" being a rule, must have an exception as well'.)

2008-02-21T12:40:00.000-08:00

Two samples of top chess players suffering the pain and helplessness following blunders:

http://webcast.chessclub.com/Linares08/GOTD/Macauley.html (When blunder strikes)
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4263 (Final phase of the game Kramnik-Mamedyarov)

2008-02-21T11:51:00.000-08:00

Feynman on hallucinations:

"... the imagination that things are real does not represent true reality. If you see golden globes, or something, several times, and they talk to you during your hallucination and tell you they are another intelligence, it doesn't mean they are another intelligence; it just means that you have had this particular hallucination. So here I had this tremendous feeling of discovering how memories are stored, and it is surprising that it took forty-five minutes before I realized the error that I had been trying to explain to everyone else."

2008-02-20T19:59:00.000-08:00

the void

The void is indescribable through language. An attempt to describe it defeats the purpose, for it subtracts from it's meaning, or presents a schism, categorization of some sort where there isn't any, or falls short by encapsulating a part of it.

"We constantly seek to find, in the Quality event, analogues to our previous experiences. If we didn’t we’d be unable to act. We build up our language in terms of these analogues. We build up our whole culture in terms of these analogues." - Pirsig

"Whenever you parry, hit, spring, strike or touch the enemy's cutting sword, you must cut the enemy in the same movement. It is essential to attain this. If you think only of hitting, springing, striking or touching the enemy, you will not be able actually to cut him. " - Miyamoto Musashi

"We look at it, and we do not see it, and we name it "the Equable" We listen to it, and we do not hear it, and we name it "the Inaudible." We try to grasp it, and do not get hold of it, and we name it "the Subtle." With these three qualities, it cannot be made the subject of description" - Lao Tzu

2008-02-13T22:15:00.000-08:00

In spin class

The spin class is nearing the end. The metronomic beat that pervades the space in the room is starting to sound hypnotic. It conjures in my mind visions of congolese dancers and their sublime movements to the drum. The pulsation in the body seems to resonate with the beat, sometimes the sound of the heart is apparently akin to the sound of goodbye.

The tightness in the lungs annoys like an unmarinated idea, and it is getting very hard to keep with the beat. The mind wanders with abandon, as is its wont. It is now wondering about the numerous minefields that one has to watch for and carefully circumvent in order to arrive at disillusioned understandings of even relatively simple concepts.

Her voice punctuates my respite from reality. "For the next 30 seconds", she says, "I want you to go all out. Harder than the hardest you guys have ever pushed". I will be lying if I say I am out of energy, but I can feel the exothermic burn in the hamstring tissues.

The beat is now heavily syncopated. I feel like I am about to witness the opening of a gate to a sanctum sanctorum.
The song has reached a booming crescendo.

"...Shivaya shivashankaraya..
Shashishekaraya..
Parameshwaraya..
Namoh namaha..."

The congolese dancers collectively exult in ritualistic frenzy..

2008-02-13T11:46:00.000-08:00

Asch's conformity experiment

2008-02-03T21:44:00.000-08:00

Buddhi-yukto jahatiha ubhe sukrta-duskrte
tasmad yogaya yujyasva yogah karmasu kausalam
The Bhagavadgita 2:50-51

Yoga is skill in action. It is the act of yoking to reality, an active engagement to the perception of reality. I have come across several variants of this precept, sometimes in surprising places and sources that are unlikely to have exposure to the motivation for these verses. The skilled practioner of a craft is actively engaging in a gauging or reading of a facet of reality, and in doing so has a brief albeit unadulterated perception of his/her relationship with his/her immediate reality. This state may be described as zen by the mahayana buddhists, dhyana in hinduism, or as being in the zone by an athlete.

2007-11-15T13:19:00.000-08:00

The cobwebs of my mind need dusting. Meanwhile I came across this old interview of Kramnik after his WC match with Leko. There is enough traffic in chess sites with armchair amateurs easily trashing Kramnik's style. In fact, enough to re-position opinions in our minds. However, I like the way Kramnik dealt with exactly this in this interview, and I have grown to appreciate his perspective. There is no mincing words here. I think this is a man that knows his mind.

http://www.kramnik.com/eng/interviews/getinterview.aspx?id=50

2007-09-05T20:37:00.000-07:00

"All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us. " - Gandalf

We go to the gym. We work out. We don't work out. We complain about not working out. We eat. We don't, and starve for no reason. We talk about eating good food. We talk about eating bad food. We complain about poor service in restaurants.

We prepare for the future. We are impetuous. We are selfish. We aim to please others. We think nobody notices our flagrantly whimsical behaviour.

We say grandiose things. We ask profound questions. We ask inane questions. We claim to speak for humanity. For women. For people of our kind. For people of the other kind. We are all supposed to have commonalities that connect us like threaded beads on a lace. We are all supposed to be different and unique.

We define ourselves. These are the movies we like. This is the music we listen to. We are financially responsible for our dads told us that's a sign of character. Character is important, now. We carry the burden of our past on our shoulders. We mother and smother our friends. We are confident, and the Red Sea parts for us.

We spray perfumes on ourselves. We have our fingers on the pulse of the zeitgeist of fashion.

We are entitled to several things. Dignity. Love. Happiness. Universal brotherhood. That sort of stuff. Our pet peeves. We are to be treated with respect. These are important things. We get misty eyed over these ideas. We are smart. We are entitled to position and status. We are poor. We are entitled to social welfare. We are well read. We are entitled to a finer level of awareness. We are inexperienced. The universe owes us experience.

Things don't work out for us. The world owes us one. Things do work out. We deserve that. We form communities. The world owes us that of course. We are entitled to get invited everywhere. Everyone is. We are someone. Hence so. To sad movies where we can shed tears and console each other. We are entitled to get mad at anyone when we are in a bad mood.

We are reclusive. We don't socialize. It is because no one lives up to expectations. Just us. We do of course. Even when we don't.

We say things out of line, randomly. Overreachingly. Out of scope. Inarticulately. Irrelevantly. Irreverantly. Uncontainedly and incoherently. Immaturely.

We hold consistent opinions. We have faith in several things. Don't call us on that. It is a free country though. We believe in them because they make us warm inside. We believe in them because they are true. We don't know that of course. No one does. But then again they must be true, why else would we believe in them?

2007-08-20T22:44:00.000-07:00

The Match of the (20th) Century

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

2007-08-16T14:23:00.000-07:00

Every time there is a news article on rediff on Vishy Anand, a bunch of people scratch their itch to comment. From the comments the following become clear, and I wonder why they need to comment at all:

- Most people commenting have no clue about chess, the tournament/match details, the rankings/ratings of the players, the relative importance of the tournament/match, Anand's chess-strength relative to other players.

- People are usually commenting on another sport, usually Indian cricket, and how it has let everyone down, whatever that means.

- Most comments are highly polarized with no sense of proportionality. In them Anand is either the King and is heavily lionized, or he is portrayed as a loser - the guy who always played second fiddle -- again displaying a marked hyperbole.

- Most remaining comments are of chess not being encouraged (again displaying a lack of understanding of the sponsorship difficulty for a non-spectacular sport), or of politics in every other sport (as if the monstrosity of chess-politics is nothing at all.)

Why comment on a subject which you know nothing about, or you lack all the important facts, or cannot stay on topic, or you only have cliches and hyperbole to speak with? I am wondering if people are just trigger-happy and can't keep their fingers off the keyboard, regardless of what the topic-du-jour is.

2007-08-15T15:43:00.000-07:00

Buncha ragamuffins climbing Mt. Whitney :)

2007-08-15T01:37:00.000-07:00

Deep Thoughts

This guy Jack Handey is funny! A friend digs him and told me about him.

2007-08-01T13:39:00.000-07:00

"The Greater Sea" from Khalil Gibran's "The Madman"

My soul and I went down to the great sea to bathe. And when we reached the shore, we went about looking for a hidden and lonely place.
But as we walked, we saw a man sitting on a grey rock taking pinches of salt from a bag and throwing them into the sea.
"This is the pessimist," said my soul, "Let us leave this place. We cannot bathe here."
We walked on until we reached an inlet. There we saw, standing on a white rock, a man holding a bejewelled box, from which he took sugar and threw it into the sea.
"And this is the optimist," said my soul, "And he too must not see our naked bodies."
Further on we walked. And on a beach we saw a man picking up dead fish and tenderly putting them back into the water.
"And we cannot bathe before him," said my soul. "He is the humane philanthropist."
And we passed on.
Then we came where we saw a man tracing his shadow on the sand. Great waves came and erased it. But he went on tracing it again and again.
"He is the mystic," said my soul, "Let us leave him."
And we walked on, till in a quiet cove we saw a man scooping up the foam and putting it into an alabaster bowl.
"He is the idealist," said my soul, "Surely he must not see our nudity."
And on we walked. Suddenly we heard a voice crying, "This is the sea. This is the deep sea. This is the vast and mighty sea." And when we reached the voice it was a man whose back was turned to the sea, and at his ear he held a shell, listening to its murmur.
And my soul said, "Let us pass on. He is the realist, who turns his back on the whole he cannot grasp, and busies himself with a fragment."
So we passed on. And in a weedy place among the rocks was a man with his head buried in the sand. And I said to my soul, "We can bathe here, for he cannot see us."
"Nay," said my soul, "For he is the most deadly of them all. He is the puritan."
Then a great sadness came over the face of my soul, and into her voice.
"Let us go hence," she said, "For there is no lonely, hidden place where we can bathe. I would not have this wind lift my golden hair, or bare my white bosom in this air, or let the light disclose my sacred nakedness."
Then we left that sea to seek the Greater Sea.

2007-05-24T16:38:00.000-07:00

Arrey Anand babu aap? Aayiye aayiye!

Tere bina zindagi se koi shikhwa
Is mod se jate hain
Rim jhim gire saawan
Aane wala pal jaane wala hai
Yaad aa rahi hai
Yaadon ki baraat
Churaa liya hai tumne jo dil ko
Chhu kar mere man ko
Jeevan se bhari teri aankhen
Zindagi ka safar
Hume aur jeene ki chaahat na hoti
Hume tum se pyaar kitna yeh hum nahin jaante
Manzilein apni jagah hain
Aap ki aankhon mein kuch
Dekha ek khwaab to yeh silsile hue
Yeh kahan aa gayen hum
Zindagi pyaar kaa geet hai
Kya hua tera waada
Meri bheegi bheegi si
Teri bindiya re
Tere mere milan ki yeh raina
Piya bina piya bina basiya
Meet na mila re man ka
O saathi re
Aaj phir jeene ki tamanna hai
Mere dil mein aaj kya hai
Phoolon ka taaron ka
Hoshwalon ko khabar kya
Huzoor is kadar
Na tum hume jano
Din dhal jaaye haay
Mere naina saawan bhaa do
Piya to se naina laage re
Tu jahan jahan chalega
Hoton se chhoo lo tum
Lag jaa galey ke phir yeh
Ek ajnabi haseena se
Kahin door jab din dhal jaaye
Jis gali mein tera ghar na ho baalma
Tujhse naaraz nahin zindagi
Woh shaam kuch ajeeb thi
Nile nile ambar par
Zindagi ke safar mein guzar jaate hain
Yeh laal rang kab mujhe chodega
Hum bewafa hargiz na they
Phir wohi raat hai

2007-05-14T19:53:00.000-07:00

Boards don't hit back.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

2007-05-01T15:32:00.000-07:00

The crude art of taking offence.
or
How to get pissed off at anybody, anytime and come out feeling self-righteous and superior.

Genius is 99% perspiration. First and foremost, it is necessary to strengthen the fundamentals on which you will act on taking offence, in your spare time - *before an offence-taking situation arises*. Offence-taking par excellence is never a spur of the moment thing, and the actual taking of the offence is the final product, the coup de grâce, the tip of the iceberg for masters of the craft. The cherry tree has to be planted and watered and so on before a president-to-be may chop it down, or not, for historians to argue over. So get to work offline on constantly strengthening the fundamentals every practising offence-taker worth his/her salt ought to know, in order to rise from excellent offence-taking to superlative, and even beyond - to take some truly sublime offence:

i. Never work on resolving your anger issues. Bottle up your grudges and be a veritable pressure-cooker of venom waiting to spout.

ii. Strengthen your pattern recognition skills. Your skill or it's absence for sweeping generalization and identification with a kind may make the difference between taking good hot-under-the-collar offence and lukewarm offence. Or between taking offence at all or not for that matter. You'll see how this matters later in the post.

iii. Perform exercises that screw with your reading and listening comprehension. The reason for this critical inability will become clear below as well. Read a book backwards, or upside down. Read every odd numbered word, or even better - read words in the prime-numbered sequence. While listening to somebody, sing "If I were a rich man, Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum" to yourself. In a loop. Badly.

iv. Reinforcement: Once every week or so, set aside a half hour to go over a previous offence-taking experience. How would you rate the offence taken? Good? Mediocre? Remember, what is measured, improves. What were the circumstances? What would you do differently if you were given a fresh chance to take offence? What would you keep unchanged? Go back to the righteous indignation you felt then. Has it diminished subsequently? Do you still feel as superior? If not, why? Go after the details. What word or phrase specifically made you take offence? What colour was the underside of the dog that scratched disgustingly in the corner? The question words are your friends. Remember what Kipling said:

"I keep six honest serving-men
(They taught me all I knew);
Their names are What and Why and When
And How and Where and Who. "

v. Prepare your comebacks. Few would contest the fact that the best part of taking offence is in the ad hominem insults you throw at the fellow that tickled your delicate underbelly. Prepare these in advance. This should not be very hard, since the more irrelevant your insults are, the more satisfying they're bound to be. For yourself. So "You say that because your momma's a goat!" is pretty good. If you want to be a bit classier (but less impactful), you may choose "... cuz your momma's a coat!" instead. Now, that has the added advantage that people may think you read Kafka in your spare time away from preparing insults.

Once you have equipped your arsenal, be on the lookout for occasions to take offence. Now, this needn't necessarily depend too much on the content of what somebody says or writes. Just choose your offender and go gung-ho.

The process needs to be as follows. Quickly pick keywords in the potentially offensive text that may help you label yourself and the offender. The sky is the limit for these keywords. Third-world, developed, coloured, non-native, red, blue, porcupine, concubine, young, old, monotheistic, toad-to-be-a-prince-upon-kissing, man, woman, feminist, misogyny, polyandry and so on. The idea is to pick a label that you may identify with, in your mind; but not the offender -- only in your mind. Now, dig into your deep anger reserves and dish out some vitriolic hatred. This is where your toil-by-the-midnight-oil training comes in handy. The key to taking fine offence is in the speed with which you go from labeling to generalization to cranking up the anger machine. This is exactly where your inabilities in comprehension will help. The more time you spend in understanding what was said, and the more you comprehend it, the less offence you'll get to take. So be swift and decisive. Now it's payoff time. Ready an ad hominem insult from your arsenal, customize it to fit within the labeling framework to make it sound related to what was said (but only ambiguously so to come off sounding intelligent), and fire! Go home with hard-earned high-quality righteous indignation for standing up for your beliefs.

Example: Him: "The Aerosmith concert was too long". Churn. Swirl. Whip. You: "That's because you are getting too long in the tooth!". Touché.

May you take some fine premium quality offence. May people point your way reverentially and say "There walks the taker of great offences!". May your friends be patient and your evenings grumpy. Om Shantih Shantih Shantih.

2007-04-21T13:50:00.000-07:00

A Bhishma-Krishna centric perspective of the Mahabharata

Yatra yogeshvarah krsno yatra partho dhanur-dharah
Tatra srir vijayo bhutir dhruva nitir matir mama - Gita 18.78. (Concluding verse)

The Mahabharata consists of multi-layered plots and subplots, multitudinous complex characters. It spans multiple generations, and sometimes the entire historical perspective is necessary to make sense of the story arc. However, as everywhere else, certain simplifications are helpful in crystallizing key elements of the mythos.

At a microcosmic level, and an admittedly circumscribed perspective, the Mahabharata may be viewed as a showdown of ideologies of two main characters: Bhishma, the grandsire patriarch of the Kuru clan; and Krishna, the prime lobbyist for a new world order in the Dwapara yuga.

Bhishma was a stander-upper for the establishment, enforcer-in-chief of the letter of the law. He was unflinching in his loyalty to titular positions, and prefered to go down with the sinking ship of the Kauravas in the Kurukshetra war. His track record of adherance to his vows to uphold the prevalent dynastic values of the time are legendary, and contribute to his monicker.

Krishna was the mercurial iconoclast, impishly charioteering the course of events towards change, while vowing to not wield weapons in a war that, in a who-did-what-to-whom interpretation of the situation, wasn't his to fight.

This microcosmic rivalry plays itself out in the little nugget of an incident hidden in the mighty tome. Bhishma, the steadfast, who never reneges on a vow, vows that he'll make Krishna violate his. Bhishma relentlessly scorched the Pandava warriors - later in the Bhishma Parva, Sanjaya says:

"As regards Bhishma, his car was then his fire-chamber. His bow was the flame of that fire. And swords and darts and maces constituted the fuel of that fire. And the showers of arrows he shot were the blazing sparks of that fire with which he was then consuming Kshatriyas in that battle. As a raging conflagration with constant supply of fuel, wandereth amid masses of dry grass when aided by the wind, so did Bhishma blaze up with his flames..."

Krishna realizes that the Pandavas will not win the war as long as Bhishma is at the helm of the Kauravas. He breaks his own vow, and engages the Sudarshanachakra. At this crystallized moment highlighting the essense of belief-systems of the two personas, Bhishma lays down his own weapons, and is humbly eager to accept what's coming to him. In chessical jargon, he plays the player, and not the board. Krishna, on the other hand, is very much playing the board. If the situation demands his breaking yet another rule, he rises up to it.

Bhishma loves the map more than the topography. As a consequence, he champions a static application of rules, while his opponent stands for a dynamic reading of reality.

Mythos tells us that adharmis do not always come in weird hairdos, resounding laughs and Mogamboesque fashion-sense. Perhaps we lose messages hidden in our mythos. But then, maybe we are wired to cling on to stassis, until it is challenged and overthrown, so that we may cling on to a new brand of stassis.

The Ourorboros, attracted by something wiggly, chases it, bites it, and starts consuming what happens to be it's own tail.

2007-04-20T20:12:00.001-07:00

Probably pathological.

And I don't want the world to see me
Cause I don't think that they'd understand
When everything's made to be broken
I just want you to know who I am
-- Iris, Goo goo dolls

I am lying down staring at the popcorn ceiling, about to slide into a comfortable sleep.

* N takes the stage in front of his illustrious peers: a bunch of know-it-all high-schoolers. N is the shy kind. Not given to bombastic pronouncements. This is a subject he has chosen from all possible ones. "There is", he says, "something that can be learned from anyone, regardless of their place. Take my driver, for instance...". I enthusiastically applaud his talk. It seems like a good thing to do.

* C has achieved a romantic understanding of an essentially classical concept: the distribution of loads on a structure. I am busy making my handwriting look good on my notebook.

* J illustrates the quantum states of the electron, employing analogies and anecdotes. It sounds really cool. I consider what I may say that'll sound cooler when I am in his seat the next year.

* I am climbing up the stairs in a familiar building of the hallowed institute. I wonder if I chose to push myself to study (I am terrified of what it'd be like to stop), or if the ball was set rolling earlier on my choices regarding studying (I am terrified of not having a say in the matter). These seem to be the only two options.

* "A poet once said 'The whole universe is in a glass of wine.' We will probably never know in what sense he meant that, for poets do not write to be understood. But it is true that if we look at a glass closely enough we see the entire universe." Feynmann is saying, with an avuncular grin at the camera.

* K is talking about his spirituality. He tells me to go to an open field, or the top of a mountain, where there isn't anyone in sight. "Then" he says,"when all else is quiet, listen to the residual, primordial sound that has always existed - everywhere, all the time, - as white noise...". He is very earnest, and I had no idea he had this side to him.

* Manni and Lola are lying in bed.
Manni: Willst du weg ... von mir?
Lola: Ich weiß nicht. Ich muß mich grad entscheiden ... glaub ich.

* The Buddha sits in the lotus position under the bodhi tree. He extends his right palm and makes contact with the ground, calling upon the earth to witness his moment of enlightenment. Worldly concerns cease to make sense in his momentary circuit of contact with the infinite.

* On the makeshift blackboard is a curve representing the diminution of marginal desirability of every additional piece of candy to a child. A is tutoring me. Sanskrit. "Ekam sat viprah bahudah vadanti (There is one Truth, but sages say it in different ways)" he quotes. He has a taste for the rhetorical.

I can visualize the phrase, and it is monochromatically grey. It disassembles without warning into an alphabet soup and restrings into a fresh pattern of a myriad colours, as I descend into slumber, into what feels like a pit not unlike the one the od'd Renton sinks into in "Trainspotting".

2007-04-19T23:36:00.000-07:00

A reader (Sean) of 'The Dilbert Blog' posted this in the comments section today as "brain malfunctions". Quite funny, but I think it hasty to jump to the conclusion that these prototypes of reasoning fallacies are indeed bugs and not features of the workings of the human brain.

"Amazingly Bad Analogy
Example: You can train a dog to fetch a stick. Therefore, you can train a potato to dance.

Faulty Cause and Effect
Example: On the basis of my observations, wearing huge trousers makes you fat.

I am the World
Example: I don't listen to country music. Therefore, country music is not popular.

Generalizing from Self
Example: I'm a liar. Therefore, I don't believe what you're saying.

Total Logical Disconnect
Example: I enjoy pasta because my house is made of bricks.

Judging Things without Comparison to Alternatives
Example: I don't invest in US Treasury bills. There's too much risk.

Ignorance of Statistics
Example: I'm putting ALL of my money on the lottery this week because the jackpot is so big.

Irrelevant Comparisons
Example: A hundred dollars is a good price for a toaster, compared to buying a Ferrari.

Incompleteness as Proof of Defect
Example: Your theory of gravity doesn't address the question of why there are no unicorns, so it must be wrong.

Following the Advice of Known Idiots
Example: Uncle Billy says pork makes you smarter. That's good enough for me!

Faulty Pattern Recognition
Example: His last six wives were murdered mysteriously. I hope to be wife number seven.

Failure to Recognise What's Important
Example: My house is on fire! Quick, call the post office and tell them to hold my mail!

Ignoring All Anecdotal Evidence
Example: I always get hives immediately after eating strawberries. But without a scientifically controlled experiment, it's not reliable data. So I continue to eat strawberries every day, since I can't tell if they cause hives.

Inability to Understand that Some Things Have Multiple Causes
Example: The Beatles were popular for one reason only: They were good singers.

Judging the Whole by One of it's Characteristics
Example: The sun causes sunburns. Therefore, the planet would be better off without the sun.

Taking Things to their Illogical Conclusion
Example: If you let your barber cut your hair, the next thing you know he'll be lopping off your limbs!

Proof by Lack of Evidence
Example: I've never seen you drunk, so you must be one of those Amish people."

Did you feel while reading this that your reasoning patterns are above such speciousness? Do you also believe that you would behave differently from the subjects of the Zimbardo and Milgram experiments, under the conditions of the experiments?

2007-04-03T20:25:00.000-07:00

I am walking outdoors next to my apartment complex, heading to the gym for a bike ride. I am wearing my tri-shorts, and a white T on top.

Two kids pass me by. Boys. One is maybe 9, the other 12. Somehow I think they are friends, not brothers. The older one says "Hi!".

Many men/boys pass you by in this part of the world, without recognizing your presence. Sometimes they look at you, but don't return your smile. Anyhow, these kids aren't like that. I'm glad for a moment. "Hi!" I say.

The older one reveals the reason behind his opening salvo. "Love your tights!" he says. The sarcasm in his voice is clear. The younger one snickers. I pass them by, a bit saddened.

I wonder what caused him to make that remark. He doesn't know me, I am just a passer-by. But he found it important enough to make that remark, by first making the effort to establish a short exchange. I think I attribute it to two factors:
i. His desire to reinforce his way of looking at things, his aesthetics, and to subtract mine, through a putdown. This perhaps, adds to his sense of confidence about his place in the world.
ii. His need to strengthen his influence as a role model to the younger boy - there was a hint of appreciation at the smartness displayed by the 12 year old, in the younger one's chuckle. It seemed this transaction upped the 12 year old's status within the little tribe of two.

2007-01-12T13:16:00.000-08:00

The World plays chess, and wins

The World improved on its dismal chess record by beating GM Arno Nickel in this game: The World vs Arno Nickel

One of my favourite games of chess is Kasparov vs The World from 1999; Kasparov won. This game also made the young Irina Krush famous among chess enthusiasts, as she grew into the role of The World's most influential advisor for the game.

2006-12-06T12:19:00.000-08:00

Korchnoi is interviewed on chess and genii. ESL questions and bad punctuation/editing make it somewhat hard to read:
Genii and wunderkinds

2006-11-18T12:24:00.000-08:00

"wakt ne kiyaa kyaa haseen sitam
tum rahe naa tum hum rahe naa hum"

[What poetic injustice time has commited
You are not yourself anymore, I am not myself anymore]

It is there. Wherever you are, whatever you are. Throbbing. Reminding you of something inexplicably, annoyingly important. Showing you the soreness and nakedness of invisible wounds. Demanding a pound of flesh. It is relentless, ostensibly insatiable.

"bekaraar dil is tarah mile
jis tarah kabhee, hum judaa na the
tum bhee kho gaye, hum bhee kho gaye
ek raah par chal ke do kadam"

[Restless hearts met in such a way
As if we never were separated
You are lost too, I am lost as well
On walking a few steps on a common path]

It reminds you sometimes, of the rivers that you have stepped in. It also reminds you, that you cannot step in those rivers again. Tells you where you come from. Demands to know where you are headed. It can be quietened, however, satiated. But its exacting demands are ever morphing. Surprising you, and yet, in ways you could have anticipated. But didn't.

"jaayenge kahaa, suzataa nahee
chal pade magar raasataa nahee
kyaa talaash hai, kuchh pataa nahee
bun rahe hain din khwaab dam-ba-dam"

[Where we are going, I can't comprehend
We have embarked, but there isn't a pathway
Questing for what, is not known
Gradually the days fade into dreams]

It subsides, and when it does you know why. It raises its hydra head again. And you know why again. The nature of the beast lends itself to cultivation. It follows rules, and laws. Some that you know, and some that you don't. It starts out like an excoriating grain of sand in the soft flesh of an oyster. It has the potential to transmute into an exquisite pearl, presumably through unwilling, undesigned, yet meticulous craftsmanship and application.

It ebbs out, but it will always rise one more time. The splinter in the mind.

2006-10-30T21:51:00.000-08:00

His signature.

He paced regally, the zenith of the arch
Beautiful as a greek god, an artist's dream
Gazing at infinity, oblivious to the tourists' march
Magnificently quiet, sans whisper or scream
Clad in fine, dark leather, disdainful his stride
Animated his demeanor, exuding vitality and verve
His stare intense, furious like the tide
Life throbbing in his every sinewy nerve

Defiant his swagger, like a stallion's-untame
Repeatedly he reined his mane-uncontained
Mounting with easy grace, he crowned the scarlet frame
Supremely in balance, in a moment time-unstained
Like an acrobat's, mesmerising, his back-flip
Like a shooting star, or a missile misguided -
he plunged, vanishing into a statistical blip.
Cars blazed noisily past the bridge, so prided

2006-10-24T00:25:00.000-07:00

" Why, Mr. Anderson, why? Why, why do you do it? Why, why get up? Why keep fighting? Do you believe you're fighting for something, for more than your survival? Can you tell me what it is, do you even know? Is it freedom or truth, perhaps peace - could it be for love? " - Agent Smith, 'The Matrix Revolutions'

My purgatory of the mundane

I bear the cross
of the middle path;
Sometimes I obsess
over the trees, and sometimes
the forest springs into relief,
for me
Have tipped my hat, to the good;
raised toasts to the devil
Drooled over form
and embraced substance
Have not drowned
nor floated - neutrally buoyant,
amidst unquiet waters
Having learned to hold dearly,
I never learned
to hold tightly enough
Longings rise from my heart,
without scraping its bottom.
I soar, but ducked under clouds
Icarus I am not, only
my wings are torched, seared like his.
Having torn down
inner constructs, eagerly,
am restrained
by walls without
I am king, and vagabond
in my imposed prison, fettered
by captive captors
Accursed,
forever denied me the simple joys
of the immoderate

2006-10-18T13:03:00.001-07:00

Diwali celebrations Oct 13, 2006 at Club Oracle (Second half)
If you wanna watch me dance some :)

Credits to my coworker Chinmaya Hegde for capturing the whole medley on video!

2006-10-18T09:57:00.000-07:00

Letting go

Undreamt dreams, unformed memories
Unsaid words, of what could be
Shards of the heart, desires frothing over
Wistful wishes, my fistful of sky
Tender imprints on my mind's canvas
I offer as oblation
into the fire within

2006-10-13T09:17:00.000-07:00

Vlad the impaler!

http://www.kramnik.com/default.aspx

2006-10-12T18:27:00.000-07:00

Check out some chess games played by interesting people:

Napolean vs. The Turk

Kasparov vs. Sting

Humphrey Bogart vs. NN

Einstein vs. Oppenheimer

2006-10-11T00:08:00.000-07:00

Ooh. Groovy! Check out this fight that apparently Nigel and Gata had while kibitzing on the 11th game of the championship match on playchess.com. Very intriguing.

"Nigel Short (Observers): Gata, in our 1994 match you delivered a written protest to the arbiter accusing me of visiting the bathroom too often. Was that done to disturb me, or because you thought I had a desktop hidden in the cubicle?

Gata Kamsky (Observers): ask me something i can remember nigel

Nigel Short (Observers): I remember it well, Gata.

Gata Kamsky (Observers): all i remember is that you started talking to me during the game

Nigel Short (Observers): Yes, and the arbiter had overheard a conversation between your father and yourself immediately after the game. He told you to complain. You said that there was nothing to complain about. And yet within the hour there was yet another written protest about me cheating during this match.

Nigel Short (Observers): I guess Daddy had his way

Gata Kamsky (Observers): i would be careful with making assumptions

Gata Kamsky (Observers): back then i didn't understood your dirty psychological tricks nigel

Nigel Short (Observers): I was also accused of "looking at Anand too much"

Nigel Short (Observers): and what a pity that the match organisers failed to erect a wall on the stage , like you insisted that they must

Gata Kamsky (Observers): nigel you had your chance against garry no?

Gata Kamsky (Observers): so stop complaining

Nigel Short (Observers): I do remember the death threat from your father, delivered in an extremely irate manner about 2cm from my face.

Nigel Short (Observers): you won that match by dirty tricks, Gata. And you know it.

Gata Kamsky (Observers): so talk to my father about it

Gata Kamsky (Observers): lol

Gata Kamsky (Observers): looks like a draw to me

Nigel Short (Observers): "Talk to my father"? Why not "talk to Danailov"? we can all benefit from hiding behind our henchmen

Gata Kamsky (Observers): nice try nigel

Gata Kamsky (Observers): trying to do others all work for you?

Susan Polgar (Observers): I think a $1 million match between Gata and Nigel is in order.

Nigel Short (Observers): they have relevance, Susan. It is the only time in my career I have accused of cheating. I was accused repeatedly. There are obvious similarities with the current match.

Nigel Short (Observers): the only thing that Danailov has not done is to physically threaten Kramnik with death

Gata Kamsky (Observers): i have no idea what you're trying to drag me and my dad back into nigel

Nigel Short (Observers): No doubt you would prefer to remember the result, rather than the manner in which it was attained, Gata.

Gata Kamsky (Observers): you mean your little dirty tricks ?

Gata Kamsky (Observers): we can go all day, you have your opinion and i have mine. So let's leave it at that

Nigel Short (Observers): It is funny, how you are the only person to have observed that I am a cheat, Gata. Indeed the protests and accusations went on even when you were 3-0 up. I must have been the most inept cheat in history.

Jon Levitt (Observers): I missed this argument..it sounds personal

Gata Kamsky (Observers): nigel

Gata Kamsky (Observers): i don't want to talk about it, but if you want to do something about this, we can settle this like real men, outside. I'll be waiting

Jon Levitt (Observers): a duel?

Nigel Short (Observers): Yes. That is exactly how your Dad wanted to settle it too.

Gata Kamsky (Observers): it is YOUR problem

Gata Kamsky (Observers): but your insinuations are insulting me

Gata Kamsky (Observers): so put up or shut up

Nigel Short (Observers): Your comments reveal a complete abdication of responsibility. A player is 100%responsible for the actions of his delegation."

2006-10-10T00:20:00.000-07:00

A user posted this on www.chessgames.com:

"Monday 2nd of October 2006

Dear Vladimir,

Through absolutely no fault of your own, you have suffered the consequences of an unprecedented combination of unethical behaviour from your opponent and glaring incompetence, for lack of a stronger word, on the part of the Appeals Committee.

In spite of evidently unfair treatment, which has not only resulted in your being forfeited one game, but also being subjected to petty attacks and ridiculous accusations from the opposing camp, you have agreed to continue the match for the sake of reunifying the chess world. This is a very impressive decision. It testifies to your remarkable sense of honour and is worthy of your true status of World Champion.

Regardless of the final result of this match you have earned the deepest respect of your fellow Grandmasters and colleagues as well as countless chess fans around the world. Thank you for being a model sportsman in a time and place where so many circumstances turned against you. You deserve to win.

With unfailing support,

GM Joel Lautier (France)
IM Almira Skripchenko (France)
GM Viktor Korchnoi (Switzerland)
GM Laurent Fressinet (France)
GM Nigel Short (Greece)
GM Alexandra Kosteniuk (Russia)
GM Pavel Tregubov (Russia)
GM Pentala Harikrishna (India)
GM Yannick Pelletier (Switzerland)
WGM Sophie Milliet (France)
GM Lev Alburt (USA)
WIM Anna Hahn (USA)
GM Rustam Dautov (Germany)
GM Yasser Seirawan (USA)
GM Emanuel Berg (Sweden)
GM Helmut Pfleger (Germany)
WIM Olena Boytsun (Ukraine)
GM Vladimir Barksij (Russia)
GM Bartlomiej Macieja (Poland)
IM Maxim Notkin (Russia)
GM Alexander Baburin (Irland)
GM Tony Kosten (England)
GM Alexander Khalifman (Russia)
IM Ilias Kourkounakis (Greece)
WGM Natalia Zhukova (Ukraine)
GM Konstantin Landa (Russia)
GM Michal Krasenkow (Poland)
GM Boris Gelfand (Israel)
GM Alexander Huzman (Israel)
GM Harry Schüssler (Sweden)
GM Jon Levitt (England)"

It gladdens me to see this rallying of top players to offer support to Kramnik, and their unequivocal position in this matter. There is still hope for chess, after all.

2006-09-29T19:00:00.000-07:00

Caissa defiled.

This one is for the billions and billions of those who read my blog and happen to be chess fans as well.

Today is a(nother) sad day in chess history, with a high-priest and master practitioner of the fine art stooping to base shenanigans upon finding himself trailing in the championship match in Elista, Kalmykia. The ugly details may be found here: http://www.worldchess2006.com/main.asp.

Turbid events no doubt will unfold in the hours and days to come. News media will have a field day wallowing in scatological situational comedy. Negotiations will be attempted to resolve the incredible deadlock. Some things may be fixed, and others will be irreparably damaged. However, as things stand, only one of the two contenders has demonstrated the dignity and moral fibre befitting a champion. Today I grieve for Caissa.

"Do nothing unless you must, and when you must act -- hesitate." (Isaac Asimov, Foundation's Edge)

2006-09-26T23:29:00.000-07:00

"Ekla Chalo Re" (Walk alone) is one of the best known songs of Tagore. I don't speak Bengali, but luckily for me Tagore himself translated it to English.

"Jodi Tor Dak Soone Keu Na Asse
Tobe Ekla Chalo re
Ekla Chalo Ekla Chalo Ekla Chalore

Jodi Keu Katha Na Kai Ore Ore O Abhaga
Jodi Sabai Thake Mukh Firae Sabai Kare Bhay
Tabe Paran Khule
O Tui Mukh Fute Tor Maner Katha Ekla Balo re

Jodi Sabai Fire Jai Ore Ore O Abhaga
Jodi Gahan Pathe Jabar Kale Keu Feere Na Chay
Tobe Pather Kanta
O Tui Rakta Makha Charan Tale Ekla Dalo re

Jodi Alo Na Dhare Ore Ore O Abhaga
Jodi Jharr Badale Andhar Rate Duar Deay Ghare
Tobe Bajranale
Apaan Buker Panjar Jaliey Nieye Ekla Jalo re"

"If they answer not to thy call walk alone,
If they are afraid and cower mutely facing the wall,
O thou of evil luck,
open thy mind and speak out alone.

If they turn away, and desert you when crossing the wilderness,
O thou of evil luck,
trample the thorns under thy tread,
and along the blood-lined track travel alone.

If they do not hold up the light when the night is troubled with storm,
O thou of evil luck,
with the thunder flame of pain ignite thy own heart
and let it burn alone."

The audio may be found here:
http://www.calcuttaweb.com/gaan/rabindra/index.shtml

Far from being an inspired choice at a moment of reckoning, solitude is the only option for figurative forays into recesses of inner space. This existential actuality is neither epiphanic nor unremarkable. Neither reassuring nor unnerving. Or perhaps it is both. Perhaps it depends on what day of the week it is. Or on whether Schrödinger's cat is alive or dead.

And here is the first paragraph of Makhanlal Chaturvedi's "Pushp ki Abhilasha" (A flower's wish)

"Chah nahin main surbala ke
gahano mein gootha jaun
Chah nahin premi mala mein bindh
pyari ko lalchaun
Chah nahin samraton ke shav par
he hari dala jaun
Chah nahin devon ke sir par chadhun
bhagya par ithlaun"

"It's not my wish to be woven into the maiden’s necklace
Or be part of the lover’s garland
It's not my wish to be the wreathe for dead kings
Or the crown of deities grand"

(Translation's not mine)

The next paragraph is about what indeed is the flower's wish. However, I find what its wish isn't to be of more riveting interest.

2006-08-30T19:34:00.000-07:00

I recently came across this wonderful song of the mystic poet Kabir:

Na Mein Dharmi Na Hi Adharmi
Na Mein Jati Na Kaami Ho
Na Mein Kehta Na Mein Sunta
Na Mein Sevak Swami Ho

Na Mein Bandha Na Mein Mukta
Na Mein Virat Na Rangi Ho
Na Mein Kahu Se Nyara Hua
Na Kahu Ke Sangi Ho

Na Hum Narak Lok Ko Jaate
Na Hum Swarag Sidhare Ho
Sab Hi Karam Hamara Kiya
Hum Karman Se Nyare Ho

Ya Mat Ko Koi Birla Bujhe
So Atal Ho Baitha Ho
Mat Kabir Kaho Ko Thape
Mat Kahu Ko Mete Ho

[Neither am I righteous nor unrighteous
Neither am I ascetic nor lascivious
Neither do I tell nor do I listen
I am neither servant nor master

I am neither bound nor free
I am neither downcast nor joyous
Neither am I separated from anything
Nor am I united with anything

Neither do I go to hell
Nor am I headed for heaven
Everyone's actions are my doing
I am detached from action

This maxim only the exceptional one knows
Who is of unshakable conviction
Kabir does not create anything
Nor does Kabir efface anything]

2006-08-28T20:30:00.000-07:00

A shot in the dark.

Wonder if there is anyone out there to hear this virtual tree falling.

But I hear there is a time for everything.

"A time to give birth, and a time to die; A time to plant, and a time to uproot what is planted. A time to kill, and a time to heal; A time to tear down, and a time to build up. A time to weep, and a time to laugh; A time to mourn, and a time to dance. A time to throw stones, and a time to gather stones; A time to embrace, and a time to shun embracing. A time to search, and a time to give up as lost; A time to keep, and a time to throw away. A time to tear apart, and a time to sew together; A time to be silent, and a time to speak. A time to love, and a time to hate; A time for war, and a time for peace." (Ecclesiastes 3:1–8)

Now seems the time to blog.

On my handle. I permit myself here to interpret Saahir Ludhiyanvi's words for the (Hindi) movie Kabhi Kabhi, and provide my own context to them.

The unawoken poet sings:

"mai pal do pal kaa shaayar hoo, pal do pal meree kahaanee hain
pal do pal meree hastee hai, pal do pal meree jawaanee hain

muz se pahale kitane shaayar, aaye aaur aakar chale gaye
kuchh aahe bhar kar laut gaye, kuchh nagmei gaa kar chale gaye
wo bhee ek pal kaa kissaa the, main bhee ek pal kaa kissaa hoo
kal tum se judaa ho jaaoongaa, wo aaj tumhaaraa hissaa hoo

kal aaur aayenge, nagmon kee khilatee kaliyaa chunanewaale
muz se behatar kahanewaale, tum se behatar sunanewaale
kal koee muz ko yaad kare, kyo koee muz ko yaad kare
masaruf jamaanaa mere liye, kyo wakt apanaa barabaad kare"

[I'm a poet of a moment or two, my tale tells for a moment or two
My existence spans a moment or two, my youth is a moment or two

Before me several poets have come and gone
Some sighed sighs and departed, some sang ballads and left
Their's was the story of a moment, mine is the story of a moment
Tomorrow I'll be separated from you, but today I'm part of you

Tomorrow there'll appear more, pickers of blossoming flowers of songs
That say it better than me, that listen better than you
Tomorrow some might remember me; why should anyone remember me?
The absorbed world, why should it squander it's time for me?]

On awakening, the poet sings:

"Maein Har Ek Pal Ka Shaayar Hoon, Har Ek Pal Meri Kahani Hai
Har Ek Pal Meri Hasti Hai, Har Ek Pal Meri Jawaani Hai

Rishton Ka Roop Badalta Hai, Buniyaden Khatam Nahin Hoti
Khwabon Ki Aur Umango Ki, Miyaden Khatam Nahin Hoti
Ek Phool Mein Tera Roop Basa Ek Phool Mein Meri Jawaani Hai
Ek Chehra Teri Nishaani Hai, Ek Chehra Meri Nishaani Hai

Tujhko Mujhko Jeevan Amrit, Ab In Haathon Se Peena Hai
Inki Dhadkan Mein Basna Hai, Inki Saanson Mein Jeena Hai
Tu Apni Adaen Baksh Inhen Maein Apni Wafaen Deta Hoon
Jo Apne Liye Sochi Thi Kabhi, Woh Saari Duaen Deta Hoon"

[I'm the poet of every moment, My tale is of every moment
I exist in every moment, every moment is my youth

Forms of relationships change, their foundations remain intact
Dreams and aspirations, their durations do not expire
Your beauty lives on in one flower, my youth in another
One face bears your features, and another mine

You and I have to drink the elixir of life now with these hands
Make a home in their heartbeats, live in their breaths
You grant them your charms, I give them my fidelities
What I had once wished for myself, (I) give them all those blessings.]

I am no poet, and of unawoken poets I stake no claim to the noun.