Vagueness and Continued Ambivalence

Kudos to karenika, gigglechick.com and all the other bloggers out there who have the guts to post all kinds of personal stuff on this public medium. They are definitely stronger than I. I can learn from them. The have the guts to stand out here and say what they really think. And also to relate it to personal life. I'd like to do the same. But everytime I sit down to write this, i keep thinking of all the freaking complications involved in me doing what I think. It becomes worse when someone I *know* tells me that they read what I wrote!! Don't get me wrong, I love the feedback! I love knowing that people actually read some of this crap.... but when it's someone who knows me really well, then that gets scary... because even those people who know me well, will be surprised by some of the stuff I write on here. Because this is not stuff I discuss even with them.

I guess I'll describe it as the Heisenberg Principle for Blogging (I'm reading a book titles Physics and Philosophy by the famous physicist Werner Heisenberg these days, so...) i.e. "Once the blogger knows that the blog is being read, then it begins to influence what the blogger blogs" :) I guess what I really mean is that knowing that people who know me (personally and professionally) have seen the stuff that I write on here, brings back the dreaded ambivalence that resulted in sneaker.org going down in the first place. Because then I start worrying about what people think, what will they react to. The security of the public anonymity (wow, isn't that a twisted concept...) fades away.

When I made the decision to put this site back up, I had to fight to figure out how much information I should really put up here. The information is out there. And information is what matters. Information may soon be the only thing that matters. But that doesn't mean that information about me matters. So I should really be able to put stuff up, and use the wonderful title of a book I read many many years ago... "What do you care what other people think?" by Richard Feynman. I've always cared what other people think even though I may try not to make it look so... so now the effort is to try not to worry about what other people think.

But, everytime I sit down to write on here, I always land up making the entries intentionally vague. Vague so that even the people who the entries relate to (honestly they almost always relate to people and events) would have a tough time knowing if that's really what I'm writing about. The security of public anonymity is supplanted by the security of unrecognizability and vagueness. I guess that's good in a way. Allows me to maintain face and not give away everything! :)

I guess the coolest way to end this entry is with a question: Would Anais Nin Blog? ;)

Communication, Expectations and Disappointment

Some of the biggest screw-ups that I've come across to date always seem to have their roots in mis-communication or lack of communication. "Words are at best a poor excuse for communication" - very true. And in fact, even my attempt to write something about this on here is probably not going to be successful in communication what I am really thinking (well, part of that is for a difference reason, see the upcoming blog on Vagueness and Continued Ambivalence).

People just cannot seems to be honest and tell others what they really think. There is always a facade to maintain. Always some scheming in the background. What it results in is a lack of understanding. A lack of clear expectations. When person A expects something else, because person B just didn't have the balls to come out and say what they really want to say or vice versa. And as it was said in one of the quotes I have in the old quotes blog somewhere... expectation is the first step to disappointment. Mis-matched expectations is what causes people to get pissed. It's what causes people to be diappointed. To be hurt. To be pissed-off and angry.

I definitely maintain that I would be happier knowing than not knowing. I'd rather know what the fuckups are. What the problems are. What the expectations are. If I know, then what actions need to be taken can be a educated decision. And yes sometimes knowing can be worse... but that is a decision for the individual to make. Whether or not they want to know. It is wrong for anyone to make that decision for another.

So, as I said in quotes today... People confuse me. Really. They do. But I guess the non-predictable nature of humans is what makes us fascinating as well...

What is this strange canine-fascination with objects of spherical propensity!?

Yesterday, as I walked around Schenley, Squill (Sq. Hill) and Shadyside, I ran into several very friendly canines. One who literally dragged his owner over while coming to say hello to me and in the process wrapping his Flexi all around me, immobilizing me in the process till his owner walked circles around me to set me free. Then there was this very old bassethound... really old. I bet it could harldy see as the cataract in its eyes was very apparent. But it was friendly nonetheless.

The highlight of the evening however was a highly exuberant canine with his two human cohorts. Can you say that this guy liked to play fetch? He was out like a bullet as soon as the ball left his owners hand and was literally about 2-3 feet above the ground while jumping to catch it!

So what is this strange canine-fascination with balls!? I have yet to come across a dog who didn't get excited at the idea of having to chase a ball. They'll sit there with their eyes glued to it while it's in your hand, with drool dripping down the side of their mouth! And then dart out after it as if it is the coolest thing in the world! Is this a charactistic that is universal to all dogs? Or is it a characteristic of their human owners who inculcate this seemingly innate desire in a dog to chase an object of spherical propensity! Enough said.

Scoop-n-Flush!

I've always had dogs at home. I've now been in the States for about 9 years and haven't had a dog here. Initially it was because of school, but now it's simply because I just hate the idea of scooping poop! So I've been thinking about an automated pooper scooper! Should be to complex to build actually.Would just take a little clever engineering and it could even be made cheap. And no, I'm not considering putting a microprocessor in there (well, okay, maybe...)

I've now been throwing this idea around for a while. To basically have a self contained device that you can cary with you when accompany your favorite K9 companion on his quest to fulfill mother nature's call. And then when the jobs done, you just place this device over it and sucks up all the crap (literally) on it's own into a disposable bag. Then you get home or wherever else you like to dump the do-do... and you press a button and the device drops out the bag and is ready for it's next use!

Now the pre-requisites are that it has to be a completely self-cleaning device. No cleaning required. Maybe the bags could be setup in such a way that any this that would stand a chance of getting dirty is covered by the bag and just gets thrown away! Flush! Of course then it would be logical to extend it by adding an little deodorant container which is also available at the press of a button to eliminate any odors while you carry the precious cargo to its docking station.

Hmm... maybe one of these days I'll just have to flesh out the design fully before I get a dog! I'm sure there's a market though!

First Impressions

I read/saw a psychology study once which discussed the role of first impressions on interview situations. The study basically showed that within the first few seconds of the candidate entering the interview room, the interviewer already had developed an impression of the candidate. I don't remember for sure what the result was with regards to the interviewers impression of the candidate at the end of the interview, but that is not important here. The reason I brough this up is because, it made me realize the importance of first impressions both in professional and personal situations.

This all ties in with each persons own expectations. When one meet someone new, one immediately builds a mental image of this person in our head. And the rest of the time that we spend interacting with this person, we're always trying to either fit the externally perceivable characteristics of this person into our mental image or hopefully in more cases than the latter, adjusting our mental image of the person. This need not even be a person, the same could even apply to an object.

What that leads to though is that very often first impressions and the mental image that we may construct of a person or an object may not be what the person or the object really is. And I guess that is really the key point I wanted to point out. I guess I can actually think of instances in which I have been a victim of my own mental imagesof other people. I can remember atleast two if not more instances of when I saw some of the people who were to be my classmates in grad school, I created a mental image of them which was not even close to what those people turned out to be. I consider myself fortunate to have been able to pierce the veil of my own creation to take the time to get to know these people, who thereafter became some of my best friends. But then there may be contless other cases in which I may not have been so fortunate.

I wonder how many interactions between people have fallen victim to first impressions where people do not take the time to get to know an individual. Instead of taking their own mental image as a raw heap of clay which needs to be scuplted into form using the interactions with a person, they cast their mental image in concrete based on an inadequate and superficial first impression.

As it is in most such cases, this facet of human behavior much like any other has no simple explanation, no simple solution. The awareness that things may not always be what they seem is critical. So first impressions count, but refining those first impressions and moulding them to take a more accurate form is probably more important.

Fear, Regret and Hope

More and more I seem to be running into situations where what I would like myself to do is different from what I would like to be doing. Or better put, I find myself in situations where I want to be someone who acts differently, and more often than not find myself not acting at all. I've always maintained that making decisions is simple... as long as you can be courageous enough to accept whatever decision you make and then move on. There is no looking back. There are no what ifs and there are no regrets.

But is that really possible? There always are what-ifs and there always are situations in which we choose the path that life takes. Even though the Gita talks about Karma and not actually worrying about the result; what I don't get is, how do you choose what Karma you do without considering the results? In some cases it may be possible to just do what is right, what is ethical and what is moral, but what about all those cases when things are not so clear. Do you not consider the outcome of the alternatives before coming to a decision? Is it wrong to consider the outcome?

Big questions, but lets bring it down to basics. Fear plays an important part in our lives. At every stage there is fear of being ashamed, embarassed, fear of falling from grace so to speak, fear of the unknown and fear of rejection. I'm not sure how some people have the gall to do things with an air on nonchalance. Sometimes I wish I could. Sometimes I wish I could genuinely be more impulsive enough to not consider the outcomes, or better said, not be as risk averse. There is always a risk. But there are some of us who let the fear of taking a risk take precedence over taking a chance. Sounds really odd as an entrepreneur to be saying this, but I guess I will bolster that statement by saying that risk comes in different shapes sizes and forms. And some of us may be more comfortable taking risks of different kinds....

I would be hypocritical if I do not point out that one of the quptes I think of nearly every day is that 'You miss 100% of the shots you do not take;' i.e. there is not chance of succeeding if you just don't try right? Logical. Yes. Completely. But does it being logical make it completely trivial to imbibe in out daily actions. I think not. Because as a human, the fear doesn't go away. And that fear of failure often causes us to not take the steps which would be essential for ensuring even a modicum of success.

And then there is regret. Fear causes us to not take a chance and then regret comes along and makes it worse. Because hindsight is 20/20. Because I can sit here and write about regret. The regret which comes immediately after the fear prevents you from taking a chance. Because you know, that you had your chance, and you blew it and you don't know if the same chance will come your way ever again.

In one of the books I read recently (probably one by Irvin Yalom) the character of Neitzsche says something along the lines that when Pandora's box was opened, there was one final evil which did not come out -- Hope. Hope is that evil which come after regret. Hope that things change and somewhat magically become better... or that opportunity which you regret blowing because of fear re-presents itself for a second chance. But do things change on their own? Or does every change require an agent for the change. A protagonist who causes change.

This is something that I've thought about for a long time with conflicting thoughts... from the time that I read the conflicting statements in my years of learning Sanskrit. On one hand there is Thad yatha bhavitavyam, thad bhavatu and on the otherhand there is Nayamatma balheenein labhya. On one hand there is the emphasis on doing and the importance of action and on the other hand there are innumerable independent variables which we cannot control.

Logically, I would think that hope stems from the independent variables. And action determines what happens with those variables we can control.

Anyhow, to make a long story short, at this time I think it may be better to attack the fear. To eliminate regret by overcoming fear; or at least acknowledging the existence of fear and evaluating the root of the fear. Is the outcome really that bad. What do you/I really have to lose? More power to those who can do that and for myself... the lesson of the day is definitely.... Carpe Diem.

:note to self. Mad Mex. H.

Belief, Religion and God

I'm going to innaugurate this section with a fairly controversial topic, but one which just doesn't seem to go away. I was debating calling this blog "Why God Won't Go Away?" but then that's probably a bit too bitter to start off with.

This is a topic which I first had a "spirited" discussion over with my mom several years ago... right about the time when I was kind of getting my own senses. For what seemed like three days (it was literally over a couple of days as far as my recollection goes) she tried hard to argue about the existence of god (intentionally spelt with a lower case g....) but I could not logically accept such a conclusion. And for the longest time that was the end of it. I accepted the fact that I do not have to believe in any such entity. Though, I have to admit that it takes more will power not to belive than it does to believe... it is easy to believe as IMHO (in my humble opinion) believing in an omnipotent, over-arching entity is equivalent to giving up responsibility... now someone else is to blame for our plight as well as for all the stuff around us and some divine power is going to show up and like the little elves working hard over night will magically make everything better. Right! I believe that. Not.

But recently, I seem to uncannily uncover people who have rather strong beliefs on the topic! I definitely try to ensure that I can remain somewhat distant in order to ensure people their own space, their own beliefs. To each their own, but I've now come across so many people that I just had to write about it.

Personally, I believe that belief in a "higher power", religion and God are all purely man made creation devised with the explicit intention of controlling human behavior. I'm not sure where I read it now, but I subscribe to the statement: God did not create Man. Man created God. Applying a somewhat sociological anf anthropological rationale, wouldn't it seem reasonable that as early man came across phenomena that he could not explain... things as simple as thunder and lightening which we now have perfectly rational scientific explanations for, they were attributed to being supernatural. The inability of man to be able to control his environment, essentially gave birth to the fear, uncertainity and doubt (FUD) which led them to devise a belief system to placate their fears, uncertainities and doubts. Man created God.

Even today, there are phenomena which we cannot explain fully explain on the basis of physics, chemistry, biology and any other of the natural sciences. One such question that was pointed out to me recently was gravity. We know what it does. We can quantify and calculate the effect of graviational forces, but to date I have not heard any rational explanation of what causes two objects in space to develop a force of attraction. Okay, so yes, there are things that we do not understand yet, but does that mean that just the fact that we cannot explain certain phenomena that they have to be supernatural? About as supernatural as thunder and lightening were to early man, I suppose. But wouldn't it seem more logical that human knowledge just has not reached the level where it is possible to explain more of these un-explainable phenomena?

Jared Diamond, in his book Guns, Germs and Steel talks about the evolutions of human civilization and he examines why certain parts of the world developed in ways different than others. But as I read the book, I wondered about a different thing. As man began to grown food instead of hunting and gathering, as man settled down into living in groups without mocing around too much, the population grew. With the growth in populcation within a localized region, it probably became difficult to live what we now cosider a "civil" life. Humans inherently possess both virtues and vices. And some vices such as greed, envy, anger, lust are always present. Some just learn how to control them better than others. But in early civilization, you had a large number of people with really no "laws", no sense of "right or wrong". Kind of like a free for all. So doesn't the establishment of a belief system that subliminally brings order to chaos make sense? I'll explain further.

It starts at home. Kind of how it probably did with me and kind of how it probaby was for millions of generations before. Parents want their kids to behave in certain ways. Do certain things and not do others. For this one of the age-old devices that has been harnessed is fear. You tell a child, oh, if you go outside alone, the monster will come eat you up. Okay, so in really early days when people lived in the wild, I could buy that, but for a parent in todays world to inculcate a fear of a non-existant monster into a child seems irrational. The only monsters out there are other human beings in our society. Santa Claus is irrational. But I digress, the point is that fear has for the longest time been one of the best ways to control human behavior. Fear is a powerful emotion. It can make us do things and it can make us not do things.

Margaret Singer in her book (I'm tempted to call is a seminal work... reference intentionally omitted) made a point which really struck home -- "...imprisonment and overt violence are not necessary and are actually counterproductive when influencing people to change their attitudes and behaviors. If one really wants to influence ohers, various coordinated soft-sell programs are cheaper, less obvious and highly effective." Correspondingly, I would argue that at some point in tme, some really smart guys figured out that "hey, you know what, I can beat the crap out of one person or 10 people into submission to doing things my way, but if I really need to control 10,000 or a million people... I don't have the resources to do it using physiological manipulation and so how about this cool new way of using psychological manipulation!" And voila, what emerges is what we know in modern world as religion...

Religion is something which just keeps getting passed on from one generation to the other with very little questioning. Things which made sense 2000 years ago and probably have no bearing in modern life continue int he form of tradition, convention, rites and rituals. Just because that's the way it's supposed to be done and with no regard whatsoever as to why that way was devised at the time that it was! Religion is the perfect avenue for mass mind control. Mass mind control which affects how you behave, how you dress, how you eat, when you sleep, who you associate with and pretty much every other aspect of life. Wow... they talk about nuclear warfare, chemical warfare and biological warfare... but the most powerful weapon of all has been around for time immemorial in the form of religion. The perfect answer to disabling the logic circuits.

When I was in college, I used a rather crass and unfair analogy to justify my desire to do something on my own - that I didn't want to be a sheep and be led to working for some big company. I'll find my own way. Well, the same analogy which was a bit extreme and in hindsight not respectful of my classmates own right to do what they want to in life, seems to apply well here. Most contemporary religions are aimed at turning people into obedient sheep. (I don't know enough about the bible and christianity, but isn't there some connection with sheep in there too?)

Of course, the same way that you train any good puppy, you must have a system of rewards and punishment to create appropriate behavior. Well, in comes heaven and hell and the concept of the final judgement (these concepts span all kinds of religions) and there you have it! If you do x you will go to hell, if you you do y you will go to heaven. Gee... doesn't this sound familiar? If you go out the monster will come eat you up! oooh. Better yet, introduce re-incarnation and then you will be caught in the endless loop and you'll become some lowly being if you screw up. Hats of to some people who can see through this molasses of gunk that seems to permeate the very being of human society. To those skeptics who can hold their own view points and follow themselves, I tip the proverbial hat to you.

I accept that human beings are inherently insecure. I am and almost every person I've come across has always been. There is always something. We're never satisfied with what we have, always coveting what we don't have and always afraid of what others might do, say or think. And you know what, I don't have an answer for it, since I do it too (no shame in accepting the truth!). But does that really mean that we allow our insecurities to manifest themselves in the form of beliefs which are highly illogical? If you haven't figured it out by now I hold logic in high regard. And I'll go as far as saying that as I grow older and hopefully wiser, the thing I fear most is losing the ability to think logically. I'd rather be dead than lose the ability to think rationally.

That said, beliefs, religion and god do play some positive psychological role for some people and I have nothing against that. And hence to each his own. If it works for you, more power to you. But if you try and apply impose your thinking on others, then be aware that there are people like me out there who won't put up with that. Leave us to our own beliefs as well please, thank you.

Anyhow, enough rambling for now. The bottomline is that for me, beliefs, religion and god are all created by man for man and to accept them without inquiry is tantamount to going and jumping in the well, simply because you were told to.

Innaugural post

Not really thinking right now. This is simply a test.