most of us at some point or the other in our lives are initiated into the world of love. for most it is the fluctuant adolesence that brings the spring of this new found emotion. others are a little late. but nonetheless it is assured that all of us know that we have been or will be there.
love, it should be agreed, is the one of the most overrated, overused, least understood words of our time. for different people it elicits diverse emotions. as diverse are the varieties that are out there for you to get. all you need to do is ask. there are the traditional varieties like motherly and fatherly loves, the sisterly and brotherly loves, and there are also in the same family, products of more exotic kinds like the sexual love, platonic love and spiritual love. if only it could be put in a box, walmart would have made a killing. $50 a kilo. well the way the world is headed, the days aren't too far away when people will bid to buy love on ebay. and some of us cant wait for that!!
but what is this word that we throw around? is it a sin to use it in vain (alongside the lord's name)? should there be a code for its usage? is it guaranteed by law? foolish as it may seem, this thing(love)can cause more agony than george w.'s union address and more joy than cold water in the sahara. listed with the merriam-webster are more than 24 entries for love and they range from the motherly mushy definitions to the more exciting amorous sexual episodes. but what i found most apt was " love : 8. a score of zero (as in tennis) ". those four words captivate the beauty of it all with a simplicity only god and the guy who invented tennis could think of. love as a score of zero symbolises the state of nullification of the intellect, the senses, the wisdom and not the least the freedom of the individual spirit. a little harsh? well, bluntly put people in love make stupid decisions(and you thought it was only in the movies). we can lie but cant deny the truth. we have all been there and those that have not as yet will so be there. and as for the senses, the diktat of love is such that for that rosy period of your life when you think you are in love, nothing can get better. yeah right! and finally all my fellow beings who have entered the bond of monogamous commitment to a fellow being will know that the freedom lost, though also in the sexual plane (homo erectus zindabad!), is more importantly of the emotional, private, social, professional and rarely spiritual kinds.
well all this said, is love a bad thing? let me characterise love for you. simply put, love is a syndrome not a single entity. it encompasses several mental and physical states which together lead to the more subjective notion. undeniably, it is first a physical attraction to a fellow being, therefore placing first the need for physical compatibility. the next step is that of personal compatibilty, the nuances of which have been elaborated time and again since the birth of society and its order. these include the usual social, professional, familial and the likes. these satisified does not yet constitute love. there has to be an essential commitment, no matter how brief, and an out-of-this-world feeling to go with it. tada! you are in love.
is it worth the trouble? well let me tell you, ideas like falling in love or that love just happens are far fetched. love or any such phenomenon is all about subconscious calculations based on comparisons of the like with like and a measurement of the unlike and how much of it one is willing to consider. this, for example, simply explains the success of arranged marriages. the couple have a wide bandwidth within which they are willing to accomodate the differences. this however is not universal. all rules have exceptions. other type of marriages, the love marriages, work a lot of the times too, provided that the participants in such a relationship subscribe less to romantic imagination and are adaptable and compromising enough to enable creation of a similar understanding. highly individual choices and independence bring with them the inevitable clash of personalities which is often shrouded by the cloak of love. once the rose coloured glasses come off, these formerly subliminal bombs surface to create all havoc.
life is all about getting what you want, making most of what's available and being content with what you have. these are the lessons learnt over millenia of civilisation which brought with them complexities of communal life, society and identity. an adaptable, understanding relationship based on mutual trust and respect with adequate scope for individual expression is the ideal foundation to experience the higher emotions of conjugation, cohabitation and coexistence. two voices come to sing as one, each retaining its unique beauty.
Friday, January 27, 2006
Monday, November 21, 2005
Crash (and Burn)
For those who havent yet seen it or for those who are oblivious of what i am talking about, crash is one of the better movies to be seen. for once there was something close to what might be an honest potrayal of what people are like. i say might be because this movie especially deals with the issue of racial behaviour dissimilarities and stereotypes. the very first scene in the movie is a mockery of what we have made for ourselves. whats is it that instigates us, drives us to belittle our fellowmen? with or without concious knowledge, certain thoughts and words are allowed in our heads that spitefully get back at our imaginary threat not with our intellectual superiority but with a cowardly jibe at the character of the minority (which it truly is not). is there a hidden satisfaction for a human mind in such actions? do those words provide a apt replacement for that jab one could not take?
what darwin would have said...
in this world. there is no place here where one is free from prejudice. each nation, state, community, society. each to itself a standing example of human behaviour. looking back, there may be evidences of such discrimination, disapproval and conformist tendencies right from the very beginning of society. it is an essential behavioural pattern. a dominant gorilla has to employ aggression, subordination and submission to establish its superiority over the other males and thus gain exclusive mating rights to its partners. this is a fundamental evolutionary function of human behaviour. over generations man has evolved from stone age when mating and feeding were paramount to an age when power, ego and lust define need. but this change in behaviour does not effectively change the hardwiring in the brain for certain processes. when in face of danger fight or flight. it is widely agreed that this is a valid and proven phenomenon with a strong evolutionary background. well is it then too hard to believe that our discriminatory skills are a similar phenomenon honed through thousands of years of struggle to be the dominant individual. well the stimuli which elicited such responses in the neanderthals are long gone. but the emotion now pours out in response to the changed challenges to the being's authority. such an authority is known to be addictive and we have seen in the history of time that it has helped into existence some of the most well known historical events. the struggle to be on top only begins when you get there. once o top the view is brilliant. sort of like a condo in the trump towers. once you have been there you dont want to go back to the street. so you resort to means, good or bad, lawful or otherwise, to stay put. this holds true for the village in the most rural extremes of the developing world as well as the cosmopolitans of the self-proclaimed developed world. none are different. and zooming out even further onto the world stage this translates into the big brother(bully?) and 'allies'.
whats in a word
why are racist comments a problem? why isn't it a state offence to abuse man with the choicest of expletives putting to shame his pedigree while a comment on the colour of his skin or country of origin leads to such intense debate and forseeable destruction. an arab is an arab, a mexican a mexican. a brown man is brown, a black man black. the inflammatory substance to these otherwise commonplace adjectives is our on creation. a perpetuation of debate on these issues continues to keep open old wounds and pepper them as well. what one asks for is not for laws on usage of certain words and certain actions but for a true and honest attempt to foster among people a sense of mutual respect. this is not possible so long as the phrase 'politically correct' has any meaning in society. society dictates politics not vice versa. because such a thought process only leads to perpetuation of what is not correct. if the chocolate is not good for the child, dont let him know it existed. let it be forgotten altogether that there were slurs and abuses. let there be an only word.
aliens? who said so.
the blatant problem of racism is being faced in the advanced countries of the world because of their own creation. the countries where immigrants come from are projected as inferior. an assocation with what is identified as inferior leads to expulsive behaviour on part of the host citizen and this followed by the retaliation. the immigrant should be identified as a citizen not just legally but also socially. uk with a sizeable muslim population could do better to identify them as an integral part of society and work toward better integration by simple directives like a public holiday for eid, inclusion in brief of their history, habit and importance in curricula, and an over all aim to not teach the budding citizens of the future any reason to identify them as alien. once such a truly global assimilation is allowed into society, it automatically becomes receptive, tolerant and understanding of diversity of cultures. this is but an example. every state today is no longer what used to be a semihomogeneous group of people with a common agenda. a nation is no longer defined by the language, religion, appearance or history. today's nations are a mosaic. each with different elements in different proportions but all together exhibiting the same common feature. diversity. so as a rule it is imperative that human society makes an attempt to redefine itself to become a more affirmative, humanitarian and tolerant being.
what darwin would have said...
in this world. there is no place here where one is free from prejudice. each nation, state, community, society. each to itself a standing example of human behaviour. looking back, there may be evidences of such discrimination, disapproval and conformist tendencies right from the very beginning of society. it is an essential behavioural pattern. a dominant gorilla has to employ aggression, subordination and submission to establish its superiority over the other males and thus gain exclusive mating rights to its partners. this is a fundamental evolutionary function of human behaviour. over generations man has evolved from stone age when mating and feeding were paramount to an age when power, ego and lust define need. but this change in behaviour does not effectively change the hardwiring in the brain for certain processes. when in face of danger fight or flight. it is widely agreed that this is a valid and proven phenomenon with a strong evolutionary background. well is it then too hard to believe that our discriminatory skills are a similar phenomenon honed through thousands of years of struggle to be the dominant individual. well the stimuli which elicited such responses in the neanderthals are long gone. but the emotion now pours out in response to the changed challenges to the being's authority. such an authority is known to be addictive and we have seen in the history of time that it has helped into existence some of the most well known historical events. the struggle to be on top only begins when you get there. once o top the view is brilliant. sort of like a condo in the trump towers. once you have been there you dont want to go back to the street. so you resort to means, good or bad, lawful or otherwise, to stay put. this holds true for the village in the most rural extremes of the developing world as well as the cosmopolitans of the self-proclaimed developed world. none are different. and zooming out even further onto the world stage this translates into the big brother(bully?) and 'allies'.
whats in a word
why are racist comments a problem? why isn't it a state offence to abuse man with the choicest of expletives putting to shame his pedigree while a comment on the colour of his skin or country of origin leads to such intense debate and forseeable destruction. an arab is an arab, a mexican a mexican. a brown man is brown, a black man black. the inflammatory substance to these otherwise commonplace adjectives is our on creation. a perpetuation of debate on these issues continues to keep open old wounds and pepper them as well. what one asks for is not for laws on usage of certain words and certain actions but for a true and honest attempt to foster among people a sense of mutual respect. this is not possible so long as the phrase 'politically correct' has any meaning in society. society dictates politics not vice versa. because such a thought process only leads to perpetuation of what is not correct. if the chocolate is not good for the child, dont let him know it existed. let it be forgotten altogether that there were slurs and abuses. let there be an only word.
aliens? who said so.
the blatant problem of racism is being faced in the advanced countries of the world because of their own creation. the countries where immigrants come from are projected as inferior. an assocation with what is identified as inferior leads to expulsive behaviour on part of the host citizen and this followed by the retaliation. the immigrant should be identified as a citizen not just legally but also socially. uk with a sizeable muslim population could do better to identify them as an integral part of society and work toward better integration by simple directives like a public holiday for eid, inclusion in brief of their history, habit and importance in curricula, and an over all aim to not teach the budding citizens of the future any reason to identify them as alien. once such a truly global assimilation is allowed into society, it automatically becomes receptive, tolerant and understanding of diversity of cultures. this is but an example. every state today is no longer what used to be a semihomogeneous group of people with a common agenda. a nation is no longer defined by the language, religion, appearance or history. today's nations are a mosaic. each with different elements in different proportions but all together exhibiting the same common feature. diversity. so as a rule it is imperative that human society makes an attempt to redefine itself to become a more affirmative, humanitarian and tolerant being.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Hurricanes in the Mind
had a mini cyclone here. trees uprooted and roads trashed. my room on the third floor flooded through the windows. it was an amazing experience. spend over 36 hours in the dark of the rainfall. wonder what it might have been in katrina.
wonder what it might have been to be lost in the rainy seas of our rainy cities. none were spared. new orleans to navi mumbai. first or third, in either world it seemed help wasnt as forthcoming as one would want. not from some outsider but from within. what made the ruling class seemingly in different to the needs of the suffering. we are democracies india and america, one the largest and the other the most powerful, but still we treat our masses much like the coal for the societal engine.
thankfully the all "powerful" vote bank in india is not subjected to the kind of betrayal served to the orleaners. people are just a picture, a moving frame, an illusioned mass given an elusive choice. they are governed but never by themselves. they are robbed and robbed. and above all they know it. the despicable acts of those demigods are not invisible to them.
while on the other hand, there seems to be a certain mirage created on the other end of the earth. people choose, people make, people break. but the carnivore atop the chain remains the same. disposable is the man who makes the law but the one who lobbies it, who impregnates the greedy desires of those already fortunate, who bears the fruit of those countless hours of contemplation is eternal.
is greed so strong that it can cause one to turn a deaf ear to the cries of suffering. is it power of lust or lust for power that defeats the conscience of the creme de la creme? or should it be creme de la crap? todays world, it seems, is not run for the progress and benefit of the human race. rather seems more a like an unending race for the most powerful human. these are the days when foreign policy is dictated by oil companies and trade agreements brokered by pharma majors. everything is for and because of the corporations. may be it is time they redefine what a nation is or who its citizens are. for a start, a nation should be a consortium of the largest corporations and the employees it citizens.
these pseudonations have their own constitutions with only one rule, duty and fundamental right. "the right to profit. this is reason enough to change the world, go to war. if there is a saturation of markets make new ones. and if there are no new ones, destroy the old ones and start all over. the green bills are more important than human lives. so take some if you have to. and if blood has to be spilt make sure its not yours, preferably buy it. if you want it grab it, all that is there was meant for you and you alone. there is no place or another. there is only one economy in this world and that is yours. only one people need to be happy and those are here."
under this clout, responsible governance is seen as food for the dog and responsible leaders mere puppets. gone are the days when policies were made and changed for the common good, where one nation was responsible not only to its citizens but also to the other peoples with which it shared this planet.
do we see what we do or is democracy a figment of a mad world's ever maddening quest for the ultimate illusion of choice? because what we pursue is to have control, to have established an association, to have made a decision. we make rules, we make laws, we create society and habit, and we pass diktats. either we have control or we dont. and when we dont we create for ourselves a shell of illusion where we seem to control everthing.
i think it is inherent in humans to think they know what they are doing while in most instances it is the opposite. like now i think i know what i am talking about but have no absolute idea where i am taking this. i am unhappy. angry to say the least. where are we headed? there was always the question. its only the shape of the answer that begins to worry me.
wonder what it might have been to be lost in the rainy seas of our rainy cities. none were spared. new orleans to navi mumbai. first or third, in either world it seemed help wasnt as forthcoming as one would want. not from some outsider but from within. what made the ruling class seemingly in different to the needs of the suffering. we are democracies india and america, one the largest and the other the most powerful, but still we treat our masses much like the coal for the societal engine.
thankfully the all "powerful" vote bank in india is not subjected to the kind of betrayal served to the orleaners. people are just a picture, a moving frame, an illusioned mass given an elusive choice. they are governed but never by themselves. they are robbed and robbed. and above all they know it. the despicable acts of those demigods are not invisible to them.
while on the other hand, there seems to be a certain mirage created on the other end of the earth. people choose, people make, people break. but the carnivore atop the chain remains the same. disposable is the man who makes the law but the one who lobbies it, who impregnates the greedy desires of those already fortunate, who bears the fruit of those countless hours of contemplation is eternal.
is greed so strong that it can cause one to turn a deaf ear to the cries of suffering. is it power of lust or lust for power that defeats the conscience of the creme de la creme? or should it be creme de la crap? todays world, it seems, is not run for the progress and benefit of the human race. rather seems more a like an unending race for the most powerful human. these are the days when foreign policy is dictated by oil companies and trade agreements brokered by pharma majors. everything is for and because of the corporations. may be it is time they redefine what a nation is or who its citizens are. for a start, a nation should be a consortium of the largest corporations and the employees it citizens.
these pseudonations have their own constitutions with only one rule, duty and fundamental right. "the right to profit. this is reason enough to change the world, go to war. if there is a saturation of markets make new ones. and if there are no new ones, destroy the old ones and start all over. the green bills are more important than human lives. so take some if you have to. and if blood has to be spilt make sure its not yours, preferably buy it. if you want it grab it, all that is there was meant for you and you alone. there is no place or another. there is only one economy in this world and that is yours. only one people need to be happy and those are here."
under this clout, responsible governance is seen as food for the dog and responsible leaders mere puppets. gone are the days when policies were made and changed for the common good, where one nation was responsible not only to its citizens but also to the other peoples with which it shared this planet.
do we see what we do or is democracy a figment of a mad world's ever maddening quest for the ultimate illusion of choice? because what we pursue is to have control, to have established an association, to have made a decision. we make rules, we make laws, we create society and habit, and we pass diktats. either we have control or we dont. and when we dont we create for ourselves a shell of illusion where we seem to control everthing.
i think it is inherent in humans to think they know what they are doing while in most instances it is the opposite. like now i think i know what i am talking about but have no absolute idea where i am taking this. i am unhappy. angry to say the least. where are we headed? there was always the question. its only the shape of the answer that begins to worry me.
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Tempora
this rueful rustic rusts
from within outside in oblivion.
this time spent is time lost
as each morrow becomes the day and each day the past
in the wait to be awakened
from the morbid web of silence.
life now is a cycle
of events that are meaningless.
the incertitude of this aimless mind
thoughtlessly constructs to lucifer.
from within outside in oblivion.
this time spent is time lost
as each morrow becomes the day and each day the past
in the wait to be awakened
from the morbid web of silence.
life now is a cycle
of events that are meaningless.
the incertitude of this aimless mind
thoughtlessly constructs to lucifer.
Monday, September 19, 2005
And i said
to be or not be
is not just a question
sometimes it is the very answer
it is the choice one has to make
a choice someone has to offer
it is a luxury of the one who knows
and the curse of the ignoramus
is not just a question
sometimes it is the very answer
it is the choice one has to make
a choice someone has to offer
it is a luxury of the one who knows
and the curse of the ignoramus
Sunday, September 18, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)